Drugs used to provide improvement of cognitive functioning have been shown to be effective in healthy individuals. It is sometimes assumed that the use of these drugs constitutes cheating in an academic context. We examine whether this assumption is ethically sound. Beyond providing the most up-to-date discussion of modafinil use in an academic context, this contribution includes an overview of the safety of modafinil use in greater depth than previous studies addressing the issue of cheating. Secondly, we emphasize two crucial, (...) but hitherto nearly overlooked, nuances to the issues: the potential for modafinil to decrease inequality and disadvantage in academic settings, and the fact that how modafinil is used dramatically impacts its effects on health, coercion, fairness, authenticity and effort. Finally, we explicitly defend the position that there are no qualitatively morally relevant differences between modafinil use and other enhancement modalities; any such differences are in degree,... (shrink)

During an illness requiring brief use of life-sustaining therapy, patients and surrogates sometimes feel that LST must be withdrawn before it becomes unnecessary to avoid later being stuck living in a debilitated condition that the patient considers worse than death. This fear depends on the belief that the patient can legitimately refuse only artificial LST, so that if such therapies are no longer required, he or she will have missed the ‘opportunity to die.’ This fear of being stuck with life (...) can lead to premature decisions to terminate LST and is unfounded because adequate ethical and moral justification exists for refusal of not just artificial LST, but also for refusal of natural LST, including oral hydration and nutrition. (shrink)

The author comments on the article “The neurobiology of addition: Implications for voluntary control of behavior,‘ by S. E. Hyman. The author agrees with Hyman that debate persists whether addiction is a brain disease or a moral condition. The author suggests that even if we understand the neurobiology of addiction, it will make sense to seek accountability from the addict and to modify his behavior. He also suggests that no facts about neurobiology will change these moral requirements. Accession Number: 24077917; (...) Authors: Cochrane, Thomas I. 1; Email Address: [email protected]; Affiliations: 1: Harvard Medical School; Subject: EDITORIALS; Subject: ADDICTIONS; Subject: NEUROBIOLOGY; Subject: BEHAVIOR; Subject: HYMAN, S. E.; Number of Pages: 2p. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 8, Page 56-58, August 2011.

During an illness requiring brief use of life-sustaining therapy, patients and surrogates sometimes feel that LST must be withdrawn before it becomes unnecessary to avoid later being stuck living in a debilitated condition that the patient considers worse than death. This fear depends on the belief that the patient can legitimately refuse only artificial LST, so that if such therapies are no longer required, he or she will have missed the ‘opportunity to die.’ This fear of being stuck with life (...) can lead to premature decisions to terminate LST and is unfounded because adequate ethical and moral justification exists for refusal of not just artificial LST, but also for refusal of natural LST, including oral hydration and nutrition. (shrink)