Biological Debate: Ethics Of Neurotransmitters

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

Since the incident of Phineas Gage, doctors have been investigating neuroanatomy, which has led to the development of neuroscience.

However, due to the complex nature of the field, many have questioned if neuroscience is ethical, and raise questions of misuse, autonomy, and human rights.

Question 2

Theme 1: Treatment of criminals and addicts

Answer 2

FOR:
Addiction + criminality link to neurotransmitters
So, may be able to ‘treat’ these behaviours
Antabuse= Reduce dopamine, treat alc addiction
Cherek Et Al- Reduced aggression when given SSRIs, treat violent crims
IMPLICATION= Betters society (less antisocial ppl) + less gov spend on prisons

AGAINST:
Farah= Prisoners denied free will with mandatory neurological treatment
Even if not forced, implicit coercion as little choice (Prison or medication)
IMPLICATION= No mandatory treatment= choose stay in prison= more gov spending

CONCLUSION:
Is ethical, there is overall benefit. Society is safer + addicts recover + contribute to society

Question 3

Theme 2: Problems with nanotechnology

Answer 3

FOR:
Treat sensory, cognitive + motor disorders
60% reduction in Parkinsons tremors
IMPLICATION= Work longer + earn own income, don’t rely on gov so less stress
Less strain on NHS

AGAINST:
Don’t know how affects cognitive function
Create vulnerable ppl as damage decision making + autonomy
IMPLICATION= Change in personality = more criminals?

CONCLUSION:
Neurotech is beneficial can help those with chronic illness live more normal life by symptom reduction, increase happiness

Question 4

Theme 3: Enhance neurological function

Answer 4

FOR:
Enhance academics
TDCs= Improve memory, useful for exam prep
People already use caffeine for alertness
IMPLICATION= Higher grades so more income + more tax

AGAINST:
Kadosh= TDCs no licencing, poorly qualified ppl prescribing= more harm than good
Some people can’t afford so academic disadvantages

CONCLUSION: Shouldn’t be used to provide enhancements as creates inequality + isn’t regulated enough so unsafe

Question 5

Conclusion

Answer 5

Overall, neuroscience is mostly ethical and proves many benefits for society. For example, treatment of addicts and criminals is ethical despite worries of autonomy, as creates safer scoiety, so benefits the masses. Furthermore, it’s ethical as can reduce chronic illness symptoms e.g. Parkinsons, so improves quality of life.