I find this neuroethics article overwhelmingly collectivist and statist in its outlook...
To be frank it sickens me.
"Regulatory agencies might find their responsibilities expanding into considerations of
lifestyle’ benefits and the definition of acceptable risk in exchange for such benefits"
WHY does this have to be defined collectively? Why must WE agree on acceptable risks instead of deciding on the basis of our individual circumstances temperaments and inclinations? Incidentally, regulatory agencies will "find" nothing of the sort. It will only occur if they actively choose to impose their will upon the private choices of others. The regulator is not a passive party here. It is a potential predator.
"Safety is a concern with all medications and procedures, but our tolerance for risk is
smallest when the treatment is purely elective."
Who is this we and WHY do I have to be a part of it? Reading this article I get thoroughly sick of having my interests defined for me by the ever present WE
"At the same time, improving our natural endowments for traits such as attention span runs the risk of commodifying them."
Ethicist drivel at its finest.. such vague fears are always voiced before attempting to justify a transfer of autonomy from the individual to the group.
"However, when we improve our productivity by taking a pill, we might also be undermining the value and dignity of hard work,"
If WE think unnecessarily hard work is so damn dignified why don't WE take our ass off to an amish community rather than attempt to impose our vision of what is dignified on others?
"Continuing our current laissez-faire approach,with individuals relying on their physicians or illegal suppliers for neurocognitive enhancement, risks running afoul of public opinion, drug laws and physicians’ codes of ethics."
Good old socialist group think... People WANT their choices taken away so its important that the government performs this vital service for them.
“The question is therefore not whether we need policies to
govern neurocognitive enhancement, but rather what
kind of policies we need.â€
Translation: The question is NOT if we will exercise authoritarianism in restricting individual choice(of course we will) but just what the best way of imposing our power on other people is.
Edited by Utnapishtim, 19 August 2006 - 04:04 AM.