Distinguishing Between Restoration and Enhancement in Neuropharmacology

Abstract

A patient comes to your office telling you that she finds herself having a bit of difficulty maintaining concentration. At 51 years old, she has a demanding job in the financial industry, is never far from either a computer or her PDA, and carries two cell phones, one for friends and family and the other for work. You give her a thorough examination (noting that she checks her PDA twice during the exam), which reveals that she is healthy and without any neurological or psychiatric dysfunction. She mentions that one of her coworkers, who is also continually bombarded by information and multitasks ferociously, went to his physician and received a drug which seemed to help him. He seems happier now and his life is less out of control. She tells you that she generally would prefer not to take drugs, but the combined demands of her job, her family, and modern life are such that she needs some kind of help, and she needs it now.

Physician Attitudes towards Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement: Safety Concerns Are Paramount

“…Rather, responsibility for these important decisions has been left in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry and the regulatory authorities; some have suggested that the results have been less than ideal [27], [38], [41]–[43]. Thus, one objective of our study was to begin to provide an opportunity for physicians, in particular general practitioners who are most likely to be asked to prescribe such drugs in the future [44], to express their attitudes towards enhancement in general, and cognitive enhancement in particular.…”