Advertisement

Shaping Children: The Pursuit of Normalcy in Pediatric Cognitive Neuro-enhancement

  • Jenny KrutzinnaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

Within the broad field of human enhancement, pediatric cognitive neuro-enhancement appears to arouse particular interest. The increasing importance of cognitive capacities in our contemporary and cultural context appears to be the main reason for the focus on cognition as the preferred trait of enhancement, while the choice of pharmacological means is based on factors of feasibility, accessibility, and cost. While the ethical issues arising in the adult context have already been extensively covered in the literature, pediatric neuro-enhancement brings with it additional ethical challenges requiring further attention. Although there are numerous important ethical considerations, the focus of this chapter is on the pursuit of normalcy as the goal in pediatric neuro-enhancement. Parental attempts to shape children are not new, and the resources available for them to do so include widespread and mostly uncontroversial tools, such as education. The increasing use of psychotropic drugs, however, reveals the significant impact of the concept of normalcy, which has resulted in a trend to medicalize what used to be considered “normal” (childhood) behavior. In this context, special challenges are posed by psychiatric disorders, where the familiar treatment-enhancement distinction continues to be relied upon to justify interventions in children. Drawing on the examples of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it will be argued that children are already being enhanced within psychiatric practice and that this is incompatible with an understanding of disability under a mixed model.

References

  1. Ablard KE, Parker WD (1997) Parents’ achievement goals and perfectionism in their academically talented children. J Youth Adolesc 26(6):651–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell SK, Lucke JC, Hall WD (2012) Lessons for enhancement from the history of cocaine and amphetamine use. AJOB Neurosci 3(2):24–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2012.663056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchanan A (2008) Enhancement and the ethics of development. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 18(1):1–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan A (2011) Better than human: the promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush SS (2006) Neurocognitive enhancement: ethical considerations for an emerging subspecialty. Appl Neuropsychol 13(2):125–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Corrigan PW, Watson AC (2002) The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 9(1):35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012) A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 panel members’ financial associations with industry: a pernicious problem persists. PLoS Med 9(3):e1001190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis LJ (1995) Enforcing normalcy: disability, deafness, and the body. Verso, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis LJ (2014) The end of normal: Identity in a biocultural era. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson M (2004) The misbehaviour of behaviourists: ethical challenges to the autism-ABA industry. http://www.sentex.net/%7Enexus23/naa_aba.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  12. Feinberg J (1980) The child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, LaFollette H (eds) Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority, and state power. Littlefield, Adams & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitz NS, Nadler R, Manogaran P, Chong EW, Reiner PB (2014) Public attitudes toward cognitive enhancement. Neuroethics 7(2):173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman J (2013) Gifted lives: what happens when gifted children grow up. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Gargaro BA, Rinehart NJ, Bradshaw JL, Tonge BJ, Sheppard DM (2011) Autism and ADHD: how far have we come in the comorbidity debate? Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(5):1081–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaucher N, Payot A, Racine E (2013) Cognitive enhancement in children and adolescents: is it in their best interests? Acta Pediatr 102(12):1118–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould J, Ashton-Smith J (2011) Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis? Girls and women on the autism spectrum. Good Autism Pract 12(1):34–41Google Scholar
  18. Graf WD, Nagel SK, Epstein LG, Miller G, Nass R, Larriviere D (2013) Pediatric neuro-enhancement: ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology 80(13):1251–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris J (2007) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris J (2009) Enhancements are a moral obligation. In: Savulescu J, Bostrom N (eds) Human enhancement. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Haybron DM (2008) The pursuit of unhappiness: the elusive psychology of well-being. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Hildt E, Franke AG (2013) Cognitive enhancement: an interdisciplinary perspective. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaarsma P, Welin S (2012) Autism as a natural human variation: reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Anal 20(1):20–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Krutzinna J (2016) Can a welfarist approach be used to justify a moral duty to cognitively enhance children? Bioethics 30(7):528–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucke JC, Bell S, Partridge B, Hall WD (2011) Deflating the neuro-enhancement bubble. AJOB Neurosci 2(4):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker S (2015) Autism: does ABA therapy open society’s doors to children, or impose conformity? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/20/autism-does-aba-therapy-open-societys-doors-to-children-or-impose-conformity. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  28. Partridge BJ, Bell SK, Lucke JC, Yeates S, Hall WD (2011) Smart drugs “as common as coffee”: media hype about neuro-enhancement. PLoS One 6(11):e28416CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. President’s Council on Bioethics, Kass L (2003) Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Ran FA, Hsu PD, Wright J, Agarwala V, Scott DA, Zhang F (2013) Genome engineering using the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Protoc 8(11):2281–2308CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Ray K (2016) Not just “study drugs” for the rich: stimulants as moral tools for creating opportunities for socially disadvantaged students. Am J Bioeth 16(6):29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan F (2016) The fake cures for autism that can prove deadly. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/13/fake-cures-autism-prove-deadly. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  33. Sattler S, Singh I (2016) Cognitive enhancement in healthy children will not close the achievement gap in education. Am J Bioeth 16(6):39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1170240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwarz A (2012) Attention disorder or not, pills to help in school. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/health/attention-disorder-or-not-children-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  35. Sequenzia A (2016) Non-speaking autistic speaking. http://nonspeakingautisticspeaking.blogspot.com. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  36. Shakespeare T (2013) Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Silberman S (2015) Neurotribes: the legacy of autism and how to think smarter about people who think differently. Allen & Unwin, Crows NestGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh I (2008) Beyond polemics: science and ethics of ADHD. Nat Rev Neurosci 9(12):957–964CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh I (2012) VOICES study: final report. London, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh I, Wessely S (2015) Childhood: a suitable case for treatment? Lancet Psychiatry 27:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Solomon A (2008) The autism rights movement. New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/news/features/47225/. Accessed 4 Jan 2019
  42. Solomon A (2013) Far from the tree: parents, children and the search for identity. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Sparrow R (2005) Defending deaf culture: the case of cochlear implants. J Polit Philos 13(2):135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stein Z, Della Chiesa B, Hinton C, Fischer KW (2011) Ethical issues in educational neuroscience: raising children in a brave new world. In: Illes J, Shahakian B (eds) The Oxford handbook of neuroethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 803–822Google Scholar
  45. United Nations General Assembly (1999) Convention on the rights of the child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, treaty series, vol 1577Google Scholar
  46. Wade L, Forlini C, Racine E (2014) Generating genius: how an Alzheimer’s drug became considered a “cognitive enhancer” for healthy individuals. BMC Med Ethics 15(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yong E (2013) Chinese project probes the genetics of genius. Nature 497(7449):297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Administration and Organization TheoryUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations