Advertisement

Neuro-enhancement at the Margins of Autonomy: In the Best Interest of Children and Elderly?

  • David M. LyreskogEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Neuroethics book series (AIN)

Abstract

The prospects of neuro-enhancement have generated a large range of philosophical and ethical debates. The possibility of pediatric neuro-enhancement—using technology and pharmaceuticals to enhance children’s cognitive or emotive capacities—is particularly complicated for a number of reasons. One of the main reasons is that children (at least young children) are not autonomous and can therefore not possibly consent to any interventions. Nonetheless, parents can potentially make decisions to enhance the capacities of their children.

In this chapter I investigate ethical issues of pediatric neuro-enhancement and neuro-enhancement in elderly with diminishing autonomy. I argue that the similarities and differences between the philosophical and ethical questions that arise in the respective cases show how complicated neuro-enhancement in non-autonomous persons is. In particular, I look at three issues: (1) What kinds of autonomy are diminished or underdeveloped, and how does that affect the moral permissibility of neuro-enhancement? (2) What role does the concept of “an open future” play? (3) What does it mean to look out for “the best interest” of a child or a non-autonomous elderly person, and how does it translate to the permissibility of neuro-enhancement? I argue that the difference in how we conceptualize the non-autonomy of children and that of elderly affects the permissibility of neuro-enhancement. I conclude that, as long as we make sure that a person becomes autonomous enough to pursue her own autonomy as a condition and as an ideal, her best interests have been looked after in terms of autonomy.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to sincerely thank Saskia Nagel, Gregor Hörzer, the participants of the research week on pediatric neuro-enhancement in Osnabrück 2016, and two anonymous reviewers for extensive and deep feedback, discussions, and comments.

References

  1. Beauchamp T, Childress J (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Betzler M (2015) Enhancing the capacity for autonomy: what parents owe their children to make their lives go well. In: Bagattini A, Macleod C (eds) The nature of children’s well-being. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  3. Bostrom N (2005) In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19(3):202–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Christman JP (1989) The inner citadel: essays on individual autonomy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Christman JP (ed) (2008) Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis DS (1997) Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep 27(2):7–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis DS (2009) The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep 39(2):24–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Devadhasan JP, Kim S, An J (2011) Fish-on-a-chip: a sensitive detection microfluidic system for Alzheimer’s disease. J Biomed Sci 18(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellis P (1996) Exploring the concept of acting in the patient’s best interests’. Br J Nurs 5(17):1072–1074CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinberg J (1980) A child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, LaFollette H (eds) Whose child? Rowman and Littlefield, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinberg J (1988) Harm to self: the moral limits of the criminal law, vol 3. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Graf WD, Nagel SK, Epstein LG, Miller G, Nass R, Larriviere D (2013) Pediatric neuroenhancement ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology 80(13):1251–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsieh FY, Lin HH, Hsu SH (2015) 3D bioprinting of neural stem cell-laden thermoresponsive biodegradable polyurethane hydrogel and potential in central nervous system repair. Biomaterials 71:48–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mancuso J, Chen Y, Zhao Z, Li X, Xue Z, Wong ST (2013) Optogenetic stimulation of cholinergic projection neurons as an alternative for deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer’s treatment. In: SPIE BiOS. International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 85655MGoogle Scholar
  15. Medina-Sánchez M, Miserere S, Morales-Narváez E, Merkoçi A (2014) On-chip magneto-immunoassay for Alzheimer’s biomarker electrochemical detection by using quantum dots as labels. Biosens Bioelectron 54:279–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagel SK, Reiner PB (2013) Autonomy support to foster individuals’ flourishing. Am J Bioeth 13(6):36–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross LF (1998) Children, families, and health care decision making. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaefer GO, Kahane G, Savulescu J (2014) Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics 7(2):123–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Sheridan N (2013) Medical professionalism requires that the best interest of the patient must always come first. J Prim Health Care 5(1):74–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sjöstrand M, Eriksson S, Juth N, Helgesson G (2013) Paternalism in the name of autonomy. J Med Philos 38(6):710–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor JS (ed) (2005) Personal autonomy: new essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Trau JM, McCartney JJ (1993) In the best interest of the patient. Health Prog 74:50–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zahedi A, Ethell I (2013) Optogenetics to regulate synaptic connectivity in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 9(4):P703–P704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhu W, Castro NJ, Zhang LG (2015) Nanotechnology 3D bioprinting for neural tissue regeneration. In: Zhang LG, Fisher JP, Leong K (eds) 3D bioprinting and nanotechnology in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Academic Press, New York, pp 307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Twente, 4TU.Centre for Ethics and TechnologyEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations