Pediatric Neuro-enhancement, Best Interest, and Autonomy: A Case of Normative Reversal

In Saskia K. Nagel (ed.), Shaping Children: Ethical and Social Questions That Arise When Enhancing the Young. Springer Verlag. pp. 199-212 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The debate on “cognitive enhancement” has moved from discussions about enhancement in adults to enhancement in children and adolescents. Similar to positions expressed in the adult context, some have argued that pediatric cognitive enhancement is acceptable and even laudable. However, the implications differ between the adult and the pediatric contexts. For example, in the debate over cognitive enhancement in adults, i.e., those who have legal majority, respect for autonomy demands that personal preferences not be overridden in absence of strong arguments because competent adults are in the best position to recognize and protect their own interests. However, the concepts of best interest and autonomy provide a different picture in the case of pediatric enhancement. In the context of decision-making involving minors, it is assumed that the parents are in the best position to promote and protect the interests of their children and this is chiefly why they are granted the authority to make decisions on their behalf. However, we argue in favor of guarding the physical integrity of children from intrusive medical interventions without medical need and with clear and detrimental effects. We also support leaving open other legitimate life trajectory and career choices, as this is in the best interest of the child, even if they are less in line with the expectations of parents or success in educational settings. In addition, parental decision-making in favor of cognitive enhancement suffers from a lack of information about cognitive enhancers and potential biases. Thus, bearing in mind these issues and the development of volitional capacities of children, we argue that pediatric enhancement is not a morally acceptable practice and “inevitability” can be curbed with clear and fair rules that establish duties of state representatives, physicians, and public institutions. We conclude by canvassing evidence-based policy options that could protect the open future of minors and define the parameters of parental decision-making analogous to the cases of nicotine and alcohol.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,297

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Beyond an Open Future.Jenny I. Krutzinna - 2017 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (2):313-325.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-02-07

Downloads
17 (#1,157,140)

6 months
6 (#876,365)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Veljko Dubljevic
North Carolina State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references