Ethics of Adderall
The ethics of using Adderall are not nearly as black-and-white as some other aspects of it, such as the risk involved and its legality.
One of the main ethical complaints about Adderall is that it is a cognitive enhancing drug. However, we encounter and use cognitive enhancers every day, and if you are reading this, you are using one right now. Two of the main cognitive enhancers utilized by students, besides their education in general, are caffeine and technology. Each cognitive enhancer we use has side effects and opportunity costs, just like Adderall, and although we hardly ever consider the side effects, they are definitely prevalent and harmful. In addition to being highly addictive, caffeine’s side effects are fairly straightforward: insomnia, irregular heartbeat, headaches, and anxiety. Technology, on the other hand, has more complicated problems. This cognitive enhancer has all but replaced students’ problem solving skills. For example, in math classes around the country, students are being taught how to solve complex math equations using by typing a string of numbers and symbols into a graphing calculator, without understanding any of the theory behind the problem.
The point of this argument is not to say that we should do away with caffeine and technology. Obviously, that would be detrimental to our well-being. The positives of these cognitive enhancers far outweigh the negatives. But, if we view these cognitive enhancers as positive, why do we view Adderall as a bad drug? Unlike graphing calculators, Adderall has never done a student’s homework for him, nor has it been sneakily incorporated in soft drinks to improve sales by getting customers addicted to it. It is merely a study aid with its own set of side effects, no different than the other cognitive enhancers in every student’s arsenal.
This is just one aspect of the ethics debate; however, and another major discussion point is its relation to steroids. Whenever you discuss the advantages of students using Adderall, inevitably there will be a comparison between Adderall and steroids. This comparison usually follows this format: Adderall lets you get ahead in class. Steroids let you get ahead in sports. Therefore, Adderall is like a steroid. Steroids are cheating, therefore Aderall is bad.
The problem with this argument is that sports and research are two very different things. Ultimately, in sports, the outcome of the game only really matters to the players and those directly associated with them.
One of the main ethical complaints about Adderall is that it is a cognitive enhancing drug. However, we encounter and use cognitive enhancers every day, and if you are reading this, you are using one right now. Two of the main cognitive enhancers utilized by students, besides their education in general, are caffeine and technology. Each cognitive enhancer we use has side effects and opportunity costs, just like Adderall, and although we hardly ever consider the side effects, they are definitely prevalent and harmful. In addition to being highly addictive, caffeine’s side effects are fairly straightforward: insomnia, irregular heartbeat, headaches, and anxiety. Technology, on the other hand, has more complicated problems. This cognitive enhancer has all but replaced students’ problem solving skills. For example, in math classes around the country, students are being taught how to solve complex math equations using by typing a string of numbers and symbols into a graphing calculator, without understanding any of the theory behind the problem.
The point of this argument is not to say that we should do away with caffeine and technology. Obviously, that would be detrimental to our well-being. The positives of these cognitive enhancers far outweigh the negatives. But, if we view these cognitive enhancers as positive, why do we view Adderall as a bad drug? Unlike graphing calculators, Adderall has never done a student’s homework for him, nor has it been sneakily incorporated in soft drinks to improve sales by getting customers addicted to it. It is merely a study aid with its own set of side effects, no different than the other cognitive enhancers in every student’s arsenal.
This is just one aspect of the ethics debate; however, and another major discussion point is its relation to steroids. Whenever you discuss the advantages of students using Adderall, inevitably there will be a comparison between Adderall and steroids. This comparison usually follows this format: Adderall lets you get ahead in class. Steroids let you get ahead in sports. Therefore, Adderall is like a steroid. Steroids are cheating, therefore Aderall is bad.
The problem with this argument is that sports and research are two very different things. Ultimately, in sports, the outcome of the game only really matters to the players and those directly associated with them.
Though some would disagree.
Cognitive enhancement is different, in that it is not a zero-sum game. When one student furthers his education through Adderall use, that in no way affects the quality of his peers’ education. Also, in the case of research, it is beneficial for society as a whole if a researcher uses cognitive enhancement to help him develop a breakthrough drug that cures cancer, for example. While sports professionals use steroids in a selfish attempt to improve their own statistics, it is possible in academia to use Adderall for the good of mankind.
Of course, there would be no debate over Adderall if it were completely benevolent. There are some issues of fairness that arise when considering the use of Adderall in college. College students do not only compete against their curriculum. Many teachers grade their students on a curve, so when a student uses Adderall to get ahead in class, that can directly affect the grades of all of his classmates. An easy solution to this would be to legalize Adderall and let all students take it, but that leads to another issue of fairness. Drugs are not cheap, and the legalization of Adderall would then turn the problem into a socioeconomic one. Rich students would be able to purchase more of the drug than poor students, thus further widening the already massive gap between wealthy students and poor students.
One final ethical concern is the effect of discontinued use. Obviously, when stopping the use of cognitive enhancers, one's studies will fail to be as fruitful as they once were. But consider this scenario: suppose a student uses Adderall to get through med school. Then, as a doctor, he continues to use it during tough surgeries in order to maintain his focus and do the best job possible. But if his supply suddenly ran out right before another tough surgery, both he and his patient would be in trouble. Even if he lost focus just a little, he would not be doing the same job as he did with his other patients, and the quality of his work might suffer. In a career like that, the ramifications could be catastrophic, but the same principle holds true for any profession, from lawyers to chefs. The denial of a cognitive enhancer will affect anyone's work.
Information on this page provided by:
Greely, Hank et al. "Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy." Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science 456 (2008): 702-05. Nature Publishing Group, 10 Dec. 2008. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
http://www.neuroethics.upenn.edu/index.php/penn-neuroethics-briefing/cognitive-enhancement
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09carey.html?_r=3
