[Medical News Today] It is unethical to stop healthy people from taking methylphenidate (Ritalin) to enhance their mental performance, says John Harris, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester, in an article published on bmj.com today. He adds that society “ought to want [enhancement]” and that “it is not rational to be against human enhancement.” 

In total disagreement, Professor Anjan Chatterjee from the University of Pennsylvania argues that there are too many risks in taking Ritalin unless you are actually ill. He notes that the Food and Drug Administration labelled it with a “black box” the most alarming of possible warnings. This is because there is a high potential for abuse, dependence, risk of sudden death and serious adverse effects on the heart, he says.

Chatterjee adds that there are cognitive trade-offs by taking Ritalin, for example a loss in creativity. He points out that “being smarter does not mean being wiser” and cites the very smart people who developed ways to distribute financial risk which in turn contributed to the current global economic crisis. 

Professor Chatterjee is also concerned about the end-goal of taking drugs to enhance cognitive abilities. He not only fears that children at top preparatory schools will end up taking Ritalin in “epidemic proportions” but asks whether pilots, the police and doctors on-call be pressurised into taking these drugs? 

In conclusion, Chatterjee does not believe it is acceptable to recommend that healthy people take Ritalin to enhance performance until proper safeguards are in place. Professor Harris, on the other hand, believes that these arguments are not persuasive. 

Harris on the contrary emphasises personal liberty and public safety. As no drug is side effect free, Harris believes Ritalin is “safe enough” given that children and young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are routinely treated for long periods with it. 

Professor Harris adds that “humans are creatures that result from an enhancement process called evolution and moreover are inveterate self-improvers in every conceivable way.” 

Harris argues that change or progress often carries risk. The development of “synthetic sunshine” (firelights, lamplight and electric light), for example, could have forced people to work through the night. However, the answer was not to outlaw synthetic sunshine but to introduce laws to regulate working hours. “The same is or will be true of chemical cognitive enhancers,” he says. 

-British Medical Journal