There's something I've been chewing on for quite a long time and I find myself agreeing with it fully. I don't remember who said it, but someone who has some business making such claims said that it was not only unethical to deny cognitive enhancing medications to those who need it, but wholly ethical to take every step wise and safe to enhance our minds in any way possible, including through the use of cognitive-enhancing pharmaceuticals.
The context of this topic was a debate over whether students should be banned from taking ADHD medications, as it gives them an "unfair advantage", though the argument can be generalized to all psycho-pharmaceuticals in the following way:
I have depression. It is not necessary for my organic life for me to not be depressed. Yet, I take anti-depressants, mostly because I can. The same goes for anxiety medications: the world doesn't care if you're a nervous wreck, you will shut up and do your job or suffer the consequences. But my anxiety medication makes me not simply "feel" better, but by making me feel better banishes the distractions caused by anxiety thus making me a better worker and a more productive person in general.
Ditto for my Lunesta (sleep aid). I get more and better sleep, and I'm a better and more productive person. In that way, even Lunesta is a performance-enhancing drug, so is Melatonin if we want to get absurd with it.
My point and my question is: I'm big pharma's biggest fan because I believe that if you can enhance yourself with magic beans, you should at least have the freedom to make that choice.
The question is: do you agree with the topic in general, that beyond medical necessity such as heart medication that psycho-pharmaceuticals are all essentially performance-enhancing drugs?
I say yes for this reason: I'm agoraphobic, but I still get out because I lack any choice in the matter. Meds or not, my ass would be working 40 hours a week, whether in a state of relative peace or as a nervous, depressed, unfocused, incompetent mess of functioning organs. I wouldn't be able to do the job I do, but I could do some sort of job; the difference is that my psych medications have allowed me to achieve higher than I could with what God gave me.
The context of this topic was a debate over whether students should be banned from taking ADHD medications, as it gives them an "unfair advantage", though the argument can be generalized to all psycho-pharmaceuticals in the following way:
I have depression. It is not necessary for my organic life for me to not be depressed. Yet, I take anti-depressants, mostly because I can. The same goes for anxiety medications: the world doesn't care if you're a nervous wreck, you will shut up and do your job or suffer the consequences. But my anxiety medication makes me not simply "feel" better, but by making me feel better banishes the distractions caused by anxiety thus making me a better worker and a more productive person in general.
Ditto for my Lunesta (sleep aid). I get more and better sleep, and I'm a better and more productive person. In that way, even Lunesta is a performance-enhancing drug, so is Melatonin if we want to get absurd with it.
My point and my question is: I'm big pharma's biggest fan because I believe that if you can enhance yourself with magic beans, you should at least have the freedom to make that choice.
The question is: do you agree with the topic in general, that beyond medical necessity such as heart medication that psycho-pharmaceuticals are all essentially performance-enhancing drugs?
I say yes for this reason: I'm agoraphobic, but I still get out because I lack any choice in the matter. Meds or not, my ass would be working 40 hours a week, whether in a state of relative peace or as a nervous, depressed, unfocused, incompetent mess of functioning organs. I wouldn't be able to do the job I do, but I could do some sort of job; the difference is that my psych medications have allowed me to achieve higher than I could with what God gave me.
