The Neurocognitive Enhancement of Surgeons: An Ethical Perspective

Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations

People vary widely in their acceptance of the use of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE). We tested the hypothesis that the acceptability of CE is malleable, by varying the context in which CE use takes place, by framing the use of CE with positive and negative metaphors, and by distinguishing between self and other CE use. 2,519 US-based participants completed 2 surveys using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. First, participants responded to vignettes describing a fictional character, which varied by framing metaphor (Pandora's box that releases brain performance vs. key that unlocks brain potential), role/setting (student/educational vs. employee/professional), and activity type (blue vs. white collar). Second, participants viewed personalized vignettes describing their own situations. Across both surveys, participants generally found CE use more acceptable for employees than students, while the effects of framing metaphors were unreliable and smaller than previously reported. People were more accepting of CE use by others than by themselves. Participants also found CE use more acceptable if more peers used CE, the environment was less competitive, and authority figures encouraged CE use. Our findings suggest that opinions about CE are indeed malleable, and concerns that peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, and competition might affect CE use are not unfounded.

Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one's own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics.

METHODS

We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source.

RESULTS

Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.

Towards a Moral Ecology of Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in British Universities

Few empirical studies in the UK have examined the complex social patterns and values behind quantitative estimates of the prevalence of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE). We conducted a qualitative investigation of the social dynamics and moral attitudes that shape PCE practices among university students in two major metropolitan areas in the UK. Our thematic analysis of eight focus groups (n = 66) suggests a moral ecology that operates within the social infrastructure of the university. We find that PCE resilience among UK university students is mediated by normative and cultural judgments disfavoring competitiveness and prescription drug taking. PCE risk can be augmented by social factors such as soft peer pressure and normalization of enhancement within social and institutional networks. We suggest that moral ecological dynamics should be viewed as key mechanisms of PCE risk and resilience in universities. Effective PCE governance within universities should therefore attend to developing further understanding of the moral ecologies of PCE.

Use of cognitive enhancers among medical students in Lithuania

Aims

The purpose of this study is to analyse the use of cognitive enhancers among medical students in Lithuania, determine the reasons for usage and evaluate the contributing factors such as socio-demographic characteristics, stress levels, sleep quality and knowing somebody who has used a neuro-enhancing drug.

Design

A cross-sectional survey study was performed by analysing a convenience sample of n=579 in the two universities offering medical education in Lithuania, Vilnius University and the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. In 2014, students were asked to fill in anonymous paper questionnaires consisting of 13 items on prevalence of substance use to enhance cognitive performance, and on reasons and correlates (response rate 95%) during lecture time.

Results

Of the respondents, 8.1% indicated that they had used cognitive enhancers. Among those who had used these drugs, nootropics were the most frequently mentioned (59.6%), while psychostimulants, such as modafinil, methylphenidate and amphetamine-derived drugs were mentioned less frequently (38.3%). Other substances were indicated by 23.4% of the respondents. Improvement of concentration and increased studying time were predominant purposes (55.3% and 48.9% of users, respectively). Male students reported three times higher prevalence rates than females (14.6% vs. 5.1%, p<0.05). Prevalence was also higher in students who knew someone using these substances than among those who did not know such persons (17.3% vs. 5.1%, p< 0.05). This was the most associated factor with cognitive-enhancing drug-taking behaviour. No correlation between cognitive enhancement usage and sleep quality or stress levels was found, nor between usage and belonging to a student organisation or having a job.

Conclusions

In Lithuania, 1 of 12 medical students admits to having used neuro-enhancing drugs. Our study results provide an overview of the actual situation on correlates and reasons for taking performance-enhancing substances.

The Use of Caffeinated Substances by Surgeons for Cognitive Enhancement

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of coffee, caffeinated drinks, and caffeine tablets for pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) among surgeons.

BACKGROUND

Surgeons have demanding workloads, and the resulting fatigue and concentration deficits can lead to medical errors. Some surgeons use substances that promote wakefulness to counteract these effects.

METHODS

A total of 3306 surgeons who attended 5 international conferences in 2011 were surveyed regarding their use of coffee, caffeinated drinks, and caffeine tablets for CE and potential factors derived from professional and private life using an anonymous self-report questionnaire. In this study, we were only interested in surgeons working in hospitals; therefore, 951 questionnaires were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The most prevalent reason for using caffeine of any kind was to reduce fatigue (54.3%). Further prevalent reasons are working the night shift (32.2%) and overly long and excessive work hours (31.7%). Lifetime, past-year, past-month, and past-week prevalence was 66.8%, 61.9%, 56.9%, and 50.5%, for coffee use; 24.2%, 15.4%, 9.9%, and 6.1%, for caffeinated drinks; and 12.6%, 5.9%, 4.7%, and 3.8%, respectively, for caffeine tablets. Caffeine use was associated with lower age, male sex, divorced marital status, living with children, lack of satisfaction with professional status, pressure to perform in private life, and pressure perceived to be harmful to one's own health.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons often use caffeinated substances to cope with fatigue and long working hours. Coffee use was more prevalent than the use of caffeinated drinks and caffeine tablets.

Structured cues or modafinil for fatigue amelioration in clinicians? A double-blind, randomized controlled trial of critical clinical information recall in fatigued clinicians

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of modafinil on "free" and "cued" recall of clinical information in fatigued but nonsleep-deprived clinicians.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Despite attempts to minimize sleep deprivation through redesign of the roster of residents and staff surgeons, evidence suggests that fatigue remains prevalent. The wake-promoting agent modafinil improves cognition in the sleep-deprived fatigued state and may improve information recall in fatigued nonsleep-deprived clinicians.

METHODS

Twenty-four medical undergraduates participated in a double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial (modafinil-200 mg:placebo). Medication was allocated 2 hours before a 90-minute fatigue-inducing, continuous performance task (dual 2-back task). A case history memorization task was then performed. Clinical information recall was assessed as "free"(no cognitive aids) and "cued"(using aid memoirs). Open and closed cues represent information of increasing specificity to aid the recall of clinical information. Fatigue was measured objectively using the psychomotor vigilance task at induction, before and after the dual 2-back task.

RESULTS

Modafinil decreased false starts and lapses (modafinil = 0.50, placebo = 9.83, P < .05) and improved psychomotor vigilance task performance (Decreased Performance, modafinil = 0.006, placebo = 0.098, P < .05). Modafinil improved free information recall (modafinil = 137.8, placebo = 106.0, P < .01). There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of information recalled with open (modafinil = 62.3, placebo = 52.8, P = .1) and closed cues (modafinil = 80.1, placebo = 75.9, P = .3).

CONCLUSION

Modafinil attenuated fatigue and improved free recall of clinical information without improving cue-based recall under the design of our experimental conditions. Memory cues to aid retrieval of clinical information are convenient interventions that could decrease fatigue-related error without adverse effects of the neuropharmacology.

"Messing with the mind": evolutionary challenges to human brain augmentation

The issue of brain augmentation has received considerable scientific attention over the last two decades. A key factor to brain augmentation that has been widely overlooked are the complex evolutionary processes which have taken place in evolving the human brain to its current state of functioning. Like other bodily organs, the human brain has been subject to the forces of biological adaptation. The structure and function of the brain, is very complex and only now we are beginning to understand some of the basic concepts of cognition. Therefore, this article proposes that brain-machine interfacing and nootropics are not going to produce “augmented” brains because we do not understand enough about how evolutionary pressures have informed the neural networks which support human cognitive faculties.

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement-how neuroscientific research could advance ethical debate

There are numerous ways people can improve their cognitive capacities: good nutrition and regular exercise can produce long-term improvements across many cognitive domains, whilst commonplace stimulants such as coffee temporarily boost levels of alertness and concentration. Effects like these have been well-documented in the medical literature and they raise few (if any) ethical issues. More recently, however, clinical research has shown that the off-label use of some pharmaceuticals can, under certain conditions, have modest cognition-improving effects. Substances such as methylphenidate and modafinil can improve capacities such as working memory and concentration in some healthy individuals. Unlike their more mundane predecessors, these methods of “cognitive enhancement” are thought to raise a multitude of ethical issues. This paper presents the six principal ethical issues raised in relation to pharmacological cognitive enhancers (PCEs)—issues such as whether: (1) the medical safety-profile of PCEs justifies restricting or permitting their elective or required use; (2) the enhanced mind can be an “authentic” mind; (3) individuals might be coerced into using PCEs; (4), there is a meaningful distinction to be made between the treatment vs. enhancement effect of the same PCE; (5) unequal access to PCEs would have implications for distributive justice; and (6) PCE use constitutes cheating in competitive contexts. In reviewing the six principal issues, the paper discusses how neuroscientific research might help advance the ethical debate. In particular, the paper presents new arguments about the contribution neuroscience could make to debates about justice, fairness, and cheating, ultimately concluding that neuroscientific research into “personalized enhancement” will be essential if policy is to be truly informed and ethical. We propose an “ethical agenda” for neuroscientific research into PCEs.

Generating genius: how an Alzheimer's drug became considered a 'cognitive enhancer' for healthy individuals

Background

Donepezil, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor used in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, has been widely cited in media and bioethics literature on cognitive enhancement (CE) as having the potential to improve the cognitive ability of healthy individuals. In both literatures, this claim has been repeatedly supported by the results of a small study published by Yesavage et al. in 2002 on non-demented pilots (30–70 years old). The factors contributing to this specific interpretation of this study’s results are unclear.

Methods

We examined print media and interdisciplinary bioethics coverage of this small study, aiming to provide insight into how evidence from research may be shaped within different discourses, potentially influencing important policy, ethics, and clinical decisions. Systematic qualitative content analysis was used to examine how this study was reported in 27 media and 22 bioethics articles. Articles were analyzed for content related to: (1) headlines and titles; (2) colloquialisms; and, (3) accuracy of reporting of the characteristics and results of the study.

Results

In media and bioethics articles referencing this small study, strong claims were made about donepezil as a CE drug. The majority of headlines, titles, and colloquialisms used enhancement language and the majority of these suggest that donepezil could be used to enhance intellectual ability. Further, both literatures moved between reporting the results of the primary study and magnifying the perceived connection between these results and the CE debate that was alluded to in the primary study. Specific descriptions of the results overwhelmingly reported an improvement in performance on a flight simulator, while more general statements claimed donepezil enhanced cognitive performance. Further, a high level of reporting accuracy was found regarding study characteristics of the original study, but variable levels of accuracy surrounded the presentation of complex characteristics (i.e., methods) or contentious properties of the CE debate (i.e., initial health status of the study subjects).

Conclusions

Hyped claims of CE effects cannot be completely accounted for by sheer inaccuracy in reporting. A complex interaction between the primary and secondary literature, and expectations and social pressures related to CE appears to drive enthusiastic reports.

Attitudes toward pharmacological cognitive enhancement-a review

A primary means for the augmentation of cognitive brain functions is “pharmacological cognitive enhancement” (PCE). The term usually refers to the off-label use of medical substances to improve mental performance in healthy individuals. With the final aim to advance the normative debate taking place on that topic, several empirical studies have been conducted to assess the attitudes toward PCE in the public, i.e., in groups outside of the academic debate. In this review, we provide an overview of the 40 empirical studies published so far, reporting both their methodology and results. Overall, we find that several concerns about the use of PCE are prevalent in the public. These concerns largely match those discussed in the normative academic debate. We present our findings structured around the three most common concerns: medical safety, coercion, and fairness. Fairness is divided into three subthemes: equality of opportunity, honesty, and authenticity. Attitudes regarding some concerns are coherent across studies (e.g., coercion), whereas for others we find mixed results (e.g., authenticity). Moreover, we find differences in how specific groups—such as users, nonusers, students, parents, and health care providers—perceive PCE: a coherent finding is that nonusers display more concerns regarding medical safety and fairness than users. We discuss potential psychological explanations for these differences.

The implications of methylphenidate use by healthy medical students and doctors in South Africa

Background

The use of medical stimulants to sustain attention, augment memory and enhance intellectual capacity is increasing in society. The use of Methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement is a subject that has received much attention in the literature and academic circles in recent times globally. Medical doctors and medical students appear to be equally involved in the off-label use of Methylphenidate. This presents a potential harm to society and the individual as the long-term side effect profile of this medication is unknown.

Discussion

The implication of the use of Methylphenidate by medical students and doctors has not been fully explored. This article considers the impact of this use on the traditional role of medicine, society, the patient and suggests a way forward. We discuss the salient philosophy surrounding the use of cognitive enhancement. We query whether there are cognitive benefits to the use of Methylphenidate in healthy students and doctors and whether these benefits would outweigh the risks in taking the medication. Could these benefits lead to tangible outcomes for society and could the off label-use of Methylphenidate potentially undermine the medical profession and the treatment of patients? If cognitive benefits are proven then doctors may be coerced explicitly or implicitly to use the drug which may undermine their autonomy. The increased appeal of cognitive enhancement challenges the traditional role of medicine in society, and calls into question the role of a virtuous life as a contributing factor for achievement. In countries with vast economic disparity such as South Africa an enhancement of personal utility that can be bought may lead to greater inequities.

Summary

Under the status quo the distribution of methylphenidate is unjust. Regulatory governmental policy must seek to remedy this while minimising the potential for competitive advantage for the enhanced. Public debate on the use of cognitive enhancement is long overdue and must be stimulated. The use of Methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement is philosophically defendable if long-term research can prove that the risks are negligible and the outcomes tangible.

Use of illicit and prescription drugs for cognitive or mood enhancement among surgeons

BACKGROUND

Surgeons are usually exposed to high workloads leading to fatigue and stress. This not only increases the likelihood of mistakes during surgery but also puts pressure on surgeons to use drugs to counteract fatigue, distress, concentration deficits, burnout or symptoms of depression. The prevalence of surgeons taking pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) or mood enhancement (ME) drugs has not been systematically assessed so far.

METHODS

Surgeons who attended five international conferences in 2011 were surveyed with an anonymous self-report questionnaire (AQ) regarding the use of prescription or illicit drugs for CE and ME and factors associated with their use. The Randomized Response Technique (RRT) was used in addition. The RRT guarantees a high degree of anonymity and confidentiality when a person is asked about stigmatizing issues, such as drug abuse.

RESULTS

A total of 3,306 questionnaires were distributed and 1,145 entered statistical analysis (response rate: 36.4%). According to the AQ, 8.9% of all surveyed surgeons confessed to having used a prescription or illicit drug exclusively for CE at least once during lifetime. As one would expect, the prevalence rate assessed by RRT was approximately 2.5-fold higher than that of the AQ (19.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 15.9% to 23.9%, N = 1,105). An even larger discrepancy between the RRT and AQ was observed for the use of antidepressants with a 6-fold higher prevalence (15.1%; 95% CI, 11.3% to 19.0%, N = 1,099) as compared to 2.4% with the AQ. Finally, logistic regression analysis revealed that pressure to perform at work (odds ratio (OR): 1.290; 95% CI, 1.000 to 1.666; P = 0.05) or in private life (OR: 1.266; 95% CI, 1.038 to 1.543; P = 0.02), and gross income (OR: 1.337; 95% CI, 1.091 to 1.640; P = 0.005), were positively associated with the use of drugs for CE or ME.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of illicit and prescription drugs for CE or ME is an underestimated phenomenon among surgeons which is generally attributable to high workload, perceived workload, and private stress. Such intake of drugs is associated with attempts to counteract fatigue and loss of concentration. However, drug use for CE may lead to addiction and to overestimation of one's own capabilities, which can put patients at risk. Coping strategies should be taught during medical education.

Just How Cognitive Is "Cognitive Enhancement"? On the Significance of Emotions in University Students' Experiences with Study Drugs

Numerous deliberations on the ethics of cognitive enhancement take as their primary case the nonmedical use of prescription stimulant drugs by university students seeking to improve their performance in relation to academic work. Almost without exception, such discussions suggest that these medications enable academic performance enhancement through effects on cognitive processes. This article reports findings from qualitative research with nonmedical users that indicate that stimulants' effects on users' emotions and feelings are an important contributor to users' perceptions of improved academic performance. On the basis of these findings, the article suggests the conceptualization of nonmedical use of stimulants in terms of "cognitive enhancement" may fail to adequately capture the perspectives and experiences of individuals who use stimulant drugs as study aids.

The Relationship between Tests of Neurocognition and Performance on a Laparoscopic Simulator

Objective. To estimate if there is a relationship between the results of tests of neurocognition and performance on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. Methods and Materials. Twenty participants with no prior laparoscopic experience had baseline cognitive tests administered (Trail Making Test, Part A and B (TMT-A and TMT-B), Grooved Peg Board Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Symbol Digit Recall Test, and Stroop Interference Test), completed a demographic questionnaire, and then performed laparoscopy using a simulator. We correlated the results of cognitive tests with laparoscopic surgical performance. Results. One cognitive test sensitive to frontal lobe function, TMT-A, significantly correlated with laparoscopic surgical performance on the simulator (correlation coefficient of 0.534 with P < .05). However, the correlation between performance and other cognitive tests (TMT-B, Grooved Peg Board Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Symbol Digit Recall Test, and Stroop Interference Test) was not statistically significant. Conclusion. Laparoscopic performance may be related to measures of frontal lobe function. Neurocognitive tests may predict motor skills abilities and performance on laparoscopic simulator.

Disagreements with implications: diverging discourses on the ethics of non-medical use of methylphenidate for performance enhancement

Background

There is substantial evidence that methylphenidate (MPH; Ritalin), is being used by healthy university students for non-medical motives such as the improvement of concentration, alertness, and academic performance. The scope and potential consequences of the non-medical use of MPH upon healthcare and society bring about many points of view.

Methods

To gain insight into key ethical and social issues on the non-medical use of MPH, we examined discourses in the print media, bioethics literature, and public health literature.

Results

Our study identified three diverging paradigms with varying perspectives on the nature of performance enhancement. The beneficial effects of MPH on normal cognition were generally portrayed enthusiastically in the print media and bioethics discourses but supported by scant information on associated risks. Overall, we found a variety of perspectives regarding ethical, legal and social issues related to the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement and its impact upon social practices and institutions. The exception to this was public health discourse which took a strong stance against the non-medical use of MPH typically viewed as a form of prescription abuse or misuse. Wide-ranging recommendations for prevention of further non-medical use of MPH included legislation and increased public education.

Conclusion

Some positive portrayals of the non-medical use of MPH for performance enhancement in the print media and bioethics discourses could entice further uses. Medicine and society need to prepare for more prevalent non-medical uses of neuropharmaceuticals by fostering better informed public debates.