ethical to take stimulants?

[Psyduck]

Hey,

I have a question whether or not it is 'fair' to take stimulants. I take Rilatin for studying (not as a recreational drugs). My work I do involves 'solving problems' (i.e. mathematics, physics). I can't really concentrate myself when not taking the medication. For example, I did yesterday (when taking Rilatin) on one afternoon what I usually would have done on 5 days. If my work involved 'boring tasks' such as memorizing things, which every human being is able to do (given a sufficient amount of time), I would not make a big deal out of it. When I take Rilatin, it increases my ability to solve problems, to recognize patterns, etc... I'm slightly familiar with the dopamine functions. But I didn't find information how the learning/thinking process really works. I would really be interested in a scientific answer (probably this answer belongs to cognitive science).

I'll illustrate my concerns with an example:

Given a difficult mathematical problem, and when not taking Rilatin, I'm not able to solve it. When I take Rilatin, I'm able to solve this.
Theory 1: There are parts in my brain that give me the ability to solve problems, think, reason... These were given to me at birth (and perhaps changed over the years due to a good education, and a lot of training). So this unique part in my brain determines the amount of talent I have, and does not change radically over time. Because I have ADD, I'm not able to use its full potential. When taking medication to correct 'the illness of ADD', I can use this part of my brain a lot better. So when solving a problem, I used only what was given to me naturally.
Theory 2: The ability to solve problems is static for every human being. When taking medication, I add some extra chemicals to my brain, which in addition to the natural amount of chemicals, give me more potential to solve problems. In this scenario, the drugs taken are an addition to my natural talent, and if I'm able to solve a mathematical problem, credits must be given to the additional chemicals too, and not to me.

Since I participate in international competitions where students all over the world have to show their skills, I was interested whether or not it is fair to use my (prescribed) medication, or am I technically 'cheating'. I'm really looking for an answer. It's of course, all for the sake of science, but I have my morals

If you can't picture my scenario make the analogy with an athlete which takes EPO on the one hand (a non-natural addition to the body) or receives massages from his trainer (his natural muscles get more relaxed, such that he's fit for his next contest). Hopefully someone knows how the thinking/learning process works in detail

Thanks for reading

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting and thought-provoking.. thanks for posting and hope to see you around more!

[staples]

I think the theory is something along the lines of: the parts of the brain which are responsible for "executive control" (i.e, impulse control) in those with ADD and ADHD exhibit brainwave patterns which suggest they are asleep even when the person in question is awake. Thus, taking stimulants should bring these centers to an "awake" state and that person can then function normally.

Obviously there are many more variables and it's much more complicated than that. As well, it's clear that people can achieve abnormally intense concentration and studying capacity while on such medications, whether they are affected by ADD/ADHD or not. However, in the perfect world that we aim to have, people truly affected by ADD/ADHD are given exactly the right dose of exactly the right stimulant to put them on the same playing field as everyone else, not above.

It's not your fault that we don't have a perfect understanding of the brain and its relevant chemistry, and it would perhaps be less fair if you were asked to perform without being treated for ADD/ADHD when it has legitimately been diagnosed. If you feel you preform too well, perhaps you're taking too much? or the wrong medication?

Reputation Comments on this post:

I really liked your response to this issue

[LT710]

Ethics are a totally personal thing, so what may be ethical to you, may not be ethical to another person.
What you failed to mention (or I failed to read), is if you are prescribed Ritalin.
I know of people who take Ritalin for the same reason you do...to perform better.

The analogy I'd like to make is the steroids in pro sports debate...many people will say steroid using athletes have an unfair advantage. I disagree, because steroids are widely available (and probably more so to pro athletes). So it's a personal choice to take a "performance enhancer" (whether it be a physical or mental enhancer).
Just like it's a personal choice for any student, or working professional, to take Ritalin to perform better.

As far as you cheating, I'll go back to my pro athlete analogy...if it's not banned by some authority, then it's not cheating. In your case of international competition, if it's not specifically not allowed, than you're just smarter than the other guy.

I think this is a very interesting subject.

What I'd like to know is if you looked into legal (or grey-area) supplements, nootropics, etc, before deciding on Rit.

[GForce]

I'm a firm believer of better living through chemistry. If there are substances out there that can improve your quality of life, which includes not being dangerous (Adderall can hypothetically be taken your entire life), it would be reckless and illogical not to use them. You're just putting yourself at a disadvantage if you think there is an ethical issue in the use of stimulants, especially because of the nature of stimulants themselves. I don't think I've ever met a person who didn't benefit from a stimulant at one time or another. Hell the average American drinks two cups of coffee a day. Clearly the average American doesn't feel as though they are capable enough, both physically and mentally, as evidenced by the fact that the average American doesn't complete their tasks "sober."

[sayoun]

Hello,

It's funny you ask that, SWIM was recently diagnosed ADD and prescribed Methylphenidate, and SWIM found himself asking that exact question the first times he used, I think it's a normal conscience dilemma. SWIM tho, after thinking about it for a while, came up to the conclusion that HE was tested, with LOTS of shit, and was medically admitted as a person that is in an unfair advantage in the attention related problems, comparing to a normal person. So this relieves SWIM's conscience a little bit, but still, if SWIM wasn't prescribed or diagnosed for MPH, in his thoughts and sometimes while on MPH, he felt that MPH does NOT make you more intelligent, the most it can do, and does it very well, is to make you a much workable person, since your mind can now actually focus at something. SWIM felt quite a difference in his life with MPH, maybe because he was used to deal with the ADD until now, and never felt how good it can feel to actually be able to do a task from beggining to end.

So, directly answering to SWIY's question, SWIM would say NO, SWIM does NOT think it's unethical at all to take MPH.

I hope it helped your conscience issues. Be cool.

[Paracelsus]

I agree with the post above. If you're being prescribed a stimulant for a certain condition, you're not gaining an unfair advantage but are remedying an unfair disadvantage (your condition). The ethics question is if it's OK for a "normal" person to take stimulants to gain an advantage.

[GForce]

One could make the argument that if we didn't treat disorders like this they would eventually cease to exist, being more beneficial both genetically and economically in the long run. Putting everyone on a level playing field may be the fairest option in the short run, but perhaps we're cheating natural selection and halting any future evolution of mankind. Personally I don't care either way because on the same token I think using medication that can benefit you is in your best interest and life is about maximizing the utility you get from it. Plus, I benefit from medication and I really don't care what mankind does with itself after I'm gone. I predict something along the lines of the movie Idiocracy.

[moda00]

Am partway through an interesting book called Radical Evolution by Joel Garreau.. one of the things discussed is the nature of humanity and medical advances.. for example.. they specifically discussed drugs like amphetamines and anti-narcoleptics.. drugs that are mainly Rx, prescribed to people with legit medical conditions- sleep disorders, ADD/ADHD.. etc. There are other things discussed in this way as well- possible genetic manipulation to create a "superhuman race" in which factors like physical strength/attractiveness, intelligence/IQ, physical health traits, etc. could potentially be modified- or the possibility that parents could "design" their child.. in addition the growth of organs from cells and transplanting them onto a body.. computer-based programs or devices to maximize memory/data storage.. or the idea that if we can identify causes and cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, then couldn't the meds taken to cure the disease in sick patients also potentially be used to generate enhanced cognition or new growth in the healthy human brain? ..among other technologies and possibilities.. The author's theory is that there are three types of people who could take advantage of things like this (note he is talking in the broadest sense, and about many types of "improvement/ability")-> 1) People with a very serious medical condition in which the treatment will save their life, either literally, or through restoring their ability to function in society as a normal person and feel "ok" physically and mentally in a substantial way (I interpret this to mean those with very serious or even fatal forms of mental/neurological illness, physical or degenerative disease, and very prominent/severe cases of certain conditions like narcolepsy, schizophrenia, ADD, etc.) 2) Those who are otherwise healthy but have a minor problem or a specific need (I interpret this as someone with shift work who may need something to stay alert and adjust to a constantly varied schedule, someone with a very mild learning or attention deficit or simply a personality trait which made them less able to function in a certain capacity than is "normal" or "average," those in the military or someone needing to take a long drive or trip- needing to stay awake longer than is natural for the mind and body, or in the case of physical health, for example, someone with a weakened or missing hand or limb that would clearly benefit from some of these technologies and not abuse them, but would also be able to live without them), and 3) Those who are "average" or "above average" in their own abilities and health, but choose to use surgeries/medications/etc. to enhance their skills above others' and advance themselves in their social setting, workplace, etc. Now what may stand out to some here is the concept of above or below "average," and the possible inability to objectively determine what is "average" or "normal" and when someone needs additional help. Of course with many illnesses and disabilities the medical field is able to evaluate this and prescribe proper treatment, which I think is a good thing.. but on the other hand I also believe that individuals should have the right to make determinations about their own state of being and their own needs in order to live as happily/healthfully/efficiently/productively as possible. Therefore I don't think in the specific story in the OP, this is unethical at all. As stated before, most people do use some kind of substance to help them in some way, legal or illegal, necessary or recreationally, in some way depending on their culture and resources. So whether coffee/soda containing caffeine, or coca leaves or tea in some South American cultures, all legal, or marijuana for anxiety or to help get to sleep.. or "yaba" (methamphetamine pills) so widely used in some Asian countries, especially by those with very physically or mentally tedious jobs and/or long hours- the cab drivers, the bargirls and prostitutes, the gas station or store clerks or re-stockers.. Now on one hand if you are putting someone at risk- ie. a cab or plane driver/pilot using drugs which impair them in any way and which could put people in danger- equivalent to driving drunk or the recent thread on the using while pregnant issue- it's a whole 'nother ethical ballgame. In the case of someone who is in a position of public trust or safety, there would have to be objective data- for example do stimulants help say cab drivers to more successfully stay awake during long night shifts, or do they impair judgment? Are the risks caused by stimulants more substantial than those caused by fatigued driving? Etc.. But if we talk strictly about something that is generally considered to be enhancing in some way, permanently or temporarily, for one's own personal benefit in their life tasks, and non-detrimental to others' rights or safety, I think that generally should be allowed legally, and should not be looked down upon ethically.

Now the issue that was brought up in the book was that if this technology progressed and was widely available, and individuals in the 3rd category started taking advantage of them to get ahead, it could get crazy. If, for example, there was an employee of an ad firm who has substantially greater brain capacity, and/or could say work 24 hours in a row instead of 8 or 12, or a construction worker who could work twice as fast and lift twice as much weight as another-- the rat race would get out of control (not that it isn't already, lol). The author hypothesizes that possible outcomes of this could be a) A majority or all humans in general, with changing technologies and expectations, would be forced to do the same to keep up- it would redefine what it means to be human and what is expected from people on a huge scale. And/or b) There would be a huge gap, moreso than there is already- those opposed to genetic modification or medication or whatever, or especially those without the resources to obtain these new technologies, would fall farther behind and the gap widened, both due to ability, physical/mental, in and of itself, and income or ability to make a living, as they would be unable to compete in the workforce. The extreme of this could be that there would be two "races" or "species" of humans, enhanced and not, and the balance of power and social/economic stability would hang in the balance. Not being all apocalyptic here, and not saying I think this is going to necessarily happen. But taken to the extreme, it seems it could be an outcome of the situation if a) technology progressed to this point and such was made available- which I think we are and have long been steadily moving towards- huge increases in life expectancy and cures for diseases, and b) People choose to take advantage of it on a broad scale, without any sort of limits or procedures in place to regulate it.

Now, I think some substances are generally used purely for fun/euphoria, for personal reasons or perceptual changes or spiritual growth. There are some substances that would probably be considered objectively as a performance inhibitor for the duration of the acute effects (ie. large doses of psychedelics or MDMA, while they may feel their emotional and perceptual capabilities enhanced, and may feel they personally gained from the experience, are not likely to be seen as things that objectively and acutely maximize potential on a broader scale- potential to do your job, whatever it may be, potential to complete complex physical or mental tasks or to focus or concentrate. But I think whether the effect of a drug (or any other procedure, chemical, or technology) is seen as enhancing one's personal enjoyment alone, or one's perceived enjoyment of required/boring tasks, or whether it can contribute to one's ability in a measurable/"objective" sense and a way that could benefit their workplace, family, society as a whole, whatever- no matter the reason or outcome, I still think it should be up to that person, as a responsible adult, to make that determination about what is beneficial or right for them, short and long term. When we are talking about say drugs like amphetamines or wakefulness-promoters- I agree that for someone with ADD/ADHD or a sleep disorder, the drug is actually correcting for an imbalance, which would be more "unethical" if denied to one in that position, than if given. In addition, someone swim knows well has a sleeping disorder related to narcolepsy and is not able to function without a medication at this point. For her, it is not enhancing her above others, and is actually still leaving her less functional than most others around her at this point, but it is enhancing her own capabilities/wakefulness to what will eventually, hopefully be a healthy/functional level (also, that one with a medical condition or even just normal variation cannot necessarily compare themselves to others to determine their functionality or happiness in life- of course there are some basic things that are expected by society, but I don't think people would feel the need to go to extremes- pulling all nighters or staying up days at a time for work or school, spending so much time and money and even drstic surgeries to look "attractive," both in the technology that is currently available and possible future scenarios. If one could limit the pressures and expectations of society to keep people from needing more and more money to live, feeling more and more inadequate, feeling like they have to work harder and longer and never satisfied.. perhaps we could stabilize in a place where variations and differences are okay, and people don't feel the need to push themselves harder and faster all their lives to keep up appearances and expectations..)

One cannot compare themselves to others, as that would be futile and exhausting, but only to ones own self in different states or circumstances- one's abilities and mindstate should be satisfactory to succeed in one's tasks and feel satisfied and competent, but I think there is far too much focus on what is normal compared to everyone else. On the other hand, Swim does not feel that someone without ADD or narcolepsy should be prevented from using Ritalin or such as a study aid or wakefulness promoter if it helps them- either subjectively to feel good and focused- and/or objectively to perform better in school (likely its a bit of both), or to get through a long day. In addition, she would not object to someone without a sleep disorder taking Modafinil or Adrifinil or an amphetamine either if they felt tired due to lack of sleep, or were still tired despite sleep. That is a matter of them choosing to do what works for them, and does not bother me or bring up ethical issues in my mind.

You mention you compete in competitions.. so I see where your issues/feelings might stem from. But again, whether it is a class at school, or an extracurricular competition, or whatever- as long as it isn't explicitly prohibited- I see no reason it should be an issue. I guess at issue is having a level playing field, which would be ideal, but really is not the case ever- everyone has different physical/mental traits, and family situations, resources, etc. In fact, I think that the education system is designed for a very small segment of the general population, and by failing to address different learning styles and teaching methods, is giving certain people a huge advantage. I think anyone should be able to work to the best of their ability- whether through a doc's diagnosis and treatment, as in learning disabilities, or in the case of compensating- for example, if one is a visual or kinesthetic learner and is forced to listen to long lectures or read long papers, even if they don't technically have a disability, why not do whatever helps them to complete the task at hand, or seek out an alternative environment where they are able to succeed in their specific capabilities? Or, perhaps a bit of a stretch, but if someone has emotional problems, or was deprived or a stable childhood environment, or has depression, whatever, and subsequently has trouble with motivation, or with the social environment of school/work, or whatever, I think they should find what works- be it meditation, uppers, downers, a joint- whatever! Medical marijuana is a big starting point- in my mind the body and mind are more inter-connected than we'll ever know, and to say that only physical pain or recognized diagnosis are real or worthy of recognition and betterment is absurd. Again, its an issue of ones own mind and ability to live their life and succeed in whatever way they find meaningful. (Once more-- ssues of driving under the influence or putting peoples' lives in danger are excluded when I say this..)

However, I could see ethical issues coming up in a few ways, not necessarily in your specific scenario, but in the broader scenario outlined in the book I mentioned.. I don't have the answers, but if drugs and medicine and technology gets to a point where lines need to be drawn for ethical reasons, there has to be some effective and accurate process for doing this. For example, I don't think it is unethical for one to take caffeine or stimulants or nootropics or whatever to do the best they can with their potential- but when we start to get into the territory of trying to "perfect" humans, or to advance individuals beyond what should naturally be possible, limits would likely need to be invoked to prevent one of the two scenarios described above- widening financial and achievement gap (ALREADY a huge problem), and an unreasonable or unethical manipulation of things without knowing their consequences. Even in the current state there are discrepancies- there will always be variation in genetics, brain function, and body potential. In general, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses and it balances out somewhat, but with the current educational and occupational system so limited, it does create an imbalance. If one grows up poor or is somehow financially disadvantaged, they may not be able to access health insurance and thus treatment for other disadvantages like ADD/ADHD, mental or physical health problems.. so to me, the bigger issues of ensuring that everyone is able to live their life to the best of their ability and enjoyment- be that working towards universal healthcare access, reform of the education system or social structures, closing the gap between classes and ethnicities.. and of course making reasonably safe and effective drugs available to be used for "better living through chemistry" without fear of criminal penalty and social isolation..

Reputation Comments on this post:

nice reply, I'll read it asap :)

[hh339]

I don't see why "normal" people should feel bad about using stimulants. If someone wants to enhance their thinking then why not.

@Psyduck, you said: "Since I participate in international competitions where students all over the world have to show their skills, I was interested whether or not it is fair to use my (prescribed) medication, or am I technically 'cheating'."

First of all I don't think you would be the only one doing it, if you were. And I would not call it cheating, would it be cheating to drive a car to school just because you could walk? I think you should worry less about such issues, it's your brain that deserves the creds for a good result, not a chemical. After all, if your brain decided to take them, then your brain would be responsible anyway

[Psyduck]

@moda00: Thanks for your very interesting reply... I also read an article a while ago that you might enjoy: http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf

Originally Posted by LT710

What you failed to mention (or I failed to read), is if you are prescribed Ritalin.

I'm prescribed Rilatin. I'm not obligated to take it though.

Originally Posted by LT710

What I'd like to know is if you looked into legal (or grey-area) supplements, nootropics, etc, before deciding on Rit.

I did not. I was not very well informed about those alternatives by my doctor. I tried the first thing he adviced me.

Originally Posted by sayoun

Hello,
if SWIM wasn't prescribed or diagnosed for MPH, in his thoughts and sometimes while on MPH, he felt that MPH does NOT make you more intelligent, the most it can do, and does it very well, is to make you a much workable person, since your mind can now actually focus at something.

In my opinion it does not necessarily make you a more workable person. I always have to put in some motivation myself first. But once drifted into my work, I can be gone for a couple of hours.

About your "intelligence" remark: I recently changed my point of view about that too. Although "solving problems" is often considered as a measure of intelligence, I'm convinced one does not gain intelligence when taking Rilatin. Mostly a solution for a problem is built from a chain of logic steps. I guess that, when not taking my medication, the chance of getting disconnected in such a chain is much higher. From this point of view, taking Rilatin can be considered as a 'correction'.

[moda00]

@Psyduck- Thanks for the link; that is a great article- about halfway through so far Another idea- it's not directly related to drugs, but it kind of is in that is discusses amphetamines and newer "anti-narcoleptics," brain function and make-up, etc. You could consider posting it to the archive- it's a great resource.. but if there's any question of the appropriateness you could check with a mod.. Thanks again for sending that my way! All the best..

"@moda00: Thanks for your very interesting reply... I also read an article a while ago that you might enjoy:" http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf