In the article “Bionic Brains and Beyond,” the author describes the case of a child that got a brain implant to treat seizure disorder and ADHD. She becomes a spelling prodigy in addition to the intended effects of the implant and went on to win the National Spelling Bee. This patient received a treatment but in addition was also enhanced in the process. She is no longer on an even playing field as other children in her age group, but she had been at a disadvantage prior to receiving the implant. Brain implants that can treat disorders and restore people back to a normal level of functioning should be allowed.
A person is defined as having a malady in the Culver et al. article “if and only if he or she has a condition other than a rational belied or desire, such that he or she is suffering, or at increased risk of suffering, and evil (death, pain, disability, loss of freedom or opportunity, or loss of pleasure) in the absence of a distinct sustaining cause. A person that has a panic disorder, based on the above definition, has a malady. Having a brain implant that will rid them of panic disorder is a treatment for the malady that they are suffering. There is a line between treatment and enhancement, however, because to treat the malady would be restoring them to “normal” functioning, which in this case, would be to eliminate panic disorder. I do not think there is anything wrong with treating this malady. I do, however, have concern if the brain implant were to go beyond restoring the person to normal functioning and to a place of super-abilities.
People with panic disorder have sudden and repeated attacks of fear that last for several minutes. Sometimes symptoms may last longer. These are called panic attacks. Panic attacks are characterized by a fear of disaster or of losing control even when there is no real danger. A person may also have a strong physical reaction during a panic attack. It may feel like having a heart attack. Panic attacks can occur at any time, and many people with panic disorder worry about and dread the possibility of having another attack.
A person with panic disorder may become discouraged and feel ashamed because he or she cannot carry out normal routines like going to the grocery store or driving. Having panic disorder can also interfere with school or work.
There is a great deal of morbidity associated with mental illnesses such as panic disorders, both personal and societal. Considering the case of a person with panic disorder that interferes with their ability to drive to work, this person might not be able to drive to work at, or if they do, without a great deal of discomfort, and may eventually no longer be able to work at all. This affects the society if otherwise “able-bodied” individuals are unable to contribute their talents and if the person then gets disability because they are physically/mentally unable to get to work, this impacts our societal resources. There is no doubt that this person is not suffering a malady, nor in my opinion that if there was a technology that enabled them to overcome their condition, should they be able to use it.
We first need to define what constitutes a treatment and what constitutes and enhancement. I agree that we should not use biomedical technology to become superhuman, but I think we can use biomedical technology to treat illnesses. The definition of illnesses that I will use for this paper is malady. A malady is defined as…
In the article The New Biology: What Price Relieving Man’s Estate, Kass identifies three groups of biomedical technologies: medicine, genetic engineering, and neurological and psychological manipulation. A brain implant would be a neurological and psychological manipulation. The worry that Kass holds is that this particular type of technology had the capacity of controlling the development of the most fundamental human qualities such as speech, thought, choice, emotion, memory, and imagination. …
Kass argues that while biomedical technologies may be able to treat illnesses such as schizophrenia and anxiety, it may be at the cost of “humanness.” While I think that biomedical technology should be available to people that are suffering from a malady, I do agree with Kass that biomedical technology runs the risk of voluntary self-degradation. This does not, however, in my opinion mean that we keep a potentially life changing intervention from those that can receive the most benefit from it. An example of this was seen with Tess in the book Listening to Prozac. When Tess was initially referred to Dr. Kramer, she was clinically depressed and by definition, was suffering from a malady. She had been receiving psychotherapy and had been referred to a psychiatrist for pharmacotherapy therapy. At the time, that Tess first presented, she met the criteria for anti-depressant therapy. When Tess first began pharmacotherapy, she was placed on Imipramine and showed improvement, stating “I am myself again.” (pg 4). Dr. Kramer thought she was still exhibiting soft signs of depression and after trials with increased dosages of Imipramine and other anti-depressants did not provide the right balance, he placed her on Prozac. Shortly after starting Prozac, Tess seemed to transform into a different person. Somewhere while Tess was taking Prozac, she seems to have crossed the boundary from being simply treated by the medication to being enhanced by it. She was certainly seeking enhancement when she returned, to Dr. Kramer, no longer being clinically depressed, but wanting the benefit of the clarity, energy, and confidence that she received from the Prozac. Kass would argue that Tess coming back for the effects of Prozac while not being depressed is an example of voluntary self-degradation, and I agree that it is. I agree that Kass has an absolutely valid concern for this as well. If people without malady are given a medication such as Prozac or a brain implant, then they are functioning above a physiologically normal level. By the nature of these treatments alleviating untoward mental states, we are at risk of those technologies being used and abused solely for pleasure rather than treatment as they were intended.
Kass, however, would argue that this is essentially why biomedical technology is perilous for human society. While I agree that there is a drive for biomedical technology to enhance people beyond our normal human capabilities, I differ with Kass in that I think people that are truly suffering should be able to alleviate their symptoms. Kass is afraid that biomedical technologies will make us less human, but I do not associate being human with suffering the ills that life brings. Part of being human is being intelligent and innovative. It is using medicine and science to help us thrive. Without biomedical technology, what is now considered routine medical care would not be in existence and people would still be dying of what are now known to be very treatable conditions.