Editor’s note: This column presents a problematic case that poses a medical-ethical dilemma for patients, families, and healthcare professionals. As it is based on a real case, some details have been omitted in the effort to maintain patient confidentiality. This case and discussion point out some of the complexities in treating the minor child. While agreeing with the recommendation, the editor’s comment reflects a different paradigm for approaching the issue of a requested confidentiality purposefully withholding information from the patient.

Part 1

This lecture was originally delivered as a combined institute session during our 2009 preconference institutes. In this part of the lecture Dr. Cheshire explores the nature of slippery slope arguments, the meaning of normality, developments in cognitive enhancement, and arguments in favor of neuroenhancement.

As the United States considers how best to restrain the growth of healthcare costs while ensuring quality and access, the potential economic impact of proposals for enhancement medicine should not be overlooked. This essay makes the case that the practice of neuroenhancement, if it were to become widespread, would infringe upon the ethical principle of distributive justice.