Showing papers by "Cynthia Forlini published in 2012"

Stakeholder perspectives and reactions to "academic" cognitive enhancement: Unsuspected meaning of ambivalence and analogies.

Abstract: The existence of diverging discourses in the media and academia on the use of prescription medications to improve cognition in healthy individuals, i.e. “cognitive enhancement” (CE) creates the need to better understand perspectives from stakeholders. This qualitative focus-group study examined perspectives from students, parents and healthcare providers on CE. Stakeholders expressed ambivalence regarding CE (i.e. reactions to, definitions of, risks, and benefits). They were reluctant to adopt analogies to performance-enhancing steroids and caffeine though these analogies were useful in discussing concepts common to the use of different performance-enhancing substances. Media coverage of CE was criticized for lack of scientific rigor, ethical clarity, and inadvertent promotion of CE. Ambivalence of stakeholders suggests fundamental discomfort with economic and social driving forces of CE. Forms of public dialogue that voice the unease and ambivalence of stakeholders should be pursued to avoid opting hastily for permissive or restrictive health policies for CE.

Added Stakeholders, Added Value(s) to the Cognitive Enhancement Debate: Are Academic Discourse and Professional Policies Sidestepping Values of Stakeholders?

Abstract: Background: The debate on the nonmedical use of prescription medication for the enhancement of cognitive function (e.g., attention, memory, concentration, vigilance), accompanied by heated public discussions in the media, has spurred the interest of scholars and the public. Methods: In this article, we present qualitative data from a focus-group study with university students, parents, and health care providers. We identified ethical, social, and legal issues related to the nonmedical use of methylphenidate for cognitive enhancement (CE) and closely examined the positions taken on these issues and their supporting arguments. Results: The ethical, social, and legal issues we identified (e.g., authenticity, cheating) were similar to those identified in a previous discourse analysis of the bioethics literature but indicate the existence of moderately and highly contentious issues as well as factors and values underlying these issues. The model we generated from these findings shows how interplay between valu...