Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:42:04.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Care, Choice, and the Ethical Imagination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2017

Fred B. Ketchum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2017 , pp. 698 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Netherland J, Hansen H. White opioids: Pharmaceutical race and the war on drugs that wasn’t. BioSocieties 2017;1–22. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2015.46.

2. Siegler, M. The doctor-patient encounter and its relationship to theories of health and disease. In: Concepts of Health and Disease: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.; 1981:627–44.Google Scholar

3. Emanuel, EJ, Emanuel, LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992;267(16):2221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Kahane, G, Ter Meulen, R, Savulescu, J, eds. Enhancing Human Capacities. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.Google Scholar

5. Allouche, S, Gayon, J, Marzano, M, Goffette, J, (Bateman, S, ed.). Inquiring into Human Enhancement: Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.Google Scholar

6. Daniels, N. Normal functioning and the treatment-enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2000;9(3):309–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Parens, E. Enhancing Human Traits? Ethical and Social Implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1998.Google Scholar

8. Coveney, CM. Cognitive enhancement? Exploring Modafinil use in social context. Advances in Medical Sociology 2011;13:203–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Maher, B. Poll results: Look who’s doping. Nature 2008;452(7188):674–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Ferrari, A, Coenen, C, Grunwald, A. Visions and ethics in current discourse on human enhancement. NanoEthics 2012;6(3):215–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Nichter, M. Generation RX: Anthropological research on pharmaceutical enhancement, lifestyle regulation, self-medication and recreational drug use. In: Singer, M, Erickson, PI, eds. A Companion to Medical Anthropology, Blackwell Companions to Anthropology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:338–55.Google Scholar

12. Partridge, BJ, Bell, SK, Lucke, JC, Yeates, S, Hall, WD. Smart drugs ‘as common as coffee’: Media hype about neuroenhancement. PLoS One 2011;(6)11: e28416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Forlini, C, Partridge, B, Lucke, J, Racine, E. Popular media and bioethics scholarship: Sharing responsibility for portrayals of cognitive enhancement with prescription medications. In: eds. Clausen, J, Levy, N. Handbook of Neuroethics, New York, NY: Springer Dordrecht; 2015:1473–86.Google Scholar

14. Desantis, AD, Hane, AC. ‘Adderall Is definitely not a drug’ justifications for the illegal use of ADHD stimulants. Substance Use & Misuse 2010;45(1–2):31–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Mol, A. The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge; 2008.Google Scholar

16. Ilieva, IP, Farah, MH. Enhancement stimulants: Perceived motivational and cognitive advantages. Neuropharmacology 2013;7:198.Google ScholarPubMed

17. Repantis, D, Schlattmann, P, Laisney, O, Heuser, I. Modafinil and Methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 2010;62(3):187–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed