Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 142 No. 4748 (2012)

Neuroenhancement – perspectives of Swiss psychiatrists and general practitioners

  • Regula Ott
  • Christian Lenk
  • Nicole Miller
  • Rachel Neuhaus Bühler
  • Nikola Biller-Andorno
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2012.13707
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13707
Published
18.11.2012

Summary

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Although the ethical and health implications of neuroenhancement have been intensely discussed over the past years, little is known about the experiences and attitudes of physicians confronted with requests for neuroenhancing substances. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioners’ and psychiatrists’ familiarity with such requests and their willingness to prescribe these products.

METHOD: A nation-wide cross-sectional survey among general practitioners and psychiatrists in Switzerland was conducted. A questionnaire was developed, pre-tested and sent out to a pre-defined sample of 1,600 Swiss practising physicians in the fields of psychiatry and general practice/internal medicine in the German-speaking and French-speaking part of Switzerland.

RESULTS: A total of 393 questionnaires were returned (response rate: 24.7%). 80.2% of study participants were encountered requests for neuroenhancing products in their own practice, mostly not exceeding 1–2 times a year. A total of 41.1% were undecided when asked if they categorically against neuroenhancement, 49% would decide on a case-by-case basis, and 9.6% would decide according to patients’ wishes.

CONCLUSIONS: Swiss psychiatrists and general practitioners are confronted with requests for neuroenhancement, albeit not very frequently. Most participants embrace a pragmatic position towards neuroenhancement, although there is also a considerable degree of uncertainty about the appropriateness of a categorical refusal. A minority would follow a consumer model that leaves the decision about the use of neuroenhancers to the client, even though this conflicts with legal requirements regarding drug prescriptions.

References

  1. Greely H, Sahakian B, Harris J, Kessler RC, Gazzaniga M, Campbell P, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature. 2008;456:702–5.
  2. Lenk C. Kognitives Enhancement und das «Argument des offenen Lebensweges». In: Schöne-Seifert B, Talbot D, Opolka U, Ach JS. Neuro-Enhancement. Ethik vor neuen Herausforderungen. Münster: Mentis-Verlag; 2008:93–106. German.
  3. Outram SM. The use of methylphenidate among students: the future of enhancement? J Med Ethics. 2010;36:198–202.
  4. Hotze TD, Shah K, Anderson EE, Wynia MK. "Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me … ?" a national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement. Am J Bioeth. 2011;11:3–13.
  5. Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G. Enhancing Human Capacities. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  6. McCabe SE, Knight JR, Teter CJ, Wechsler H. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates from a national survey. Addiction. 2005;100:96–106.
  7. Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S. Professor's little helper. Nature. 2007;450:1157–9.
  8. Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse (DAK). Gesundheitsreport 2009: Analyse der Arbeitsunfähigkeitsdaten. Schwerpunktthema Doping am Arbeitsplatz [Internet]. 2009 (cited 2012 May 31). Available from: http://www.dak.de. German.
  9. Biedermann F. Die Haltung der Deutschschweizer Bevölkerung zum pharmazeutischen cognitive enhancement. Hypothesen basierend auf einer postalischen Befragung in einer Beispielgemeinde. Dissertation at Basel University, 2011. German.
  10. Franke AG, Bonertz C, Christmann M, Huss M, Fellgiebel A, Hildt E, et al. Non-medical use of prescription stimulants and illicit use of stimulants for cognitive enhancement in pupils and students in Germany. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011;44:60–6.
  11. Bergström LS, Lynöe N. Enhancing concentration, mood and memory in healthy individuals: an empirical study of attitudes among general practitioners and the general population. Scand J Public Health. 2008;36:532–7.
  12. Banjo OC, Nadler R, Reiner PB. Physician attitudes towards pharmacological cognitive enhancement: safety concerns are paramount. PLoS One. 2010;5:e14322. German.
  13. Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. 8nd ed. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag; 2003. German.
  14. Lieb K. Hirndoping. Warum wir nicht alles schlucken sollten. Mannheim: Artemis & Winkler Verlag; 2010. German.
  15. Kühne R, Rapold R. Der Bezug von Methylphenidat in der Schweiz: Nicht alarmierend – Fragen stellen sich dennoch. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung. 2011;92:34;1295–9. German.
  16. Bortz J. Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. 5nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1999. German.
  17. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2009.
  18. SAMW, Swiss Academy of the Medical Sciences. Rechtliche Grundlagen im medizinischen Alltag. Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis. 2008. German.
  19. Swiss Social Insurance Law. Bundesgesetz über den Allgemeinen Teil des Sozialversicherungsrechts (ATSG) [Internet]. 2000 (cited 2012 May 31). Available from: http://www.admin.ch. German.
  20. Arzneimittel-Kompendium der Schweiz, Fachinformation «Ritalin©». 2011 (cited 2012 May 31). Available from: http://www.kompendium.ch. German.
  21. Arzneimittel-Kompendium der Schweiz, Fachinformation «Modasomil©». 2011 cited 2012 May 31). Available from: http://www.kompendium.ch. German.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>