Nothing as It Seems

My forthcoming peer commentary in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : “ Two Concerns About The Medicalization of Love ” The commentary considers two points relating to the ethical and social implications about the medicalization of love. The first is one that Earp et al broached in their paper, where I examine further the role and influence of pharmaceuticals in society. The other is one they don’t consider – that is, the effects neurotechnologies could have on some non-Western cultures. In the end, I claim that in spite of these concerns, it does not mean we should abandon neurotechnological interventions or a medicalized point of view; yet a more detailed understanding of how potential forms of misuse could emerge needs further examination. To read the article, click HERE

An edited version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , September-October, Vol. 148 (2014) I n an earlier post I discussed the imminent prospect of biological manipulating our different love systems and some of the ethical implications that might follow from it. This topic originally appeared in an article published in 2008 by Oxford ethicists Julian Savulescu and Anders Sandberg, who argue that it might be possible, in the next number of decades or so, to biologically manipulate and enhance our quality of love. They propose that we could supplement our relationship counselling sessions with prescription ‘love drugs’—ones with the purpose of improving intimacy and commitment between partners.  With emerging biotechnologies like this, which includes recent work in neuroscience, psychopharmacology and other related areas, it will also be possible to consider the prospect of using them to manipulate brain systems to diminish and alter the capacity fr...