Is it immoral for students who are not affected by ADD/ADHD to use adderall or other prescription neuro-enhancers as a method of academic performance enhancement?”

 

Across the United States, the abuse[1] of prescription medicine is an undeniable and unfortunate truth. Although this abuse occurs with a variety of different prescription medicine, the abuse of neuro-enhancing drugs has significantly increased within the last decade, specifically in the college student demographic. Neuro-enhancing drugs can be defined as the category of prescription amphetamines that are used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) including, but not limited to Adderall, Concerta, Cyclert, Dexedrine, Focal, Metadate, Methlin and Ritalin (“Drug Test FAQ”). Each of these drugs work by increasing the amount of certain chemicals in the brain, namely dopamine and norepinepherine to increase focus and productivity. In addition to their clinical uses, these neuro-enhancers are widely used as recreational "study drugs" at many universities, due to their ability to help focus energy and concentration to a much higher level than normal. Cases where students are able to write papers continuously for an unusual amount of time, or study all night for an exam with no loss of energy or concentration are common. Although most, if not all, universities in the United States have strict academic integrity codes regarding the morality of cheating, or claiming another student’s work as their own, none of these codes address the morality of amphetamine abuse as a means to obtain academic success. In this paper, I will argue 1) there is a significant portion of the college student population who abuse prescription neuro-enhancers to obtain a competitive edge, 2) the abuse of adderall and other prescription neuro-enhancers compromises academic morality and thus, 3) the abuse of prescription neuro-enhancers cannot be universally accepted due to its undesirable characteristics that cause harm to oneself and others.

 

Over the years, the fact that the world of academia has become increasingly competitive is undisputable. Sara Konrath, a faculty researcher at the University of Michigan concluded that the current group of college students, commonly referred to as ‘Generation Me’ are  “the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic…” group of students in recent history (Konrath 2008). In response to these findings, researcher Kristina Hall conducted a survey of 119 colleges across the United States, to determine if there is a link between academic competitiveness and prescription neuro-enhancer abuse. The results of Hall’s findings demonstrate that college campuses known to be highly competitive had up to 25% of students use an ADHD medication within one year (Hall 2005). These results are rather perplexing because according to Russell Barkley, a mere 3-5% of the adult population actually suffer from any form ADD/ADHD (Barkley 2007). Thus, due to the findings of Hall’s study, it is plausible to conclude that there is a significant proportion of all college student students (20-22%) using prescription neuro-enhancers regardless of whether or not they truly suffer from ADD/ADHD. In addition to these findings, it has been shown that students are not only using these amphetamines without a legitimate prescription[2], but they do not adhere to the FDA recommended dosage or routes of consumption. Although the recommended dose of any amphetamine is variable, typically the dose is one pill per day taken orally. In addition, medical doctors always start a new patient with a lower dose, somewhere around 10mg, and progress to a higher dose, around 30mg, once the body becomes acclimated to the daily side affects. However, students who abuse amphetamines on college campuses do not typically follow these instructions. It is common for recreational users to start with 30mg doses, taking more than one pill per day. It is also common for students to administer amphetamines to themselves in a manner that is not recommended or acknowledged by the FDA, such as breaking apart the capsule and taking the drug via insufflated[3] or intravenous[4] routes in addition to the prescribed oral route. However, Breaking or opening the capsule is strongly advised against as it may cause too much of the drug to be released at one time, which has ultimately resulted in more documented cases of overdose (Cerner Multum, Inc). Although the fact that neuro-enhancing drug abuse occurs on college campuses has been proven by empirical data, there are very few sources of literature discussing the morality of this particular type of drug abuse.

 

The University of Michigan, in addition to almost every, if not all other universities in the country published a lengthy code regarding academic honesty and integrity. In the LSA Academic Honor Code, common issues such as cheating and plagiarizing are explicitly prohibited due to the immorality of their nature. However, in this same code, the University of Michigan cites that students who do not gather data in “accordance with the appropriate methods” are to be considered in violation of the LSA Community Standards of Academic Integrity ("LSA Community Standards of Academic Integrity”). However, throughout the entirety of this document, a clear definition of what an “appropriate method” is has not provided by the university. Therefore, it seems plausible to define “appropriate methods” as a manner of data gathering that represents the best interests of an academic community and abides by common moral standards. However, because cheating is loosely defined as the situation in which one acts dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, gathering data, or producing academic work under the influence of any drug that gives one student an advantage over another student is analogous to cheating. Therefore, the use of amphetamines in enhance academic performance ought to be considered an inappropriate method of producing academic work, and thus should be morally impermissible in terms of academic standards.

 

However, some critics may argue that a person who abuses any drugs, including prescription neuro-enhancers is only hurting oneself and thus, one simply has the right to put whatever one wishes to into one’s own body. Jonathan Wolff supports this claim as he asserts that “self-inflicted harm through drug use is an example of harms governments [and society] should ignore” in terms of moral practices. However, later in the same essay, Wolff goes on to realize, “no developed society has this attitude”, meaning that self-inflicted harm should be a moral concern of society, i.e. citizens have the moral duty to protect others from avoidable harm (Wolff 2007). In addition, contrary to popular belief, the abuse of prescription neuro-enhancers is not only harmful to oneself, but is also harmful to other students. Although abuse of adderall and other similar drugs may harm only oneself physically, their use undoubtedly gives students who take part in their consumption an academic advantage over other students. Meaning, in addition to self-inflicted harm, the abuse of prescription neuro-enhancers harms another student’s chance for to achieve academic success. Consider the situation in which a class is curved, where only a certain number of students are able to earn an “A” on an exam. If the student who elects to abuse adderall obtains one of these “A’s” due to the academic advantage amphetamines present, that is one less “A” a student who does not elect to use adderall cannot earn. Furthermore, I ask how this differs from cheating. When a student cheats, for example by using notes during an exam, they are increasing their chances of obtaining an “A” while hurting other students’ ability to earn an “A”. Cheating, as defined by the LSA academic honor code, is immoral because it harms another student’s chance of obtaining academic success. As previously demonstrated, the abuse of prescription neuro-enhancers also harms another student’s chance of obtaining academic success, thus by precedence, abusing adderall and other similar drugs as a means of academic performance enhancement should also be addressed and defined under the category of cheating, as well as recognized as an immoral academic practice. This morality will further be explored in terms of universal moral law.

 

A natural law is any system of law, which is determined by nature, and is thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Immanuel Kant builds upon this definition of natural law in his first formulation of moral law, where he specifies that the Formula of the Universal Law (of Nature), the FUL/N, “…requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature” (Kan 1785). In order to uphold the properties of the FUL/N, Kant requires that one must also always “act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself” (Kant 1785). In both the FUL and the FUN, the maxim can be defined as the agent’s belief of his reason to act; some action paired with its motivation. Thus, in order to argue that the abuse of prescription neuro-enhancers such as adderall is immoral by Kant’s FUL/N, the maxim must first be identified. The action, therefore, is the use of prescription neuro-enhancers, whereas the motivation is the desire to obtain academic success. Thus, paired together, they form the maxim: "I will use prescription neuro-enhancers in order to obtain academic success". Now, by Kant’s test[5] of universalizability, we must imagine the possible world in which every student in a similar position to the student who uses prescription neuro-enhancers follows the previously defined maxim. However, as we imagine the universalizability of this hypothetical world, it is crucial that we realize Kant requires we must not make an exception of ourselves, which ultimately forces us to imagine a world in which we hold others to the same moral principle that is required of ourselves. Herein arises the contradiction of our maxim: the academic advantage created by the use of prescription neuro-enhancers relies on the assumption that other students are not using the same drugs, meaning the advantage would disappear if all students were to participate. Thus, because the advantage associated with amphetamines relies on the fact that other students are not using the same neuro-enhancing drugs, one would thereby be making oneself an exception.

 

Consider the situation in which one student uses a prescription drug to enhance her or his academic performance, while all other students refrain from taking any form of the same prescription drug. In this case, the student using the neuro-enhancer has given herself a significant academic advantage over all the other students, as it is easier for her or him to keep up with the same amount of coursework that is required of other students who chose not to use prescription stimuli. However, consider a similar situation in which the same student, again, chooses to use a prescription neuro-enhancer. However, in this case, all of the other students also elect to use a prescription neuro-enhancer. The singular student would no longer have an academic advantage, as professors would assign more outside of class work, or begin to grade harder to account for the increased productivity of all students. Therefore, because Kant’s FUL/N is built upon the notion where it is immoral to make oneself an exception to the maxim, the use of prescription neuro-enhancers by students who are not affected by ADD/ADHD can not be universalizable. Ultimately, because the use of amphetamines is not morally permissible in a universalized context, it is immoral for students who are not affected by ADD/ADHD to use adderall or other prescription neuro-enhancers as a method of academic performance enhancement.

 

Critics of Kant’s theory of universal law may argue that society would function better if all people took neuro-enhancing drugs as a means of performance enhancement. In this hypothetical world, every person would be able to function at a higher level in many aspects of his or her daily life, including in school or at work. Thus, the maxim in this situation could be defined as the situation where “everyone will use prescription neuro-enhancers to enhance overall societal productivity”. Although in principal it seems as though society would function more effectively with the universal use of prescription neuro-enhancers, we must consider the long-term effects of amphetamine use, and their effect on society as a whole. It has been found that prolonged high doses of amphetamines can result in extreme fatigue, insomnia, irritability, and mental depression. Chronic abuse of amphetamines can result in the manifestation of amphetamine psychosis, along with other negative affects such as increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, reduced height and weight, and dependence. In addition, these results are obtained from studies assuming amphetamine use is within therapeutic range for ADHD, and not at the high doses that is typical with abuse. Even though the long-term effects for those who abuse adderall have not been extensively studied, scientists have speculated that they are most likely more severe cases of the effects mentioned above (Cerner Multum, Inc). Thus, contradictions and irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of the aforementioned maxim, as it suggests that creating a world where all people are being physically hurt is morally acceptable. However, because developed societies, such as the United States, do not act in a manor that encourages self-inflicted harm, the universal use of amphetamines for performance enhancement cannot possibly be considered moral (Wolff 2007). In addition, the unhealthy, addictive, and undesirable effects of amphetamines clearly outweigh the positive effects these prescription neuro-enhancers have to offer. Although increased productivity may be desirable, long-term effects such as stroke, death, and heart attacks are risks that are not worth the benefit of increased productivity. Therefore, even if we ignore the fact that students violate the FUL/N by making themselves exceptions, we can further conclude that using prescription stimuli as a means of academic enhancement is not moral, as taking performance enhancing medication long-term has been proven to be detrimental to oneself and others.

 

Prescription neuro-enhancers were developed with pure moral intentions; to improve the quality of life for patients suffering from ADD/ADHD.  However, moral complications arise when users who are not affected by ADD/ADHD use these drugs for purposes other than the prescribed intention. Although the use of amphetamines on college campuses is not widely addressed by university officials, there are an undeniably large percentage of students who use these drugs, regardless of the physical consequences. As these neuro-enhancers create an unfair academic advantage for students who choose to use them, it is plausible to assert that the use of amphetamines as a means of academic performance enhancement is comparable to the advantage experienced by students who cheat, and thus should be considered immoral. In addition, when we try to imagine a world in which the use of prescription neuro-enhancers is universal, we face two undeniable contradictions. First, the academic benefits created by these neuro-enhancers rely on other students refraining from partaking in their use, thus, if all students used neuro-enhancers, no academic gain would be experienced. Secondly, if all people were required to use neuro-enhancers to improve societal productivity, the negative effects of long-term amphetamine abuse would create a world in which universal, self-inflicted harm would occur. Each of these assertions contributes to a universal moral truth; that prescription amphetamines cannot, and should not be used as a method of academic performance enhancement. Until this truth is recognized by the college student demographic, students exhibiting moral awareness in terms of amphetamine abuse will be required to subject themselves to an immoral hierarchy in which amphetamine abuse is encouraged in order to obtain academic success.   

 

Works Cited

"Adderall Information from Drugs.com." Drugs.com | Prescription Drug Information, Interactions & Side Effects. Cerner Multum, Inc. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.drugs.com/adderall.html>.

Barkley, Russell A. (2007). "ADHD in Adults: History, Diagnosis, and Impairments". ContinuingEdCourses.net. Retrieved July 27, 2009.

"Drug Test FAQ”. Craig Medical. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. <http://www.craigmedical.com/drug_test_faq.htm>.

Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.

Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith Campbell, W. and Bushman, B. J. (2008), Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76: 875–902.

Kristina M. Hall et al."Illicit Use of Prescribed Stimulant Medication Among College Students," Journal of American College Health, Vol. 53, No. 4 (2005).

"LSA Community Standards of Academic Integrity." University of Michigan. University of Michigan. Web. <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/academicintegrity/>.

Wolff, Jonathan. "The Regulation of Recreational Drugs: Philosophical Argument and Public Policy." Dept of Philosophy UCL (April 2007): 1-27. Print.

 

[1] Abuse, in this case, is considered: 1) taking the drug in doses higher than recommended by the FDA, 2) taking the drug when one is not prescribed the drug by a medical doctor, or 3) taking the drug when one does not suffer from the disease the drug aims to treat.

[2] Legitimate prescription, in this case refers to a patient who suffers from ADD/ADHD obtaining a prescription for adderall or other amphetamines to treat the symptoms of their respective disease from a licensed medical doctor.

[3] The practice of inhaling a substance.

[4] The practice of infusing the drug directly into one’s veins.

[5] Kant’s universalizability test is composed of five steps:

1) Find the agent's maxim.

2) Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim.

3) Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.

4) If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.

5) If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.