From: Stathis Papaioannou (stathisp@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 25 2007 - 19:32:28 MDT
On 26/10/2007, Mike Dougherty <msd001@gmail.com> wrote:
> How is this question framed regarding the current practice of
> psychiatric pharmacology? If we agree that it is "dangerous" to
> directly alter our own goal system, why is it acceptable to change
> someone else's? Sure, poorly understood chemicals are administered
> with great intentions in hopeful anticipation of repeating
> "successful" results - but who defines success? How far are we
> willing to go before manipulation is considered unethical? Suppose I
> have a swarm of nano machines that can simply rewire neural
> connections I personally find sub-optimal. Can I use them on you?
> Can I use them on myself? Can I use them on a simulation of either of
> us? (you know, a practice version to assess the impact before
> actually performing the operation "in real life")
Psychiatric treatment is no different to any other service unless it
is involuntary treatment that we are discussing. In most
jurisdictions, the criteria for involuntary treatment are strictly
defined, and it will be important that this continue when more
elaborate and effective mind modification than our current
psychotropic drugs becomes available.
-- Stathis Papaioannou
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT