Wayne Hall

Lack of guidance and regulation for authorizing medical cannabis for conditions involving the health and neurodevelopment of children is ethically problematic as it promulgates access inequities, risk-benefit inconsistencies, and inadequate consent mechanisms. In two virtual sessions using participatory action research and consensus-building methods, we obtained perspectives of stakeholders on ethics and medical cannabis for children and youth. The sessions focused on the scientific and regulatory landscape of medical cannabis, surrogate decision-making and assent, and the social and political culture of medical cannabis. We found that evidence-gathering and data dissemination, pressures on clinical relationships, and the lack of integration of culturally diverse perspectives and Indigenous knowledges were key areas of concern. Participants emphasized the importance of utilizing adaptive study designs, highlighted the importance of trust-building between clinicians, patients and caregivers, and discussed barriers including historical and ongoing stigmatization of medical cannabis. We conclude that continued public consultation and strength-based research that integrate diverse perspectives are critical steps forward.

Two competing views of addiction often frame debates about the legal responsibility of addicted persons for their drug use and crimes committed in order to use drugs: 1) the “brain disease model”; and 2) the commonsense view. The brain disease model suggests that addicted offenders may not be legally responsible for criminal behavior engaged in to fund drug use. According to the moral model they should be held responsible. The legal practice in Australia (as in most developed countries) represents a defensible pragmatic compromise between these two positions. Courts typically do not accept addiction as a defense in criminal cases but often use coerced treatment for addiction as an alternative to imprisonment. We describe the different ways in which this practice has been implemented and summarize evidence on its effectiveness. We conclude by considering how research on addiction may be used to improve legal practice in dealing with addicted offenders.

A “cocaine vaccine” is a promising immunotherapeutic approach to treating cocaine dependence which induces the immune system to form antibodies that prevent cocaine from crossing the blood brain barrier to act on receptor sites in the brain. Studies in rats show that cocaine antibodies block cocaine from reaching the brain and prevent the reinstatement of cocaine self administration. A successful phase 1 trial of a human cocaine vaccine has been reported. The most promising application of a cocaine vaccine is to prevent relapse to dependence in abstinent users who voluntarily enter treatment. Any use of a vaccine to treat cocaine addicts under legal coercion raises major ethical issues. If this is done at all, it should be carefully trialled first, and only after considerable clinical experience has been obtained in using the vaccine to treat voluntary patients. There will need to be an informed community debate about what role, if any, a cocaine vaccine may have as a way of preventing cocaine addiction in children and adolescents

As the world's population ages, governments and non-governmental organizations in developed countries are promoting healthy cognitive ageing to reduce the rate of age-related cognitive decline and sustain economic productivity in an ageing workforce. Recommendations from the Productivity Commission, Dementia Australia, Government Office for Science, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Institute of Medicine, among others, are encouraging older adults to engage in mental, physical, and social activities. These lifestyle recommendations for healthy cognitive ageing are timely and well supported by scientific evidence but they make implicit normative judgments about the responsibility of ageing individuals to prevent cognitive decline. Ethical tensions arise when this individual responsibility collides with social and personal realities of ageing populations. First, we contextualize the priority given to healthy cognitive ageing within the current brain-based medical and social discourses. Second, we explore the individual responsibility by examining the economic considerations, medical evidence and individual interests that relate to the priority given to healthy cognitive ageing. Third, we identify three key ethical challenges for policymakers seeking to implement lifestyle recommendations as an effective population-level approach to healthy cognitive ageing. The result is a prospectus for future in-depth analysis of ethical tensions that arise from current policy discussions of healthy cognitive ageing.

Australia does not allow adult smokers to buy or use electronic nicotine delivery systems that contain nicotine without a prescription. This paper critically evaluates the empirical and ethical justifications provided for the policy by Federal and State governments, public health advocates and health organisations. These are: that ENDS should only be approved as products for smoking cessation when there is evidence from randomised controlled trials that they are effective; that as a matter of precaution we should not allow the sale of ENDS to smokers as consumer products because we do not know what their long-term effects will be; and that allowing ENDS to be sold as consumer goods will enable the tobacco industry to market ENDS to young people which will also lead to an increase in youth smoking. We show that the arguments and evidence offered in support of all these claims is very weak. We also argue that even if the evidence were stronger, it would not justify denying adult smokers the right to use ENDS either to quit smoking or as a long-term alternative to smoking cigarettes. We outline ENDS policies that would more ethically address the public health concerns that motivated the current policy by allowing adult smokers to access ENDS for smoking cessation or tobacco harm reduction under tight regulations that discourage commercial promotion and adolescent use.

Developments in neuroscience have raised the possibility that pharmaceuticals may be used to enhance memory, mood, and attention in people who do not have an illness or disorder, a practice known as “cognitive enhancement.” We describe historical experiences with two medicinal drugs for which similar enhancement claims were made, cocaine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and amphetamines in the mid 20th century. These drugs were initially introduced as medicinal agents in Europe and North America before becoming more widely used for a variety of purposes, including what would nowadays be considered cognitive enhancement. Their trajectory of use conformed to the typical use cycle of psychotropic drugs. There was an initial steep rise in prescribing for medical use, followed by expanded nonmedical use that was fueled by enthusiasm for the drugs’ effects. As the number of regular users increased, problems related to use (such as addiction) became apparent, societal concern increased, and laws were passed banning nonmedical use and eventually, medical use. This historical experience draws attention to the adverse side effects of enhancement use that only become apparent with regular, wide-scale use of a drug. We highlight the similarities between the enthusiasms for cocaine and amphetamines and the current enthusiasms for using prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement. We argue bioethicists should not encourage the cognitive enhancement use of drugs such as methylphenidate in the absence of evidence on the efficacy and safety of their use for cognitive enhancement purposes.

Lewis’ neurodevelopmental model provides a plausible alternative to the brain disease model of addiction that is a dominant perspective in the USA. We disagree with Lewis’ claim that the BDMA is unchallenged within the addiction field but we agree that it provides unduly pessimistic prospects of recovery. We question the strength of evidence for the BDMA provided by animal models and human neuroimaging studies. We endorse Lewis’ framing of addiction as a developmental process underpinned by reversible forms of neuroplasticity. His view is consistent with epidemiological evidence of addicted individuals ‘maturing out’ and recovering from addiction. We do however hold some reservations about Lewis’ model. We do not think that his analysis of the neurobiological evidence is clearly different from that of the BDMA or that his neurodevelopmental model provides a more rigorous interpretation of the evidence than the BDMA. We believe that our understanding of the neurobiology of drug use is too immature to warrant the major role given to it in the BDMA. Our social research finds very mixed support for the BDMA among addicted people and health professionals in Australia. Lewis’ account of addiction requires similar empirical evaluation of its real-world implications.

Head injuries are an inherent risk of participating in the major collision sports played in Australia. Protocols introduced by the governing bodies of these sports are ostensibly designed to improve player safety but do not prevent players suffering from repeated concussions. There is evidence that repeated traumatic brain injuries increase the risk of developing a number of long term problems but scientific and popular debates have largely focused on whether there is a causal link between concussion and chronic traumatic encephalopathy. We argue that the governing bodies of collision sports played in Australia have used uncertainty about CTE to justify a “wait and see” approach instead of attempting to prevent repeated head injuries. This stance is difficult to defend when these governing bodies claim to give a high priority to protecting player welfare

The diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders is embedded in a matrix of biological, social and ethical processes, making it an important topic for crossdisciplinary social and ethical research. This article reviews different branches of research relevant to understanding how FASD is identified and defined and outlines a framework for future social and ethical research in this area. We outline the character of scientific research into FASD, epidemiological discrepancies between reported patterns of maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and the incidence of FASD, and the social and ethical considerations that may impact on who is, and is not, diagnosed. We highlight what further research investigating FASD diagnostic processes, as well as the multi-generational impacts of FASD, is needed. Important research priorities are to: 1) enumerate the variety of stakeholders involved in seeking FASD diagnoses; 2) understand the experiences and perspectives of mothers from different backgrounds who have consumed alcohol during pregnancy and their affected children; and 3) collect health histories of maternal alcohol consumption in families to determine the effect of FASD at sub-cultural and cultural levels

Impaired control over drug use is a defining characteristic of addiction in the major diagnostic systems. However there is significant debate about the extent of this impairment. This qualitative study examines the extent to which leading Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians believe that addicted individuals have control over their drug use and are responsible for their behaviour. One hour semi-structured interviews were conducted during 2009 and 2010 with 31 Australian addiction neuroscientists and clinicians (10 females and 21 males; 16 with clinical experience and 15 with no clinical experience). Although many addiction neuroscientists and clinicians described uncontrolled or compulsive drug use as characteristic of addiction, most were ambivalent about whether or not addicted people could be said to have no control of their drug use. Most believed that addicted individuals have fluctuating levels of impaired control over their drug use but they nonetheless believed that addicted persons were responsible for their behaviour, including criminal behaviour engaged in to fund their drug use. Addiction was not seen as exculpating criminal behaviour but as a mitigating factor.