> It would be unethical to subject someone to that risk for no possible benefit.
Let's take two people, say me and Einstein. Let's say Einstein has super-severe ADHD and thus performs so poorly that he can fairly be compared to me.
Is there really "no possible benefit" to curing that ADHD? Keep in mind that the real Einstein discovered relativity, and uh... I'm just going to say my contributions to science have been a bit less dramatic.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to posit that there are plenty of people who are gifted enough to compensate for their mental issues, but they'd still benefit if they could fully apply themselves instead of wasting half their talent mitigating such issues.
This is the argument I've been making for years. I used to be _way_ smarter than I am, I have concrete examples of things I used to do with ease that are now major cognitive effort, but I'm still alright in a lot of ways. Most folks meeting me would still consider me pretty smart, although I have profound struggles with memory lately.
And there doesn't seem to be a doctor in the world who considers this a problem. "Yep, it goes 0-60 in 27 seconds, just like a chevette should!" "but doc, it's a bugatti". That would be one hell of an incompetent mechanic.
Let's take two people, say me and Einstein. Let's say Einstein has super-severe ADHD and thus performs so poorly that he can fairly be compared to me.
Is there really "no possible benefit" to curing that ADHD? Keep in mind that the real Einstein discovered relativity, and uh... I'm just going to say my contributions to science have been a bit less dramatic.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to posit that there are plenty of people who are gifted enough to compensate for their mental issues, but they'd still benefit if they could fully apply themselves instead of wasting half their talent mitigating such issues.