Pharmacological Performance Enhancement and the Military

Debate surrounding the use of performance-enhancing drugs by the military is often forestalled by concerns regarding side effects and safety. By taking as a starting assumption that any such drugs would have already been accepted as safe and approved for military use, this paper seeks to move the discussion beyond these concerns, to explore the broader ethical and legal implications raised by their use – an area in which debate has hitherto been deficient. In opening up the discussion in this way, it is possible to define an ethical and legal framework within which the use of pharmacological technology to enhance military effectiveness would be justifiable.

Drug use by the armed forces could be employed to improve soldier strength, mental capacity, recovery, and resistance to fatigue and trauma. However, in approving the use of drugs for these military applications, it is critical that their effects on the human nature of soldiers, such as empathetic understanding, or mental capacity, should not be undermined, where soldiers are to uphold their moral obligations under international humanitarian law.

By sending soldiers to war, society requires them to face dangers and risks that are not comparable to most other walks of civilian life. Administering drugs in a conflict context thus requires a different cost-to-benefit calibration. This paper identifies three scenarios in which pharmacological interventions would be ethically permissible in these circumstances. These are: 1) in ‘life vs death’ situations; 2) in cases of strategically exceptional mission requirement; and 3) within restorative limits. However, if pharmacological approaches were to be adopted, these could not be an excuse for poor planning, or shortfalls in equipment and training – taking performance-enhancing drugs should not become routine in the military.

The nature of the military organization is such that achieving the requirements of free and informed consent to pharmacological performance enhancement is a challenge. The hierarchical structure and close bonding of military teams means that soldiers are likely to feel coercion – whether genuine or perceived – from their superiors and their peers. In addition, the secrecy that is likely to surround a military enhancement programme would limit the availability of information on which to base a decision to consent. This would leave military commanders with a predicament over whether to entirely decline the administration of drugs, or to permit some troops to take them and to bear the additional risks and burden, as well as shouldering the damage such a split may confer on unit cohesion.

The armed forces do not exist in isolation from civil society. Therefore, attitudes towards the use of drugs in the military will ultimately be determined by societal opinion, as was the case with the use of amphetamines during the Second World War. There is a growing acceptance within modern society of drug use: both of prescribed medications (which almost half of UK adults now take regularly), and of illegal drugs, particularly among the younger population from which the military recruits. However, it is suggested that any use of performance-enhancing drugs by the military must be reversible on discharge from the service back into society.

Topic themes

Defence and security

Economics and trade

Environment

Health

Institutions

Major powers

Politics and law

Society

Technology

Regions

Africa

Americas

Asia-Pacific

Europe

Middle East and North Africa

Russia and Eurasia

Publications

Become a member

The Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership and the Next Generation

About us

Pharmacological Performance Enhancement and the Military

Major Héloïse Goodley

Summary