Background: There is ample evidence to suggest that academic dishonesty remains an area of concern and interest for academic and professional bodies. There is also burgeoning research in the area of moral reasoning and its relevance to the teaching of pharmacy and medicine. Aims: To explore the associations between self-reported incidence of academic dishonesty and ethical reasoning in a professional student body. Methods: Responses were elicited from 433 pharmacy and medicine students. A questionnaire eliciting responses about academic dishonesty (copying, cheating, and collusion) and their decisions regarding an ethical dilemma was distributed. Multivariate analysis procedures were conducted. Results: The findings suggested that copying and collusion may be linked to the way students make ethical decisions. Students more likely to suggest unlawful solutions to the ethical dilemma were more likely to disclose engagement in copying information and colluding with other students. Conclusions: These findings imply that students engaging in academic dishonesty may be using different ethical frameworks. Therefore, employing ethical dilemmas would likely create a useful learning framework for identifying students employing dishonest strategies when coping with their studies. Increasing understanding through dialog about engagement in academic honesty will likely construct positive learning outcomes in the university with implications for future practice.

Background: Cognitive enhancement is the use of prescription stimulant medicines by healthy individuals for nonmedical use in academic settings. Commonly used cognitive enhancers (CEs) include methylphenidate, amphetamines, and modafinil. To understand the motivation to use CEs, it is important to look beyond prevalence and explore the extent to which attitudes, beliefs, and intentions predict the decision to use CEs. Objective: The study aimed to investigate what factors explain the decision to use CEs among tertiary students in New Zealand, using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Methods: Students from the Schools of Pharmacy, Nursing, Medicine, Law, and Accounting at a university in New Zealand were invited to complete a paper-based questionnaire. The questionnaire elicited students' attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control toward illicit use of CEs using TPB. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Results: Response rate was 88.6% (442/499). Students who perceived CE use to be socially and ethically acceptable were more likely to use CEs (odds ratio, OR: 1.56, 95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 1.153–2.105, p = 0.004). Students who were concerned about the health impact of CE use were less likely to use CEs (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.492–0.826, p = 0.001). Students who believed that CE use was approved were more likely to use them (OR: 1.648, CI: 1.193–2.278, p = 0.002). Conclusion: This research supports the notion that the decision to use CEs is not just an autonomous choice that occurs in isolation. Attitudes on the ethical and social acceptability of CE use were more likely to drive the decision to use CEs. The study provides the impetus for an integrative discussion by health care professionals and academics on the impact of attitudes, social norms, and advocates on the decision to use CEs.

The New Zealand government has proposed a new psychoactive substances regime, which will place the onus onto manufacturers to prove that their products pose a low risk of harm, prior to receiving approval which allows the products to be legally manufactured and sold. This is an innovative and unique development in the regulation of emerging psychoactive substances, and offers an alternative response to prohibition. The details of the new regime and how it will operate are now emerging, and this offers an opportunity to critically explore some of the issues related to the proposed new regime and to speculate on some of the outcomes. This paper brings together a group of New Zealand based researchers from a range of disciplines with experience of ‘legal high’ research to discuss this innovative new regime.

Introduction and aims: The non-medical use of prescription stimulants such as methylphenidate, dexamphetamine and modafinil is increasing in popularity within tertiary academic settings. There is a paucity of information on awareness, attitudes, and acceptability by professionals of use in this context. This study aimed to investigate professionals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the use of cognitive enhancers (CEs) in academic settings, and their willingness to use a hypothetical CE. Design and methods: A mail survey was sent to doctors, pharmacists, nurses, accountants and lawyers in New Zealand. These disciplines were chosen as they require professional registration to practice. The questionnaire comprised four sections: (1) demographics, (2) knowledge of CEs, (3) attitudes towards the use of CEs, and (4) willingness to use hypothetical CEs. Results: The response rate was 34.5% (414/1200). Overall, participants strongly disagreed that it was fair to allow university students to use CEs for cognitive enhancement (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,3), or that it is ethical for students without a prescription to use cognitive enhancers for any reason (Mdn = 1, IQR: 1,2). Professions differed in their attitudes towards whether it is ethical for students without a prescription to use CEs for any reason (p = 0.001, H 31.527). Discussion and conclusion: Divergent views and lack of clear consensus within professions and between professionals on the use of CEs have the potential to influence both professionals and students as future professionals. These divergent views may stem from differences in the core values of self-identity as well as extrinsic factors of acceptability within the profession in balancing the elements of opportunity, fairness and authenticity in cognitive enhancement. Further research is required to inform the development of policy and guidelines that are congruent with all professions.