Banning Transhuman Prosthetics

There are some that believe that pursuing research in this area may be wrong. A few concerns toward bionic body parts are that

Prosthetics has always been part of most of our history, and it has come a long way since then. Forms of prosthetics date way back to the Civil War, and has made a lot of progress throughout the years. During the Civil War, many soldiers would have to be amputated everyday to save their lives. For example, in the text “I Will Not Get Out of Heart Yet,” it states that “Soldiers shot in the arm or leg on the battlefield were highly likely to develop potentially fatal infections, and the only way to prevent a painful death was to cut off the damaged body part.” Despite this fact, prosthetics were extremely uncomfortable to wear and were considered “crude contraptions” and “ were usually made of wood or steel --- that were awkward and painful to wear.” Many soldiers did not like having prosthetic limbs, as they were uncomfortable to wear and awkward to move around with.

Scientists have made tremendous advancements in human bioengineering, and have succeeded in providing thousands of infertile women with the possibly of having children with using in vitro fertilization. Furthermore, scientists have discovered ways to cut and paste DNA using the CHRISPR technique, that allows certain inherited diseases to be cut out of an embryo egg, therefore, eliminating ailments that can be passed down through pregnancy. The process of human bioengineering is a spectacular accomplishment for scientists, however, the process should be kept illegal because it is a potentially disastrous practice that can affect the economy, foster care system, and donor’s health.

My passion for the world of Prosthetics and Orthotics was sparked whilst serving with the Military in Afghanistan, where I was witness to the varying array of catastrophic injuries, caused by the conflict. Not only amongst my fellow Service Personnel, but also amongst the local populace.

As modern medicine becomes more advanced, so does the technology used for the practice, as well as the ethics involved for medical decision-making. We have a 3D printer that can print biomaterials (organs, tissues, etc.) and nanotechnology that can be implanted into the body and prevent or treat disease; transhumanism is another one of these medical technological breakthroughs. Transhumanism is the belief that humankind can rise above its current physical and mental limitations by means of science and technology. Some of their goals are to conquer death, improve appearance and sensory capabilities, increase intelligence, defeat vulnerability to harm, and a list of other enhancements. There are a multitude ways in which these goals can be accomplished; genetic engineering, cybernetics, etc. I am going to argue that transhumanism is a practice that should not be commenced because it will lead to the regular/natural human being viewed as less than the transhumanist “post-human”, it will increase the inequities between the rich and the poor, and, because, contrary to popular belief, mortality is good for the human race.

Think of all the things that are taken for granted each and every day because of how accustomed the mind becomes to them; two legs for walking, two eyes from which to see, two ears from which to listen, and a mouth from which to talk. While these abilities may seem basic to most, they mean the world to those who lack these abilities. Thankfully, with advancements in technology and innovation, prosthesis have been introduced and continually improved to give everyone an equal chance at succeeding and enjoying life.

In a world where new technologies are constantly produced, ethical questions are risen. These ethical questions pertain to how these new technologies will benefit or threaten social progress. When discussing the potential of human enhancement technologies, we will consider the effects on health, pre-existing social gaps, and the importance of understanding the means to an end. Each of these topics is essential to our discussion of what constitutes societal progress and if social growth can be achieved in the face of biological intervention.

This is definitely not a protest against the progress of this technology but rather an exploration of the possibility and potential of the future of the human form,where this could take us and in particular the uncharted territory we are stepping into.

There are individuals in our societies, though, who believe that the dignity of life and human nature are not important in the debate of bioethics and enhancements. Fabrice Jotterand, who wrote an article for the American Journal of Bioethics, discussed in his article that bioenhancements do not corrupt the rational and moral structure of human personhood using the definition of dignity of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, which is that “persons have [an] ’intrinsic worth’ or dignity derived from the rational and moral structure of human personhood” (qtd. in Jotterand 46). If anything, Jotterand states, enhancements would improve the rational mind instead of dehumanizing it; augmenting human dignity and respecting life because enhancements are meant to transcend our “biological nature” beyond its human limits and capabilities (46, 48). However, a flaw in Jotterand’s argument is that it entails both the respect for human life and the equality of humans, which should guide biotechnology together (46). The Church declares that in attempting to transcend life, one would break the bonds of our human nature and biology, thus interrupting in the communion of life shared among horizontal, human relationships and the vertical relationship between humanity and God. Contrary to Jotterand’s beliefs, this communion of life would be set apart instead of equal, with discrimination of those with or without enhancements due to finances, location, or other factors. If society cannot end

Imagine yourself waking up with no arms. Trying to do anything would prove difficult: for example eating, drinking, using the restroom. What if it was your legs? An eye? A toe? Life would not be any easier. For some people, this is a reality. Whatever the reason for the absence of their limbs, whether it be disease or injury, there is an attachable solution. Unfortunately, science has yet to find a way to regrow your limbs, but scientists have developed a way to simulate the motions and abilities of an actual appendage. They created prosthetics. These devices can look like real limbs and function very similarly. Prosthetics became an important tool in the recovery process for people with impaired capabilities as they can provide much needed

The Senate is considering a proposal to outlaw human cloning. Two alternative proposals would ban only "reproductive cloning," which would mean explicitly legalizing human cloning but not the implantation of a clone embryo into a womb. Pro-cloners are willing for the most part to outlaw reproductive cloning because it isn't safe, but they oppose a ban on cloning for research and experimentation--known as "therapeutic cloning"--arguing that such a cloning license is necessary to the development of future medical treatments for human ailments. This opposition to a ban on human therapeutic cloning is misinformed.

An option to extending one's life is the ability to replace a damaged or diseased human organ with another human's donor organ through transplantation. Transplantations have always been an option in the past, but because of the ethical hurdles, have not always been easy. With the advances in medicine, come new legal questions to ethics, and the constitutional rights of donors and the recipients. The life saving benefits of organ transplants outweigh the legal and ethical issues involved in the harvesting of cadaver organs or donations from living donors.

The line between operations, drugs, and implants that are seen as therapeutic versus those that are seen as enhancement is still not well defined. Even with the line clearly defined, some take the position that adding technology to our bodies violates what it means to be human. Stating that we will slowly become reliant on these internal devices to the point of no returning to our natural states. The U.N. considers any type of “species altering” to be a crime against humanity . Cyborgs sound like something only seen in science fiction, but addressing whether or not they are human is becoming a relevant issue. While being human is a subjective phrase, natural is defined by Meriam-Webster as “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind” . So whether or not

In prescription, prosthetic limb is a fake gadget that replaces a missing body part. The procedure of making this known as appendage prosthesis. It is a piece of the field of bio mechatronics, the study of utilizing mechanical gadgets with human muscle, skeleton, and sensory systems to support or improve engine control lost by trauma, ailment, or deformity. Prostheses are ordinarily used to supplant parts lost by harm (traumatic) or absent from conception (intrinsic) or to supplement imperfect body parts. Inside the body, manufactured heart valves are in like manner utilization with simulated hearts and lungs seeing less normal utilization. Other therapeutic gadgets and supports that could be considered prosthetics incorporate amplifiers,

Imagine a world where disease was non-existent, long term injuries could be healed in half the time, a world where our life spans could be greatened to an extent never seen before by man. This could be achieved with the cloning of humans, artificial cloning is the next evolutionary step for mankind.Although many would claim human cloning is unethical and dangerous, there are procedures at hand currently that are far from that. The act of human cloning allows for treatment of otherwise incurable diseases, new medical recovery rates, as well as allow technology to advance exponentially.