0011 Bursic 2:00
L02
The Ethical Dilemmas of Bionic Technology
Jennifer Chickola (jlc226@pitt.edu)
Bionic Technology: Have we gone too far?
BIONIC PROSTHESIS INNOVATION
Every day engineers must make hard hitting decisions
regarding their technological and medical breakthroughs.
Throughout their work, engineers are required to follow an
ethical code of conduct that ensures the continued presence of
morals and ethical behavior in a field that is mainly concerned
with the innovations rather than their moral implications.
Within engineering as a whole, biomedical engineering is the
branch of engineering that involves the greatest use of the
engineering code, with its continued advancements in areas
that directly affect people. Innovations in biomedical
engineering such as stem cell research, brain implant
technologies, and prosthetic legs all have major ethical
components along with their scientific and engineering
aspects.
I would like to take a look at the ethical aspects of bionic
technology in prosthetic limbs. Recently, bionic technologies
such as the BiOM prosthetic leg have been able to replicate
the movement and efficiency of a biological leg, making the
biological leg seemingly obsolete [1]. Although it may seem
unlikely, creating a prosthetic leg that functions even more
efficiently than a biological leg is not that far out of reach.
Imagine a scenario where prosthetic legs have been created
that are even more energy efficient than biological legs. In this
scenario, these superhuman bionic legs that I have designed
are about to go on the market for those who have lost a limb.
I have been working with iWalk, the creators of the BiOM,
for many years now and we have finally made a bionic
prosthesis that has surpassed the functionality of the
biological leg. News of these highly energy efficient legs have
been released to the public and now an ethical dilemma that
no one ever expected has arisen; an athlete without any need
for a prosthesis has come to my company expressing interest
in these bionic legs, essentially becoming part cyborg, to
enhance his athletic performance.
If we allow people who don’t need a prosthetic limb to get
a bionic leg, are we saying that technology has overcome the
natural skills we are born with? Is it ethical to let someone get
an amputation to receive a bionic leg just because they have
enough money to pay for the expensive process? We must
seriously address these ethical questions before we continue
with the innovation of new and better bionic prosthetic limbs.
Once these ethical questions have been discussed, it is then
and only then that we can make a decision regarding this
debate of the bionic versus natural leg.
One of the major ethical issues in biomedical engineering
as a whole is the idea that we are creating things that are
beyond the limit of what has evolved for us as a species. It is
extremely important that we address these issues when
dealing with the new bionic prosthetics like the BiOM. With
these new bionic prosthetics, people will be able to function
with a better efficiency than they would with a biological leg.
In a clinical trial for the BiOM, it was proven that amputees
with the bionic prostheses walked at the same exact pace as
people without an amputation [2]. Now imagine a bionic leg
that performs even better than the biological leg. As our
prosthetics become more and more powerful, more people are
going to start wanting these legs. As an engineer, I think it is
necessary to ask if we should be making prosthetics that
function better than what we are biologically given. In the
Code of Ethics for Engineers it states that “engineers shall
hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”
[3]. By allowing anyone to obtain a bionic prosthesis, we as
engineers are not concerning ourselves with the safety of the
public. If someone is willing to have an amputation in order
to make themselves more “perfect”, they are endangering
themselves by subjecting their bodies to unnecessary elective
surgery.
When living in this ever evolving technological world, it
is important to examine our actions before we make any
decisions, such as releasing a bionic leg that is available for
everyone rather than for those who need it. If bionic legs are
able to restore function that is an improvement to what the
amputees had to begin with, than what is to stop everyone
from wanting these prosthetics?
In the Biomedical
Engineering Society Code of Ethics it states that engineers
should “consider the larger consequences of their work in
regard to cost, availability, and delivery of their health
care”[4]. If bionic legs are made available to the public, the
use of the prostheses would need to be regulated to ensure that
people who don’t need prosthetics would be prohibited from
buying them. From an economic standpoint, this extra
demand could drive the cost of these bionic legs up due to the
increase in medical costs, making it much more expensive for
those who actually need them. If engineers were to consider
the consequences of their actions, they would see that making
bionic legs available to anyone could severely hurt the
population of amputees that actually need them.
TECHNOLOGY
The Science Behind the BiOM
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
University of
2014-10-28
Pittsburgh,
Swanson
School
of
1Engineering
Jennifer Chickola
Without truly understanding the technical aspect of bionic
prosthetics such as the BiOM, it is impossible to make an
informed decision regarding the continued innovation of these
prosthetics. In a situation where people such as athletes who
do not need but want these bionic legs, it’s crucial that we
understand what exactly is being innovated. The BiOM is a
great step in the right direction towards a bionic leg that
exceeds the ability of a biological leg in that we have already
improved walking speeds, normalized gait, and relieved a lot
of the pain normally felt by an amputee. [1] As well as
relieving the pain of the amputee, the BiOM has also shown
great improvements in helping fight osteoarthritis in
amputees. With advanced push off bionic technology called
Bionic Propulsion, the BiOM has greatly relieved the stress
and joint pain in its wearer, allowing it to “prevent and treat
osteoarthritis in the amputee.” [5] The innovative Bionic
Propulsion used in the BiOM to create an energy efficient
prosthetic limb has shown that it is entirely possible to create
a leg that not only replicates the biological leg, but to make
one that surpasses a biological legs normal capabilities.
With this great leap in bionic innovation shown in the
creation of the BiOM, it is clear that engineers have a very
important decision to make.
Should this amazing
technological innovation be made available to the public, or
will it only open a world of possibilities for those who don’t
need the prosthetics? In an ideal world, people who don’t
need the prosthetics would not want these bionic limbs.
However, we live in a world where perfection is encouraged
to the point of insanity. Imagine an athlete who has almost
qualified for the Olympics for several years now, but just
doesn’t have what it takes to make it. It doesn’t seem entirely
crazy for this athlete to do whatever it takes for him to make
the cut, even if that meant getting a bionic leg that has the
potential to make him the best he could be. Ethically, we must
look at this situation and make a decision regarding the
athlete’s right to buy the bionic limb. Does he have the right
to buy a bionic limb and electively get an amputation solely
because he has the money to pay for it? Is it fair that this
athlete could potentially be taking away a bionic limb from an
amputee that actually needs it? In a way, this ethical situation
is almost like a bribe for an engineer. Like a bribe, this athlete
is willing to pay the engineering company whatever it takes
to get the bionic leg. Ultimately, only my coworkers and I
would be able to make the final decision regarding the
athlete’s right to get the leg. It is of utmost importance that we
don’t let our desire for more money cloud our judgment when
making this decision. [6] If we let just anyone get a bionic leg,
it clearly shows that we are more focused on the money than
the implications of our actions.
As well as examining the technical and ethical aspects of
bionic limbs and prosthetics in general, it is also important to
examine examples of how prosthetics have been able to help
people succeed in our daily life. For example, this past
summer Olympics, South African runner Oscar Pistorius
attempted to run in the 400 meter race. Although he did not
win, he made history by becoming the first ever double
amputee to participate in the Olympics. Many people have
wondered if it was Pistorius’ carbon fiber artificial limbs that
allowed him to run so fast, but Pistorius has maintained that
they gave him no extra advantage in the race. [7] Although
Pistorius didn’t actually win, his ability to race with able
bodied people at the Olympic level has gotten people talking
about the innovations in prosthetics and their impact on our
everyday life. We can all confidently say that in the past, our
prosthetic technology was not close to the same level of
prosthetics Pistorius used to run in the race. Where will we
draw the line on how people with prosthetics are chosen to
run in races such as the Olympics and how will we know if
their legs are a hindrance or a factor in their success?
Although these advancements in modern technology are
amazing, it is important to look at their impact on society.
Making bionic legs that are more efficient than biological legs
can lead to serious consequences that we need to address
before continuing their development.
Mass Market for Bionic Prosthetics
Along with Oscar Pistorius, there are many other
amputees around the world that use bionic technology to
improve their daily lives. One such amputee is Bertolt Meyer,
an outspoken advocate for the regulation of bionic technology
in this new era of technological advancement. Meyer is often
called the “bionic man” with his state of the art high
functioning bionic arm. Because of Meyer’s experience with
the bionic technology, he often gives talks on the ethical
implications of bionic technology in prosthetics. He even
went as far as to say, “We are reaching the point where people
with artificial limbs may have an advantage. It they start to
appeal to everyone, a mass market will develop.” [8] If we
keep advancing the abilities of bionic prosthetics, we will
enter an era where people with enough money will be able to
enhance their athletic and overall performance by altering
their biological bodies. This in itself is scary to think about.
In a society that allows anyone to buy a bionic leg if they have
the means to afford it, we are essentially saying that we value
technology more than the natural athletic ability we are born
with.
THE ETHICAL DEBATE
REAL WORLD EXAMPLES
Oscar Pistorius: “Fastest Man on No Legs”
To get another engineering perspective on this
controversial ethical problem, I asked my mother who is an
engineer for Lockheed Martin. She believes that artificially
improving your athletic abilities should not be a valid option
2
Jennifer Chickola
as prosthetics in general should be used purely for improving
the lives of those who need the help. [9] Although bionic legs
have the capability to artificially improve people who don’t
need improving, they are able to truly help people that
actually need helping. It is for this reason that it is so hard to
come to a conclusion on bionic technology. By getting my
mother’s opinion on the dilemma, I was able to take a step
back and look at the ethical side rather than only the technical
benefits of bionic prosthetics.
Along with my mother’s opinion on the topic, I decided to
get an opinion on the topic of bionic technology from
someone who doesn’t have any expertise in the field of
engineering at all: my younger cousin Erin. Even though it
may seem out of the ordinary to ask someone for an opinion
that has no prior experience in engineering, I feel that it is very
important to look at a situation from many different angles to
really grasp the ethical crisis. Erin is an avid soccer player, so
her first complaint was that it wouldn’t be fair to have to play
against a goalie that is medically superior to someone with a
purely biological leg. [10] As well as it not being fair, Erin’s
other biggest complaint was that it would be scary to live near
someone that is essentially party cyborg. Getting Erin’s
opinion allowed me to see how someone outside of the field
of engineering views these bionic prosthetics. Her interview
was what helped me formulate my final thoughts on bionic
technology and its role in our society.
RECCOMENDATION FOR FUTURE
ENGINEERS
For future engineers in an ethical crisis such as mine, I
suggest that they always stay true to what their gut tells them.
If they originally think that a specific technology or situation
is unethical or immoral, it most likely is. In my situation with
the advancements in bionic technology and prosthetics, I
believed from the beginning that it was wrong for able bodied
people to get unnecessary prosthetic limbs. Once I read
different ethical case studies, thought about the consequences
of bionic prosthetics in society, and got some outside opinions
from both an engineering perspective and non-engineering
perspective, I was able to formulate my own thoughts on the
issue. Although the athlete may have the means to buy a
bionic leg, in no way does that make it morally acceptable to
get an elective amputation to improve athletic ability.
I believe that by allowing people to get bionic prostheses
unnecessarily, we are saying that technology has won. As well
as being ethically wrong due to the fact that we would be
saying technology has surpassed nature, selling legs to those
who don’t need them would be morally wrong because this
extra demand would raise the price of the prosthetic’s. By
raising the price of prosthetics to meet the demand shown by
the market, we would be raising the price of prosthetic’s for
those who truly need them. In a world that is so obsessed with
money, sometimes it’s important to take a step back and
decide if it’s more important to make more money or if it is
more important to improve the lives of people who truly need
help.
Once engineers realize the impacts that their
innovations have on the world, it is crucial that they put
themselves second and act in the best interest of the society as
a whole.
REFERENCES
[1] (2014). “Personal Bionics.” BiOM: Personal Bionics.
(website). http://www.biom.com/patients/biom-t2-system/
[2] H. Herr. A. Grabowski. (2011). “Bionic ankle—foot
prosthesis normalizes walking gait for persons with leg
amputation.” The Royal Society if Biological Sciences.
(article).
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/07/
07/rspb.2011.1194.full.pdf
[3] (2014). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society
of
Professional
Engineers.
(website).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[4] (2004). “Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics.”
Biomedical
Engineering
Society.
(website).
http://bmes.org/files/2004%20Approved%20%20Code%20o
f%20Ethics(2).pdf
[5]D. Morgenroth. A. Gellhorn. P. Suri. (2012).
“Osteoarthritis in the disabled population: a mechanical
perspective.” National Center for Biotechnology Information.
(article). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22632698
[6] (2006). J. Hanzlik. “Handling Bribes.” Onlineethics.org.
(case
study).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/encryption2.as
px?layoutChange=Print&PS=20&Pl=0&TC=0
[7] (2012). “Oscar Pistorius and the Ethics of Prosthetics.”
SaportaReport.
(article).
http://saportareport.com/leadership/technology/2012/08/13/o
scar-pistorius-and-the-ethics-of-prosthetics/
[8] V. Thorpe. (2013). “’Bionic Man’ warns of ethical
minefield.” Guardian News and Media Limited. (article).
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/29/bionicman-ethical-debate-futurefest
[9] J. Chickola. (2022, June 12). Conversation.
[10] E. Munder (2022, June 4). Email Correspondence.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
“Design/Build—a TE/STI Relationship.” National Institute
for
Engineering
Ethics.
(case
study).
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
“Ethics Case Studies in Biodesign.” Stanford Biodesign. (case
study).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/6outsideustrial.
jsp
3
Jennifer Chickola
(2010). F. Jotterand. “Human Dignity and Transhumanism:
DO Anthro-Technological Devices Have Moral Status?” The
American Journal of Bioethics (article).
(2007). E. McGee. G. Maguire. “Becoming Borg to Become
Immortal: Regulating Brain Implant Technologies.”
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. (article).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this space to thank all of those
who have helped me in the process of writing this paper.
Thank you Marissa Wolfe for helping me brainstorm ideas for
the layout of my paper. I would also like to thank my mom
for reading over my paper. Finally, I would like to thank
Anne Schwan, a librarian at Benedum, for being so patient
with me and helping me find sources for my paper. Without
your help, I am not sure if I would have been able to find all
of my sources, or know how many of each source I actually
needed.
4
Jennifer Chickola
5