Time for an ethics check!

This technology is generally greeted with excitement and acceptance. Science historian, Donna Haraway suggests that the disabled are the first to praise neural prosthetics. Certainly, there are positive aspects to those who chose to benefit, the joy of hearing again, or getting back mobility in once lifeless limbs. Even preliminary studies show methods such as FDS can greatly benefit blood circulation and muscle regeneration.

However, beyond the material and physical hurdles (scientist struggle to find materials that the body's immune system will not destroy, as most materials deteriorate over time left inside the body), there are other ethical questions that arise:

Some argue that such technologies give unreasonable expectation to the injured. Others argue that societal ideas of 'handicaps' are not handicaps at all (i.e. being born deaf- "everyone wants a slice of the pie, but the pie is rotten!"). Furthermore, the majority of neural prosthetic studies have total dependence on laboratory animals (millions of animals are tortured and killed each year).

Now remember that quality of life part? Patients must undergo several life threatening operations to implant and maintain these devices. Besides the physical strain this causes a person, and the enormous medical bill it creates (up to and beyond the $100,000s, a lifetime on medications and currently a dependance on batteries), it directly violate the first rule of the Hippocratic oath "do no harm."

Not to mention, Neural Prosthetics are big business!



But lets cut to the quick:
Should engineering principles be applied to medicine?