Medical ethics and cybernetics

Sun, 2010-09-12 14:51

#2

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Could you be more specific? Are you talking about voluntary participation in medical research involving cybernetic implants? To a degree, I feel like transhumanism means, as long as the ego is recompensed for any damage to his body, and the experiment does no serious or long-term harm to the ego, everything is go. A morph is a morph; it's replaceable, an object. The ego is what is important.

Sun, 2010-09-12 15:56

#3

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about voluntary participation in medical research involving cybernetic implants? To a degree, I feel like transhumanism means, as long as the ego is recompensed for any damage to his body, and the experiment does no serious or long-term harm to the ego, everything is go. A morph is a morph; it's replaceable, an object. The ego is what is important.

Cybernetic implants are not something that exist yet, and one of the barriers to creating them is IRB limitations on human subject research. First and foremost, surgical alteration of a human being away from human norm is illegal (at least in the US), regardless of the subjects desires concerning the alteration. Because of this, subjects volunteering for cybernetics research, even if they give informed consent, may not be a legal or ethical population to study. Since cybernetic implants require elective surgery, the medical ethics involved must be addressed, and the ethics decided upon must be defensible to an IRB, and to a courtroom. From my use of italics, you might get the point that fucking around the edges of medical ethics in this field is a really bad idea, and can carry some harsh jail sentences. In addition to the amount of trouble the researcher can get into, the research institute that allowed them do this research can get shut down, permanently. The ethical question I want to address is the use of extreme body modification enthusiasts as research subjects. There are people out there that are willing to perform some very heavy modifications to themselves, and because of the legal structure surrounding elective surgeries modifying someone away from human norm, the body modifier often end up using a shady surgeon, but only if they are lucky. If they aren't lucky, they will either do it themselves, or have a "cutter" try to perform the operation. These surgeries can be extremely dangerous in regards to infection and blood loss, which is made much more likely given the general lack of sterilization used by anyone without access to a surgical ward. As there is precisely zero sympathy for body modification in the US courts, there is no chance that a trained doctor will be involved unless there is some very strong external reason for them to be. Given that this population will perform their surgeries (up to and including amputating limbs) regardless of access to medical facilities, is it ethical to use them as a research population for cybernetic implants given that their health risks drop dramatically when they are receiving proper medical care? I really don't have an answer for that, so I'm hoping someone here has some idea of what area of medical ethics I should be looking in to. Basically, I'm interested in cybernetics research, but I'm not even sure what subject population canexists. This may be something that medical ethics and laws simply forbid.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Mon, 2010-09-13 11:47

#4

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

You're talking solely about the present day though, not in the EP setting. Important clarification :) It sounds like your question comes down to, "some people want some crazy medical procedures. It's illegal. Many will seek to do it by alternative, highly dangerous means to get around this. Would making it legal be more ethical because it guarantees people receive proper health care?" It's not a new question. That's the idea behind needle exchanges and has been a major argument for legalizing abortion. In the *US* it probably won't change, but it does seem like there are other countries which are more willing to approach it from a teleological viewpoint as opposed to deontological.

Mon, 2010-09-13 14:27

#5

King Shere King Shere's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Isn't there some flaws in the premise, that's its illegal in the US and that "cybernetic implants" doesn't exist.

Quote:
A bionic eye implant that could help restore the sight of millions of blind people could be available to patients within two years. US researchers have been given the go-ahead to implant the prototype device in 50 to 75 patients. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6368089.stm

http://io9.com/391064/where-are-my-cybernetic-implants Prosthetics & Neuro prosthetics would seem the areas of medical research & those fields of medicine probably have loads of books regarding the ethics of self mutilation and or augmentation. http://io9.com/391064/where-are-my-cybernetic-implants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amputation

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/tc_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/exh_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [i]"To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult."[/i] Plutarch

Mon, 2010-09-13 18:03

#6

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr] Neural prosthesis are not illegal in the US, and cybernetics don't exist yet because there is still lots of research to do concerning long term effects of prosthesis. This is true, and the medical ethics of using patients with injuries that can be helped by neural prosthesis for research into neural prosthesis is clear. The injured seeking a return of function are considered to be the correct, ethical, and most generalizable population to use for testing cybernetics (such as they are). This research, as far as I can tell, is limited to prostheses for arms and legs, and there are some efforts going into eyes and ears, and even some neat research showing that you can use a patch of skin on someone's back or tongue to give them a new perception channel by having a machine translate signals like ultrasound into an interpretable sensation. My question is less about the extreme body modifications of amputation (and others), and more about transdermal implants. You've likely seen articles about "telepathic computer interfaces", where the subject is wearing an electrode net to pick up on scalp capacitance and inductance, allowing people to learn to move a pointer on a screen by thought. One of the reasons this application hasn't become very popular is how much of a pain in the ass it is to get an electrode net on. There is gooey crap, the electrodes need to be in the correct place, and you need to try not to dislodge them. This is not something Jane Q Public will want to put on in the morning, or ever. This can be solved (my hypothesis) by implanting electrodes and magnets under the skin as the base for the transdermal piercing. This allows the electrode net to snap into place, and has the added benefit of allowing the system to cancel out the electromagnetic signals on the scalp (the usual target), and get cleaner signals from deeper into the brain. However, I can't do this, as it jumps the borderline between "piercing" and "surgery" at the point that you adding an electromagnetic oscillator under someones scalp. A quick disclaimer: I'm not planning on doing any of this. This is an academic question, not an "academic (*wink, *nudge)" question.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Mon, 2010-09-13 19:09

#7

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
Cybernetic implants are not something that exist yet

Too late http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_l7SY_ngI

Quote:
First and foremost, surgical alteration of a human being away from human norm is illegal (at least in the US), regardless of the subjects desires concerning the alteration.

Last time I saw California was doing fine, or people like Samppa von Cyborg http://images.hugi.is/hudflur/143034.jpg The biomodification subculture is a small fringe, but seems to be growing(of course in the shadow of larger and sanctioned plastic surgery and other beautification medicine)

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Mon, 2010-09-13 20:20

#8

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_l7SY_ngI

Does anybody here on the forums know Kevin Warwick? I see he worked at Oxford for at least a while. Anyway, if anyone does, tell him I am available to work if he would have me.

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Last time I saw California was doing fine, or people like Samppa von Cyborg http://images.hugi.is/hudflur/143034.jpg

Yes, the spikes he has on demonstrate the type of piercing I want to use. The problem comes in when I'm using that piercing to implant an active electromagnet under the skin over either occipital lobe.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Tue, 2010-09-14 08:33

#9

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Is there a cyberethicist in the house? Actually, there is, if you count me (thinking about enhancement ethics is actually part of my job).

root wrote:
The ethical question I want to address is the use of extreme body modification enthusiasts as research subjects. There are people out there that are willing to perform some very heavy modifications to themselves, and because of the legal structure surrounding elective surgeries modifying someone away from human norm, the body modifier often end up using a shady surgeon, but only if they are lucky.

I'm actually trying to finish a paper on this, so I would love to draw on ideas from this community while sharing what I know. Basically, research ethics is very strict these days: even if the subject has informed consent (i.e. understands what is going to happen and agrees to it) there are limits to what you can do. There are some things nobody has a right to do, even to themselves. Exactly what those things are and who gets to decide is of course the real issue. Unfortunately this gets decided by institutional politics and by amateur ethicists most of the time. However, one of the key rules used in ethical evaluations is that the benefits (to science or mankind in general) should outweigh the risks to the test subject, with a heavy bias towards the test subject. This is messy enough when thinking about testing a new drug or doing a small surgical experiment on healthy people (there are likely big medical benefits), but when thinking about body modification where the benefits are subjective, possibly aesthetic or spiritual, the system simply doesn't work at all. Meanwhile, if you are doing performance art you are allowed to crawl on broken glass or hang yourself in fish-hooks for all you want (just don't get arrested for public indecency). Now, if one were to use the bodymodifiation enthusiasts as a natural experiment - they would be doing X anyway, so just study what happens - things might work. It would still be a tough proposal to get through, since it is quite likely that ethics boards dislike this kind of implicit endorsement of a practice. I know some researchers who got a proposal rejected where they wanted to follow people who use enhancement drugs. But I think this could be done, especially if the subject is not too charged (drugs and bodymods are unfortunately tricky here).

root wrote:
Given that this population will perform their surgeries (up to and including amputating limbs) regardless of access to medical facilities, is it ethical to use them as a research population for cybernetic implants given that their health risks drop dramatically when they are receiving proper medical care?

Putting on my consequentialist ethicist hat: yes, I think that with the right safeguards this is ethically OK and actually the moral thing to do. As you say, they would be doing it anyway and this way they might get better medical supervision and intervention if something goes wrong. Mankind will learn something from them, further justifying the private risks they take. However, the last sentence also suggests the problematic side: it might not be a good thing to encourage risky experiments even if they are useful. Personally I think we could do with a lot more risk willingness across society, but there is a risk that by doing this kind of study people are encouraged to do things they rationally shouldn't do. However, this can be balanced by some informed consent and access controls: if you want to be in the study you better show that you are sane and know what you are getting into. The real problem is when offering something new. If the bodymod community are putting in RFIDs (which they do) it is not as much of an enticement as if you could get a Warwick-like neural implant but only through my research project. Certainly bodymod people would like to have this implant, but they would not be doing it otherwise. That seems to move things back to the more usual biomedical experimentation ethics situation (you have volunteers for an experiment) rather than the natural experiment (they would be doing it anyway). This would likely make the experiment less likely to get approval.

—

Tue, 2010-09-14 22:08

#10

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Arenamontanus wrote:
If the bodymod community are putting in RFIDs (which they do) it is not as much of an enticement as if you could get a Warwick-like neural implant but only through my research project. Certainly bodymod people would like to have this implant, but they would not be doing it otherwise. That seems to move things back to the more usual biomedical experimentation ethics situation (you have volunteers for an experiment) rather than the natural experiment (they would be doing it anyway). This would likely make the experiment less likely to get approval.

I have heard it said by people I respect, that if you have to think about whether an action is ethical or not, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I respect this, but I can't seem to do it. I have to play with it and see where the edge is (a trait which annoys the hell out of everyone I know), but once I've learned the edge I try to figure out how far back need to step before people stop looking at me like I sprouted a third ear. To formalize my stepping back, let's look at the subset of piercings that don't count as body-modding. I know that pierced ears are generally considered acceptable, but I know it is only a generality because my family was displeased with my choices when I got one. A few years later, they were very disappointed when I punched a hole in my tongue. The young whippersnappers these days seem to have things mounted on their skin (or eyes), so I guess my experience was an outlier. So now my question becomes "what is the limit of acceptable piercings?"

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Wed, 2010-09-15 03:05

#11

Rhyx

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

I have admit I have a bit of a libertarian bent that points to personal responsibility for actions so at the risk of sounding Extropian if you sign a paper, not under duress (mental or physical) you should be able to do whatever you would like provided you hurt no one else. That's my viewpoint for better or worst. But Root you have a terrific point when you point out the evolution of the body art you have: My father is 87 years old, and back in his day (actually back as early as in the mid 80's really) a male having earrings was simply not done because of societal mores and you ask many baby boomers and they still look at you weird if you have an earring. My point is this one, it sometimes seems like ethics as well as morals sometimes only serves not the protection of individuals but to maintain a status quo. Morality and laws seem to serve the government which is notoriously reactionary. A sort of ethical consensus as tyranny of the majority if you will. So again in my viewpoint the people who dare and are on the cutting edge of science are always stuck lagging behind those who wish to preserve the status quo in order to keep the power balance as is. Therefore I believe that ethics and morals are actually tools to intentionally slow down progress as to not create too sudden power shifts. I'll point to the whole research on stem cells and cloning debacle. People are dying from heart disease left and right and yet stem cell research which has paradigm shifting possibilities by either cloning hearts directly from stem cells or growing clones to give us all the organs that we will ever need is still taboo in many part of the world, despite the undeniable benefits of such research. I find this fearful way of thinking it very frustrating because the values of the lowest common denominator are forced upon us until they catch up. As for what you want to do Root (although you haven't told us exactly what your plan was?) I would say that if you could get a psychiatrist to vouch for you after giving you a mental examination (and questioning you about your motivation for whatever project you have in mind) it would lend a sturdy hand to your ambitions if only because he can be called as an expert witness after the fact if any inquiries come up. Here's hoping it won't come up, but we live in a litigation happy world.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Wed, 2010-09-15 09:40

#12

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Rhyx wrote:
As for what you want to do Root (although you haven't told us exactly what your plan was?) I would say that if you could get a psychiatrist to vouch for you after giving you a mental examination (and questioning you about your motivation for whatever project you have in mind) it would lend a sturdy hand to your ambitions if only because he can be called as an expert witness after the fact if any inquiries come up. Here's hoping it won't come up, but we live in a litigation happy world.

Yea, that seems like a worse case scenario. I'm not planning on getting any body modification, and my psychiatrist finds my project interesting and amusing, so I'm probably pretty ok as far as that is concerned. The problem is that I can't just go ahead and do whatever I want, because I do not possess the resources to complete my project without institutional support, and that relies upon an IRB's approval. The reason that I started out by discussing the heavy body modification crowd isn't because my project involves that heavy of a modification, but because I'm exploring the ethics involved, and that requires finding the extremes. I am now looking at acceptable piercings to see what society considers acceptable and normal to see if my project actually falls outside of acceptable or not. If it is fully acceptable, I'm golden, but if not, I need to be able to fully defend the ethics to a board of experts responsible for making sure my project doesn't get an entire universities research shut down. I may think my idea is neat, but in no way does it balance against an entire universities research, so I'd rather play it safe. Also, people look at me weird when I start talking about things that are borderline ethical, so I'd like to not be near that border. I am being coy about my project, yes, and I also lied earlier when I said this was entirely academic. I'm a monster like that, I guess. This is mostly because I'm not done designing it, and having the design reviewed by people who know better than me for functionality. I hope to talk with some experts in the next few days to see if what I've come up with is actually feasible, or just some crack-pot idea every other slightly crazy futurist has tried to make. I am also excited about it, and worried that I am overblowing the potential effects it can have, as my experience in the world of product development is currently null. But if the design works, and the ethics are sound, I will post about it, as I feel I owe it to this community. I am pretty certain that I never would have thought it up if it weren't for spending my summer here chatting about transhumanism, and people here may be the most likely to appreciate it.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Wed, 2010-09-15 11:17

#13

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
I have heard it said by people I respect, that if you have to think about whether an action is ethical or not, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

This is why I avoid thinking about ethics. You seem to be going down two different paths - what is socially acceptable (which, funny enough, is defined by 'what wasn't socially acceptable last year, but people did anyway'), and what is morally acceptable. What is morally acceptable in regards to one's own body, when that individual is a healthy, mentally balanced adult, I would think should be fairly liberally defined. But I would definitely also fall into the Extropian camp there.

Wed, 2010-09-15 12:12

#14

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
I have heard it said by people I respect, that if you have to think about whether an action is ethical or not, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I respect this, but I can't seem to do it. I have to play with it and see where the edge is (a trait which annoys the hell out of everyone I know), but once I've learned the edge I try to figure out how far back need to step before people stop looking at me like I sprouted a third ear.

You sound like us ethicists. I usually define morality as your code of behaviour and ethics as you thinking about what morality to select and why (as well as meta-questions like what is a good way of doing this, whether it is possible at all and whether there really is a best morality). Most people use a run-of-the-mill morality largely guided by intuitions: when they are in a situation where they notice that something is odd it is usually a sign that their morality is not working as it should. Usually a hasty retreat occurs. Getting into ethical thinking means that you run a serious risk of reaching conclusions people find weird. But if you are confident in your thinking, this might be a way to actually reach *better* moral systems than the ones they are using. Of course, ethicists are known to have somewhat loose morals. Check out http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/EthicsBooks.htm http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzAbs/Ethicists.htm

Quote:
So now my question becomes "what is the limit of acceptable piercings?"

This is in practice a cultural issue, where various groups try to define the limits. But you can also apply ethical principles to it. For example, I would argue based on my past writings that you have a profound right to alter your body as long as 1) you have informed consent, 2) do not harm anybody by it. I might put in caveats like that it would be irrational for you to desire something that seriously harms you, so you cannot correctly invoke your morphological freedom to get it. More moderate bioethicists might invoke principles of autonomy balanced versus beneficience (will the piercing really make you happier?), vulnerability (are you sure *you* want this, maybe you are getting pressured by your peers?) and other principles. While a more conservative brand would give arguments based on human dignity (eurgh). In the end you will get a spectrum of opinions, some arguments that convince the right people, and this will affect what people let you do. I find it interesting to see that the BME people were generally rather revolted by uvula piercings, since they are mainly dangerous. Note that the ethical limits of piercings and other modifications are separate from the practical limits. If you are heavily tattooed and go to Japan you will be treated in a different way: there is a certain cost to it, but possibly a bearable cost. If you get a swastika tattoo in your forehead you will likely suffer rather strong prejudices on the job market and elsewhere - but you might be entirely autonomous in choosing it.

—

Wed, 2010-09-15 12:18

#15

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Rhyx wrote:
I have admit I have a bit of a libertarian bent that points to personal responsibility for actions so at the risk of sounding Extropian if you sign a paper, not under duress (mental or physical) you should be able to do whatever you would like provided you hurt no one else. That's my viewpoint for better or worst.

Completely agree (and I am a card-carrying Extropian :-) ) Although there are devils in the details, of course. How to handle pressures to get an enhancement your employer strongly hints will affect your future career? What to do with prepersons and children, who might need to get certain changes early in order to grow into them but it will affect their person? And so on.

Quote:
My point is this one, it sometimes seems like ethics as well as morals sometimes only serves not the protection of individuals but to maintain a status quo. Morality and laws seem to serve the government which is notoriously reactionary. A sort of ethical consensus as tyranny of the majority if you will.

Nah, there is a difference between the common morality found in a society (which is always going to be lagging compared to the cutting edge, so it is always a bit conservative) and ethics (which is usually done by intellectuals who might be going off in any direction - right now I think the fraction of bioethicists in favour of human enhancement is far, far higher than the fraction of normal people). Morality is part of the social fabric and that is self-reinforcing - cultures that are not self-reinforcing soon mutate to some other culture.

—

Wed, 2010-09-15 12:22

#16

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
I am now looking at acceptable piercings to see what society considers acceptable and normal to see if my project actually falls outside of acceptable or not. If it is fully acceptable, I'm golden, but if not, I need to be able to fully defend the ethics to a board of experts responsible for making sure my project doesn't get an entire universities research shut down. ... This is mostly because I'm not done designing it, and having the design reviewed by people who know better than me for functionality.

Sounds like a sensible and responsible strategy. Good luck with it! Note that this kind of planning is evidence of rational thinking and seeking informed consent.

—

Wed, 2010-09-15 15:50

#17

Extrasolar Angel Extrasolar Angel's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Quote:
2) do not harm anybody by it.

How do you define harm? Is it only physical harm ? Or mental/psychological harm counted as well? For example if you have a tatoo that shows a private person performing sex with you and the tatoo is visible, does the person offended have the rigth to demand from court the removal of such tatoo?

—

[I]Raise your hands to the sky and break the chains. With transhumanism we can smash the matriarchy together.[/i]

Wed, 2010-09-15 18:23

#18

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Extrasolar Angel wrote:
Quote:
2) do not harm anybody by it.
How do you define harm? Is it only physical harm ? Or mental/psychological harm counted as well? For example if you have a tatoo that shows a private person performing sex with you and the tatoo is visible, does the person offended have the rigth to demand from court the removal of such tatoo?

Note that legal rules do not necessarily correspond to moral or ethical principles: I suspect wearing a sexual tattoo openly in a prudish country might break decency laws, even if most people would agree people have a right to have bad taste tattoos on their bodies. Ah, harm principles. Physical harm is obviously a no-no, except that there are various special cases (the doctor operating on an unconscious patient, self defence etc.) The real mess is psychological harm. Most liberal rights systems attempt to balance individual rights against each other, and that tends to come down pretty strongly on the side of liberty when it comes to psychological harm - free press and freedom of religion are important, while our desire not to be offended is pretty secondary. More communitarian views think the good of the society should be counted somehow, and that might be a reason to ban enhancements that cause psychological harm to others. In the case of the dirty tattoo it could simply be regarded as an insult or form of defamation, handled through normal courtcases. It might be problematic for the judge to demand its removal, but he could increase the damages paid to compensate for that. An interesting case of psychological harm due to an enhancement is one that overturns cherished beliefs of the victim. If I upload myself, I might seriously damage the worldview of dualists who think there is something special about the human biological form. And people do get upset about the prospect of life extension since many have spent an inordinate amount of effort to tell themselves that ageing is fine and natural.

—

Wed, 2010-09-15 21:31

#19

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr] I just finished explaining my concept to my family. That was...unpleasant. I wasn't able to find my subject expert today, so I just kept up my literature review, and I'm growing more convinced that this will work. Even though I'm pretty sure it will work the way I want it to, that conversation with my family makes me think I should be more worried about an IRB. Hell, I shouldn't be worrying about the IRB yet, as I still have to convince a professor to accept it and go champion it to the hospital. Conservative is a word without enough force to describe he hospital, and I need to convince the hospital to allow a surgeon to work on this before I can even try to convince the IRB. I think I might be well and truly fucked. Here's another ethics question that is welling up from frustration and anger. If I am denied by all of institutions here, is it ethically unacceptable for me to just dump the concept design on the wide internets? That effectively means the body modification crowd would be the ones testing it out on themselves, without the benefit of clean surgery, and with no oversight or validated data. That's probably not ok, is it?

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Thu, 2010-09-16 04:38

#20

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
Here's another ethics question that is welling up from frustration and anger. If I am denied by all of institutions here, is it ethically unacceptable for me to just dump the concept design on the wide internets? That effectively means the body modification crowd would be the ones testing it out on themselves, without the benefit of clean surgery, and with no oversight or validated data. That's probably not ok, is it?

My view is that the BM crowd is actually quite responsible on average. If they were 100% reliable there would not be a problem whatsoever in my view, since they would be acting with informed consent and rational risk assessment, if with somewhat bad resources. The ethical problem would be the flaky ones. Is your idea so easy to do that they could likely do it if they wanted to, and is it so hard to come up with that they would not ever do it without you pointing it out? In the unlikely case both things are true, then you may have an ethical problem.

—

Thu, 2010-09-16 09:21

#21

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Arenamontanus wrote:
Is your idea so easy to do that they could likely do it if they wanted to, and is it so hard to come up with that they would not ever do it without you pointing it out? In the unlikely case both things are true, then you may have an ethical problem.

It is unlikely, but it happens to be true in this case. I have an unusual set of knowledge, even if I can't claim to be an expert in anything. I'll out myself a bit and tell you that I am an undergraduate engineering student with a previous degree in cognitive psychology. While this isn't the rarest knowledge set in the world, it is locally unique to myself and my lab partner. It is also quite possible that the idea isn't as easy as I think, that I am simply wrong, arrogant, and delusional. This would not surprise me, and wouldn't be the first time one of my ideas was flaky bullshit. Delusions of grandeur seems to be a danger that comes with being half-trained in every subject I possess.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Thu, 2010-09-16 10:45

#22

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]
Arenamontanus wrote:
Is your idea so easy to do that they could likely do it if they wanted to, and is it so hard to come up with that they would not ever do it without you pointing it out? In the unlikely case both things are true, then you may have an ethical problem.
It is unlikely, but it happens to be true in this case. I have an unusual set of knowledge, even if I can't claim to be an expert in anything. I'll out myself a bit and tell you that I am an undergraduate engineering student with a previous degree in cognitive psychology. While this isn't the rarest knowledge set in the world, it is locally unique to myself and my lab partner. It is also quite possible that the idea isn't as easy as I think, that I am simply wrong, arrogant, and delusional. This would not surprise me, and wouldn't be the first time one of my ideas was flaky bullshit. Delusions of grandeur seems to be a danger that comes with being half-trained in every subject I possess.

But life wouldn't be worth living without those delusions, right? I cherish mine. And it is true that just a bit of interdisciplinarity is enough to make some pretty surprising connections (I am applying reliability theory to epistemology and some auction theory to ethics, for example). However, we should not overestimate how easy it is to go from an idea to an actual implementation/implantation. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but the energy to implement them is rare. Even when it is something simple like a magnetic vision implant it took the involved people a while to do (and then they got some hard-won experience with handling the body environment). So by all means, discuss it with people who understand implants and implantation. And materials people and even ethicists.

—

Thu, 2010-09-16 10:55

#23

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Arenamontanus wrote:
However, we should not overestimate how easy it is to go from an idea to an actual implementation/implantation. Ideas are a dime a dozen, but the energy to implement them is rare. Even when it is something simple like a magnetic vision implant it took the involved people a while to do (and then they got some hard-won experience with handling the body environment). So by all means, discuss it with people who understand implants and implantation. And materials people and even ethicists.

The warning about overestimating the ease of implementation is sound, and has stopped a number of my ideas in the past. With this one, I don't expect to be able to do it next week, but I'm hoping to use it for my senior project. I have a year before I'm even supposed to start on that, but I think I'll need the extra time to deal with things like an IRB that are not normally something an engineering student has to worry about. The magnetic vision implant, and their difficulty finding a surgeon to perform it, is why I am expecting a great deal of static on this project. Materials, implants, and implanting are things I think my research has covered, but I'm not quite so silly as to trust my own efforts without running them past experts. As far as ethicists, I sort of thought I was consulting one.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Thu, 2010-09-16 12:20

#24

Rhyx

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Quote:
Here's another ethics question that is welling up from frustration and anger. If I am denied by all of institutions here, is it ethically unacceptable for me to just dump the concept design on the wide internets? That effectively means the body modification crowd would be the ones testing it out on themselves, without the benefit of clean surgery, and with no oversight or validated data. That's probably not ok, is it?

Oh Root! I think you're pretty hard on yourself. My folks don't really understand about 70% of what I do. For the most part my parents understand trade and cold hard cash while personally I'm already starting to live in a kind of Rep economy. It's more to say that most of the time the decisions we make in our own lives are sometimes a direct response to what we consider are mistakes our parents do. So don't worry too much about them not seeming to understand, mine don't and I'm still quite happy and fulfilled. Now for the part about releasing your bod mod into the wild. I don't think it would be that bad because it's not like you're sitting in a basement somewhere giving unwilling people cyberimplants and watching them writhe in agony while taking down notes. What you have is a concept and by putting it on the internet you should just consider it peer review. If people go out and do it, it becomes their responsibility. All you are doing is setting a meme free and letting it grow on it's own, to twist evolve and change. Personally I think it's a beautiful thing, kind of akin to giving birth, but I'm a romantic. You haven't created a Memetic virus (I think :D ?) people still have their freewill. If it's too out there or seems too risky the Bod mod people will leave it alone.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Thu, 2010-09-16 12:36

#25

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

Rhyx wrote:
Now for the part about releasing your bod mod into the wild. I don't think it would be that bad because it's not like you're sitting in a basement somewhere giving unwilling people cyberimplants and watching them writhe in agony while taking down notes. What you have is a concept and by putting it on the internet you should just consider it peer review. If people go out and do it, it becomes their responsibility. All you are doing is setting a meme free and letting it grow on it's own, to twist evolve and change. Personally I think it's a beautiful thing, kind of akin to giving birth, but I'm a romantic. You haven't created a Memetic virus (I think :D ?) people still have their freewill. If it's too out there or seems too risky the Bod mod people will leave it alone.

If it were merely an idea I didn't have good backing for, releasing it to the internet would be a good way of getting feedback on the parts that violated physics, or weren't viable. I won't mind sharing it once safety considerations are researched, but throwing an idea out that involves risk, without knowing what those risks are, is not something I can do. And the body-mod people do not stop just because its risky. NSFW.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Thu, 2010-09-16 12:56

#26

Rhyx

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

hmmm... yeah okay, point made.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Thu, 2010-09-16 16:25

#27

Rhyx

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

You know Root, push comes to shove you can always play the religion card, that would play havoc with any ethics board. Enter the Church of Body Modification http://uscobm.com/ Body modification as instrument of spiritual enlightenment for the win!

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Thu, 2010-09-16 22:12

#28

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr] Ok, I finally got a good idea of what it takes to make use of this little idea of mine. There is enough electronics involved that I think the difficulty of making one is high enough that no one can do so casually. I'm still leery of slapping it out here before checking it with someone with some experience in the field, but I'll send information on it over a private channel if a certain cyberethicist wants to set one up and is interested.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Wed, 2010-09-22 15:40

#29

The Doctor The Doctor's picture

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root wrote:
Does anybody here on the forums know Kevin Warwick? I see he worked at Oxford for at least a while. Anyway, if anyone does, tell him I am available to work if he would have me.

I talked shop with him eight or nine years ago when he visited Carnegie-Mellon. I doubt he would remember me anymore but I might still have a business card or e-mail address scribbled in a notebook somewhere.

—

[img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/info_userbar.jpg[/img] [img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/argo_userbar.jpg[/img] [url=https://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/blankbadge.png][img]http://drwho.vir...

Wed, 2010-09-22 18:06

#30

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr]

The Doctor wrote:
root wrote:
Does anybody here on the forums know Kevin Warwick? I see he worked at Oxford for at least a while. Anyway, if anyone does, tell him I am available to work if he would have me.
I talked shop with him eight or nine years ago when he visited Carnegie-Mellon. I doubt he would remember me anymore but I might still have a business card or e-mail address scribbled in a notebook somewhere.

That's very kind of you, but unfortunately it wouldn't do me any good. Even if I got in touch of him, and via some cosmic miracle he was interested in having me as a graduate student, and even if the admissions board at Reading University was somehow all struck with a temporary and specific visual defect for long enough to not notice my GPA, I am still unable to afford the £12.500 per year to attend. Of course, if you multiplied the £12.500 by the probability of the two conditions being true, then I could afford it since the cost would be rapidly approaching zero.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Wed, 2010-09-22 19:52

#31

root

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

root@Medical ethics and cybernetics [hr] For anyone interested in an update, my idea has made it past the first stage: no one laughed in my face when I presented it. Admittedly, I my sample size has a very small n, so my confidence interval is very wide on whether or not this is due merely to the chance that everyone I have spoken with is incredibly polite. Anyway, I'm now trying to filter it through a safety check, and I'm glad I did. The danger isn't high, but since I am not an engineer (and won't be for a bare-minimum of 5 more years) I didn't even think it existed before someone pointed out that the power supply was enough to cause, ah, problems. And since it has been explained to me in great and graphic detail that "For Science!" is not an acceptable alternative to "basic safety from horrible burning death" (thanks a bunch, you spoilsport lawyers), I need to make sure there aren't any wee problems like that before I turn it over to all the nutters out there who might decide to use it. I'm such a tease, I know, but in my defense, an excited half-informed engineering student has been able to push the envelope on an exciting branch of science back a whole 20 years more than once in the past. While I don't think I have the sheer charisma and blatant disregard for fact needed to jump a field back 20 years, I do believe in my ability to make such an ass of myself with a half-baked idea that I set myself back that long. [hr] [EDIT] I found a better explanation for my reticence: "Fundamental Canons of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.

5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.

7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision."

And since I have a healthy fear of crowds with torches and pitchforks, it seems like I should try and live by this if I want to be taken seriously.

—

[ @-rep +1 | c-rep +1 | g-rep +1 | r-rep +1 ]

Thu, 2010-09-23 17:22

#32

Rhyx

Re: Medical ethics and cybernetics

Interesting, so engineers have a Hippocratic oath type thing! I didn't know!

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]