Morality of artificial organs and limbs?

[Binary]

I have a few questions on when hypothetical medical technology could licitly be used.

There is no controversy at all over the use of prostheses to replace something that is missing. But would it be morally permissible to remove deficient body parts beforehand? For example, if a man was born without legs and had the opportunity to receive robot legs to allow him to walk, run, jump and dance, we would all think that’s a great thing. Now suppose the same man was born with severely atrophied legs. Could those legs morally be removed to allow for said robot legs?

At first I thought that such a removal seems to be a rejection of God’s gifts to us, but then I remembered that the Church doesn’t seem to have any objection to artificial hearts. So where is the line? Do we have carte blanche to replace profoundly impaired parts of our body? If so, how about mildly impaired ones?

 

[in_servitude]

In my opinion, we cross the line when we decide to go from “fixing something broken” to “making something superior” to our natural creation. Let’s say that we can grow legs that, once installed, will allow us to run 30mph. That, in my mind, causes us to betray Creation.

(My comments assume your context - licit - i.e. not killing people to achieve the “fix”.)

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Removing non-functional or minimally functional limbs and replacing them with functional artificial limbs would restore a natural ability to the person, so I would think it would be morally licit.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

In my opinion, we cross the line when we decide to go from “fixing something broken” to “making something superior” to our natural creation. Let’s say that we can grow legs that, once installed, will allow us to run 30mph. That, in my mind, causes us to betray Creation.

(My comments assume your context - licit - i.e. not killing people to achieve the “fix”.)

What if you considered those artificial limbs a sort of vehicle rather than body parts? They would be no more “unnatural” than a bicycle. Considering them as a vehicle though the removal of healthy limbs to attach the artificial ones would not seem to be justifiable. It’s an interesting question, though no more than science fiction right now, I think.

 

[chaunceygardner]

There is no controversy at all over the use of prostheses to replace something that is missing. But would it be morally permissible to remove deficient body parts beforehand?

Deficient body parts are removed and replaced by other living parts or artificial parts very, very frequently. Think about knee and hip “replacements”. Vein grafts for people who have bad arteries. Ear and eye parts are replaced. Often it is not due to the old stuff being missing, or even not working at all, but because it is defective and not working “normally”. In most cases, not originally defective, but becoming so over time. I can’t think of any reason that these types of treatments would be morally wrong.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It had nothing to do with limbs, but I asked of another medical question in another thread about people that may genetically be of one gender but physically of another. Some one posted this response.

Church has no public position on. It is an area of medical research that much is changing quickly on and therefore the church has chosen to take no public position.

I wonder if it is applicable in anyway here also.

 

[Binary]

Deficient body parts are removed and replaced by other living parts or artificial parts very, very frequently. Think about knee and hip “replacements”. Vein grafts for people who have bad arteries. Ear and eye parts are replaced. Often it is not due to the old stuff being missing, or even not working at all, but because it is defective and not working “normally”. In most cases, not originally defective, but becoming so over time. I can’t think of any reason that these types of treatments would be morally wrong.

Good points. Thanks!

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have a few questions on when hypothetical medical technology could licitly be used.

There is no controversy at all over the use of prostheses to replace something that is missing. But would it be morally permissible to remove deficient body parts beforehand? For example, if a man was born without legs and had the opportunity to receive robot legs to allow him to walk, run, jump and dance, we would all think that’s a great thing. Now suppose the same man was born with severely atrophied legs. Could those legs morally be removed to allow for said robot legs?

At first I thought that such a removal seems to be a rejection of God’s gifts to us, but then I remembered that the Church doesn’t seem to have any objection to artificial hearts. So where is the line? Do we have carte blanche to replace profoundly impaired parts of our body? If so, how about mildly impaired ones?

Umm. This question must consider God’s will and moral independence if viewing it through a Catholic lens I am guessing.

Good question.

 

[John21652]

In my opinion, we cross the line when we decide to go from “fixing something broken” to “making something superior” to our natural creation. Let’s say that we can grow legs that, once installed, will allow us to run 30mph. That, in my mind, causes us to betray Creation.

(My comments assume your context - licit - i.e. not killing people to achieve the “fix”.)

Cosmetic breast implants?

Some women just like 'em bigger!

 

[StrawberryJam]

Cosmetic breast implants?

Some women just like 'em bigger!

Because, of course the men don’t care one way or another about it.

Not sure why you would mention this, and not be objective and mention all the ways one can alter things with drugs in order to maintain their ability to function sexually.

 

[John21652]

Because, of course the men don’t care one way or another about it.

Not sure why you would mention this, and not be objective and mention all the ways one can alter things with drugs in order to maintain their ability to function sexually.

Trust you to turn it into a man v woman thing.

I “mentioned this” in response to n_servitude’s comparison between “fixing something broken” and “making something superior”. In other words between body changing surgery just because someone wants it, not because it’s necessary. Get it now?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Trust you to turn it into a man v woman thing.

I “mentioned this” in response to n_servitude’s comparison between “fixing something broken” and “making something superior”. In other words between body changing surgery just because someone wants it, not because it’s necessary. Get it now?

With your help, I do finally Get it now. Such a slow learner I am. Sorry.

The Newt can grow limbs back. Does God love them more, or has he destroyed their moral independence? Why not dig deeper.

BTW I am not going to ask anyone to trust me with anything.

 

[John21652]

With your help, I do finally Get it now. Such a slow learner I am. Sorry.

:tiphat:

The Newt can grow limbs back. Does God love them more, or has he destroyed their moral independence? Why not dig deeper.

You’re asking me to delve into newt territory. That might be interesting.

BTW I am not going to ask anyone to trust me with anything.

Good job!

 

[AnglicanForMary]

With your help, I do finally Get it now. Such a slow learner I am. Sorry.

The Newt can grow limbs back. Does God love them more, or has he destroyed their moral independence? Why not dig deeper.

BTW I am not going to ask anyone to trust me with anything.

Well, wouldn’t that beg the question of whether a newt is capable of ‘moral independence’ or ‘moral dependence’ to begin with? Although speaking of the newt’s ability to regenerate a lost limb (and relative to one of science fiction’s new twin Philosopher’s Stones of regenerating organs and limbs -the other being multi-century life extension) maybe its because a newt’s nervous system is so ‘primitive’ compared to ours (hydra, flatworm, and starfish also come to mind) that its a sort of compensation?

Two other questions come to mind. What is the Magisterium’s stance on the use of preventive or interventionist medical techniques, therapies and treatments that come about through immoral means (I’m thinking of the treatment options that came out of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment)? And what is -or would be- the stance if science were able to unlock or create in humans, without recourse to chimeric-gene splicing therapies or fetal stem cell research, the ability to regrow limbs or clone individual organs, adding as an assumption for purposes of argument the technical infeasibility of full body cloning? (I suppose related to this would be the ethics of matter-energy teleportation, but that leaves the realm of bioethics, or does it?)

(Bio-ethics can seems like it gets really nit-picky and complicated sometimes…its like I’m reading the Shabbat tractate from Talmud all over again) This is not a criticism, merely a personal observation (Consider this is coming from someone who likes to read the US Code Annotated, the GA Code Annotated, the Catholic Code of Canon Law and Robert’s Rules of Order for fun)

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well, wouldn’t that beg the question of whether a newt is capable of ‘moral independence’ or ‘moral dependence’ to begin with? Although speaking of the newt’s ability to regenerate a lost limb (and relative to one of science fiction’s new twin Philosopher’s Stones of regenerating organs and limbs -the other being multi-century life extension) maybe its because a newt’s nervous system is so ‘primitive’ compared to ours (hydra, flatworm, and starfish also come to mind) that its a sort of compensation?

Two other questions come to mind. What is the Magisterium’s stance on the use of preventive or interventionist medical techniques, therapies and treatments that come about through immoral means (I’m thinking of the treatment options that came out of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment)? And what is -or would be- the stance if science were able to unlock or create in humans, without recourse to chimeric-gene splicing therapies or fetal stem cell research, the ability to regrow limbs or clone individual organs, adding as an assumption for purposes of argument the technical infeasibility of full body cloning? (I suppose related to this would be the ethics of matter-energy teleportation, but that leaves the realm of bioethics, or does it?)

(Bio-ethics can seems like it gets really nit-picky and complicated sometimes…its like I’m reading the Shabbat tractate from Talmud all over again) This is not a criticism, merely a personal observation (Consider this is coming from someone who likes to read the US Code Annotated, the GA Code Annotated, the Catholic Code of Canon Law and Robert’s Rules of Order for fun)

Excellent points, yet the idea about compensation is bothering me still.

Nevermind that now, I am simply glad you are here.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I have a few questions on when hypothetical medical technology could licitly be used.

There is no controversy at all over the use of prostheses to replace something that is missing. But would it be morally permissible to remove deficient body parts beforehand? For example, if a man was born without legs and had the opportunity to receive robot legs to allow him to walk, run, jump and dance, we would all think that’s a great thing. Now suppose the same man was born with severely atrophied legs. Could those legs morally be removed to allow for said robot legs?

At first I thought that such a removal seems to be a rejection of God’s gifts to us, but then I remembered that the Church doesn’t seem to have any objection to artificial hearts. So where is the line? Do we have carte blanche to replace profoundly impaired parts of our body? If so, how about mildly impaired ones?

The line is drawn when a body part is removed that is not necessary to remove it. Say some one wanted to get rid of their eyes for bionic eyes that allow the person to see great distances. That would be a moral issue because it is unnecessary to remove said eyes. Mutilating the body to enhance it is a sin because it leads to a society that is culpable to degredation in many areas of life.

 

[AnglicanForMary]

Excellent points, yet the idea about compensation is bothering me still.

That’s ok. I’m not tied too strongly to the notion of “compensation” when talking about the newt, cause I know there are vast numbers of other neurologically ‘primitive’ animals (smaller and larger than a newt) that do NOT regenerate. It was the best word I could come up with at the time to explain what I thought I meant. I think that what I meant was: that animals more neurologically complex than a newt are better able to defend themselves without loosing body parts. (I wonder what an “evolutionary/sociobiological” approach would say). But I am not a biologist, nor a scientist (though it is one of my goals to achieve at least a Master’s degree in molecular or cell biology, along with degrees in philosophy and theology, so I can learn so much more about this wonderful world that God has put us in, and find ways of relating each field of knowledge one to another.