1171Accesses
Abstract
This survey begins with an overview of currently available and foreseeable sensory prostheses. Cochlear implants are now a routine technology for patients with a dysfunctional inner ear but a functional auditory nerve. Auditory brainstem implants are available for patients whose auditory nerve cannot be used. Visual prosthesis for the blind is a highly active research area but still far from results that can be used in routine clinical practice. Experiments are also made with artificial proprioception and touch for sensory feedback in limb prostheses. Artificial biosensors are used in pacemakers, and research is being done on implantable drug delivery systems with biosensors that determine dosage. A wide range of ethical issues arise in connection with experiments and clinical usage of sensory prostheses: animal experimentation; informed consent, for instance, in patients with a locked-in syndrome that may be alleviated with a sensory prosthesis; unrealistic expectations of research subjects testing new devices; privacy issues for electronic implants with memory; security issues; effects of sensory improvements on a patient’s personality and self-image; cultural effects of the new technologies in disabled communities; and the psychological and social effects of sensory enhancement.
This is a preview of subscription content,log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
Buy Now
- Chapter
- JPY 3498
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
- eBook
- JPY 128699
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
- Hardcover Book
- JPY 128699
- Price includes VAT (Japan)
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balkany, T., Hodges, A. V., & Goodman, K. W. (1996). Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children.Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 114, 748–755.
Bauer, K. A. (2007). Wired patients: Implantable microchips and biosensors in patient care.Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 16, 281–290.
Berreby, D. (1996). Up with people: Dwarves meet identity politics.New Republic, 214(18), 14–19.
Bramstedt, K. A. (2005). When microchip implants do more than drug delivery: Blending, blurring, and bundling of protected health information and patient monitoring.Technology and Health Care, 13, 193–198.
Chew, D. J., Zhu, L., Delivopoulos, E., Minev, I. R., Musick, K. M., Mosse, C. A., Craggs, M., Donaldson, N., Lacour, S. P., McMahon, S. B., & Fawcett, J. W. (2013). A microchannel neuroprosthesis for bladder control after spinal cord injury in rat.Science Translational Medicine, 5(210), 210ra155.
Clausen, J. (2008). Moving minds: Ethical aspects of neural motor prostheses.Biotechnology Journal, 3(12), 1493–1501.
Clausen, J. (2009). Man, machine and in between.Nature, 457(7233), 1080–1081.
De Preester, H. (2011). Technology and the body: The (im)possibilities of re-embodiment.Foundations of Science, 16, 119–137.
De Venuto, D., & Vincentelli, A. S. (2013). Dr. Frankenstein’s dream made possible: Implanted electronic devices. InDesign, automation & test in Europe (DATE) (pp. 1531–1536). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Dickenson, D., & Widdershoven, G. (2001). Ethical issues in limb transplants.Bioethics, 15, 110–124.
Farina, M. (2013). Neither touch nor vision: Sensory substitution as artificial synaesthesia?Biology and Philosophy, 28, 639–655.
Fernandez, E., & Hoffmann, K.-P. (2011). Visual prostheses. In R. Kramme et al. (Eds.),Springer handbook of medical technology (pp. 821–834). Berlin: Springer.
Firger, J. (2013). The brave new world of biohacking.http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/18/the-brave-new-worldofbiohacking.html
Gerrek, M. L. (2009). Primate stroke research: Still not interested.American Journal of Bioethics, 9(5), 29–30.
Goering, S. (2003). Conformity through cosmetic surgery: The medical erasure of race and disability. In R. Figueroa, S. Harding, & S. G. Harding (Eds.),Science and other cultures: Diversity in the philosophy of science and technology (pp. 172–188). New York: Routledge.
Halperin, D., Heydt-Benjamin, T. S., Ransford, B., Clark, S. S., Defend, B., Morgan, W., Fu, K., Kohno, T., & Maisel, W. H. (2008). Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: Software radio attacks and zero-power defenses. InProceedings of the 2008 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 129–142). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Hameed, J., Harrison, I., Gasson, M. N., & Warwick, K. (2010). A novel human-machine interface using subdermal magnetic implants. InIEEE 9th international conference on cybernetic intelligent systems (CIS) (pp. 1–5). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Humayun, M. S., Dorn, J. D., da Cruz, L., Dagnelie, G., Sahel, J.-A., Stanga, P. E., Cideciyan, A. V., Duncan, J. L., Eliott, D., Filley, E., Ho, A. C., Santos, A., Safran, A. B., Arditi, A., Del Priore, L. V., & Greenberg, R. J. (2012). Interim results from the international trial of second sight’s visual prosthesis.Ophthalmology, 119, 779–788.
Kroeker, K. L. (2011). Engineering sensation in artificial limbs.Communications of the ACM, 54(4), 16–18.
Lane, H., & Bahan, B. (1998). Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective.Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 119, 297–313.
LeMoyne, R., Coroian, C., Mastroianni, T., Opalinski, P., Cozza, M., & Grundfest, W. (2009). The merits of artificial proprioception, with applications in biofeedback gait rehabilitation. Concepts and movement disorder characterization. In C. A. B. de Mello (Ed.),Biomedical engineering (pp. 165–198). Rijeka: InTech.
Levy, N. (2002). Reconsidering cochlear implants: The lessons of Martha’s Vineyard.Bioethics, 16, 134–153.
Micera, S. (2010). Control of hand prostheses using peripheral information.IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 3, 48–68.
Mills, M. (2011). Hearing aids and the history of electronics miniaturization.IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 33(2), 24–45.
Nobis, N. (2009). Interests and harms in primate research.American Journal of Bioethics, 9(5), 27–29.
Parry, M. (2011, February 7). Health problems force professor to pull camera from back of head.Chronicle of Higher Education.
Peterson, N. R., Pisoni, D. B., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2010). Cochlear implants and spoken language processing abilities: Review and assessment of the literature.Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 28(2), 237–250.
Puri, M., Chapalamadugu, K. C., Miranda, A. C., Gelot, S., Moreno, W., Adithya, P. C., Law, C., & Tipparaju, S. M. (2013). Integrated approach for smart implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device with real time ECG monitoring: Use of flexible sensors for localized arrhythmia sensing and stimulation.Frontiers in Physiology,4(article 300).
Rizzo, J. F., III, Snebold, L., & Kenney, M. (2007). Development of a visual prosthesis. A review of the field and an overview of the Boston retinal implant project. In J. Tombran-Tink, C. Barnstable, & J. F. Rizzo (Eds.),Ophthalmology research: Visual prosthesis and ophthalmic devices: New hope in sight (pp. 71–93). Totowa: Humana Press.
Russell, W. M. S., Burch, R. L., & Hume, C. W. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. Available onhttp://altweb.jhsph.edu/pubs/books/humane_exp/het-toc
Sample, I. (2013, February 20). Retinal implant restores partial sight to blind people.Guardian.
Schwartz, M. S., Otto, S. R., Shannon, R. V., Hitselberger, W. E., & Brackmann, D. E. (2008). Auditory brainstem implants.Neurotherapeutics, 5(1), 128–136.
Srivastava, R., Jayant, R. D., Chaudhary, A., & McShane, M. J. (2011). ‘Smart tattoo’ glucose biosensors and effect of coencapsulated anti-inflammatory agents.Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 5, 76–85.
Sughrue, M. E., Mocco, J., Mack, W. J., Ducruet, A. F., Komotar, R. J., Fischbach, R. L., Martin, T. E., & Connolly, E. S., Jr. (2009). Bioethical considerations in translational research: Primate stroke.American Journal of Bioethics, 9(5), 3–12.
Swindell, J. S. (2007). Facial allograft transplantation, personal identity and subjectivity.Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 449–453.
Vaddirajua, S., Tomazos, I., Burgess, D. J., Jain, F. C., & Papadimitrakopoulos, F. (2010). Emerging synergy between nanotechnology and implantable biosensors: A review.Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 25, 1553–1565.
Wilson, A. D., & Baietto, M. (2009). Applications and advances in electronic-nose technologies.Sensors, 9, 5099–5148.
Woollaston, V. (2013, November 4). Now THAT’S ‘wearable technology’! Man implants a mini computer under his SKIN to track his body temperature.Daily Mail.
Xia, Y., & Ren, Q. (2013). Ethical considerations for voluntary recruitment of visual prosthesis trials.Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1099–1106.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Teknikringen 78, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden
Sven Ove Hansson
- Sven Ove Hansson
You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence toSven Ove Hansson.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Institute for Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Jens Clausen
The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
Neil Levy
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hansson, S.O. (2015). Ethical Implications of Sensory Prostheses. In: Clausen, J., Levy, N. (eds) Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_46
Download citation
Published:
Publisher Name:Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN:978-94-007-4706-7
Online ISBN:978-94-007-4707-4
eBook Packages:Humanities, Social Sciences and LawReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities
Share this entry
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative