From: Louis Newstrom (louisnews@comcast.net)
Date: Fri Mar 15 2002 - 05:53:03 MST
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> What is the difference between what he wears today
> and when you or I have our memories boosted (non-medical need)
> with embedded chips or when we have extra processing power or
> skills embedded to improve on nature - not merely to somewhat
> recover from disease.
...
> Such rulings would amount to saying it is a sometiems tolerated
> privilege, at best, to go beyond the hardware you were born with
> unless you cannot live any other way. That is a pretty slippery
> slope.
I have stated earlier on this list that I ran into that exact ruling. I was
born with VERY poor eyes. One day my eye doctor comes in with "I have great
news... You have cateracts." Turns out that the AMA considered lens
replacement for me as "enhancement" and therefore unethical. Only after I
developed a disease did they consider lens replacement ethical.
So it's not a slippery slope (meaning we might go further), because it's
already here. Enhancement is considered "unethical" by the AMA. We have to
work to make enhancement actually allowed, then accepted, then viewed as
"necessary equipment" for some people.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:58 MST