DAmbrosio 1

Taylor DAmbrosio
Adam Padgett
English 102
12 November, 2016
Regulations on Biomedical Enhancements
Over the past several years, technology has been increasing dramatically and has created
an ethics and moral dilemma among some people. People are questioning whether this new
technology is good or bad and whether we should limit the amount of technology that is being
made available to the public. Some people believe that it is affecting the way that people think
and live and that technology is taking over the world. Biomedical enhancements are an example
of this increasing technology. Biomedical enhancements are the use of technology to improve a
persons functional capabilities as well as enhancing appearances. This can be described as any
cosmetic surgery, brain implant, synthetic blood or any type of drug that can enhance your
abilities. The question is whether we should ban some or all of these enhancements or allow the
public access to these enhancements. Biomedical enhancements should not be banned entirely
because it will be too expensive and very difficult to monitor. These enhancements can be
extremely beneficial to society instead of harmful with just a few regulations.
The main argument on whether biomedical enhancements should be banned is people are
unsure whether it is ethical or if these enhancements are negatively impacting society. One way
that people say they negatively affect society is that these biomedical enhancements are creating
shortcuts or an easy way out. Many people believe that the availability of an easy shortcut will
be corrosive of character (Schermer, 356). To be more specific, struggling with pain builds
character, and eliminating that pain undermines good character (Schermer, 356). These beliefs

DAmbrosio 2

are usually held by people who have never had to deal with real pain, disease or disabilities. If
they had to struggle through life or had a family member with severe disabilities they may
embrace the idea that these enhancements can help improve the quality of life for some people.
There are certainly some enhancements that are highly controversial, but there are some that
have already been adopted into mainstream society. What people do not realize, is that our lives
are already full of shortcuts to looking and feeling better (Schermer, 356). There are so many
advancements that have given us an easy way out and we are so accepting because we are so
used to them and cannot even imagine life without them, such as, central heating, airplanes, and
headache medicine (Schermer, 356). The graph below shows that people already think certain
enhancements are an appropriate use of technology. Lasik eye surgery is an example of an
enhancement that improves the ability of people to see without wearing corrective lenses. This
could be viewed as an unnecessary or cosmetic surgery, but for people with cataracts it is life
changing. People are wary about certain enhancements because they do not fully understand
them or are not used to them.
W hat enhancements is taking technology too far
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

An Appropriate use of Technology

No Answer

Taking Technology too Far

DAmbrosio 3

Some people argue that these enhancements will create a greater gap between the rich
and the poor. People with more money are going to be able to afford to pay for brain implants to
make them more focused, or synthetic blood to make them stronger and faster, or cosmetic
enhancements to make them more attractive. Families with less income will be unable to provide
the necessary tools and study assistants to help their children succeed academically or
athletically. The advantage of money would allow the rich to become even more dominant and
impossible for the poor to compete with, creating a larger income gap. However, in Nams article
Biomedical Enhancements as Justice he points out that biomedical enhancements, if used in
the right way, can be used for social justice, which leads to another dilemma. If we were to do as
Nam says and provide these enhancements to those with disadvantages we could create social
justice. He gives the example of how Dr. Anderson gave children of low income families
Adderall to help boost cognitive skills (Nam, 126). Children without any cognitive deficiencies
could take these drugs to improve school performances leveling out the playing field and giving
these poor children a chance to be successful (Nam, 126). Although this seems great in theory
this brings up a lot of moral problems. Children without real disabilities should not just be given
enhancements to change who they are. They should be given the opportunity to work their way
out of the situation they are in with maybe some help from mentors or other opportunities opened
up to them to help them reach their full potential. Just because children are poor does not mean
that they do not have the potential to be extremely successful and smart. They just need love and
the right support system not necessarily drugs or brain implants. Using these enhancements on
children would be taking it too far, but this article does show a different idea or approach. These
arguments bring up the need for regulations on the use of enhancements to protect society from

DAmbrosio 4

itself. With regulations in place that protect the people and society as a whole we could make
these enhancements beneficial instead of harmful.
Biomedical enhancements should be used on the people who are actually disabled to
increase quality of life and give them normal functioning capabilities instead of to create super
humans. One example of a medical advancement that is already being used to help the disabled
is the cochlear implant which gives people who are deaf the ability to hear. If we only allow
these products to increase the functioning capabilities of those who are disabled then we can
prevent any of the problems/arguments listed earlier. With further increasing of technology we
should be able to help more and more people with different disabilities. In neuroprosthetics,
scientists have developed prostheses to improve the neural function of a damaged nervous
system (Xie, 1). This is another way that these enhancements can be used to improve quality of
life and benefit society. It is believed that we can possibly bring an end to all suffering. As
Strickland discusses he imagines a world in which amputees gain freedom, depressed people
find joy, and the elderly hold on to their life stories (Strickland, 7).
It becomes ethically questionable once these technologies are used no longer for pure
treatment and instead for enhancement which is why the discussion needs to start now on how
to prevent this increase in technology from getting out of control and falling into the wrong
hands (Xie, 2). It is very important that we regulate the use of biomedical enhancements so that
people with disabilities or illnesses can still have a better quality of life without allowing the
mainstream society to be destroyed by the overuse of enhancements and the development of
super human traits. People are extremely competitive and always looking for any edge to be
successful. If we allow the unregulated use of some of these enhancements we will find
ourselves dealing with a crisis of everyone being just alike and society will become more like a

DAmbrosio 5

utopia, but from everything we have read, utopias never work. It would be hard to draw the line
on what we would make illegal. Enhancements include not just drugs, but cosmetic surgery and
information technologies, such as genetic testing to identify nondisease traits and, as Mehlman
points out, it would be extremely hard to enforce the law if all biomedical enhancements were to
be illegal. As a society, we have already embraced certain enhancements. We have been using
minimal types of enhancements such as botox, steroids or any other types of cosmetic surgery.
People have become accustomed to certain enhancements and would have a difficult time giving
up their right to use certain drugs that make them feel better or their right to have cosmetic
improvements. To place a ban on all enhancements would be very difficult to enforce. This
would be worse than The War on Drugs because a War on Enhancements would have to extend
to a broader range of technologies, and because many are delivered within the patient-physician
relationship, the government would have to intrude into that relationship in significant new
ways (Mehlman). Although it would be hard to make these enhancements illegal it does not
mean that they should go unregulated (Mehlman). There needs to be certain regulations in place
to protect the vulnerable populations such as children and mentally disabled people (Mehlman).
As with all new developments in science and medicine, these new enhancements will need to be
tested and regulated for the safety of the people. Research and test groups are necessary for
safety as well as requiring that the enhancements are administered through controlled setting
with a licensed physician. The type of enhancement and what is being used for would determine
how strict the regulations and control would need to be. The important thing is once we figure
out how severe some of these enhancements might be, we have to figure out the best way to
approach setting up regulations and how they should be used.

DAmbrosio 6

One argument made by Rajczi is that the biggest danger to biomedical enhancements is
that people overvalue them. He believes that time and energy is better spent elsewhere. He says,
For instance, they often buy consumer goods to make themselves happier, and they are unable
to anticipate that the happiness produced by consumption is fleeting and small in comparison
with other things (Rajczi, 328). This can be argued against with the results found from PEW
research on most of the questions they asked about biomedical enhancements people tended to be
wary about using them. This can be seen in the chart below. People realize that these
enhancements can have a negative effect on society so it should not be hard convincing them that
there needs to be regulations. It should be easier to inform people on how to correctly use these
enhancements and educate people that do not have previous knowledge of certain enhancements
like brain implants so they can formulate an educated opinion on the topic.

Questions on brain implants that will improve ability to concentrate and process information
80
70
60
50
Number of People

40
30
20
10
0
People will be more productive at their job
Yes, likely No, not likely

Since these certain biomedical enhancements are not quite accessible it is hard to judge
whether they are ethical or not. We have no idea what all these technologies may encompass.

DAmbrosio 7

What we can start doing now is informing people of what is to come and develop a plan to
regulate and keep it all under control. These enhancements have the potential to be extremely
beneficial to society. The ultimate result could be the end of pain, disease, and aging as long as
these enhancements are not taken too far or in the wrong direction completely (Heller). The last
thing we want to do is create a dominant class of people or to even create one of those utopias we
are reading about in class all the time. What we should want is an educated debate on how
biomedical enhancements can and do benefit some people in our society. Then we can, as an
informed society, make judgements as to when and how to use technology to improve peoples
lives. The inherent differences in people are what make our world a rich and diverse place, but
we also have a responsibility to help those stricken with disease or disabilities live a more
normal life.
Technology can be good or bad depending on the reason for the use and development. As
shown in this paper there are already several wonderful uses of biomedical enhancements that
will help people with certain illnesses or disabilities, but as with everything in life if the
technology is abused it can lead to the destruction of society. We need to begin to develop certain
regulations for the new advancements in technology to protect people and society. A complete
ban on all biomedical enhancements would be detrimental to society and to the people with
disabilities and illnesses that may be cured with some of these medical treatments. People are
still looking for the cure to cancer and other autoimmune diseases and to ban the development of
this technology would be devastating. That being said, there are also people that are using
biomedical enhancements for the wrong reasons. The development of synthetic blood and brain
implants may help some people live a normal life, but if used to create super humans, society as
we know it will be destroyed.

DAmbrosio 8

Works Cited
Funk, Cary, Brian Kennedy, and Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac. "U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical
Technologies to Enhance Human Abilities." Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech
RSS. N.p., 26 July 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Heller, Jacob, and Cristine Peterson. "Human Enhancement and Nanotechnology." Human
Enhancement and Nanotechnology. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Mehlman, Maxwell J. "Biomedical Enhancements." Issues In Science & Technology 25.3
(2009): 59-68. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
NAM, JEESOO. "Biomedical Enhancements As Justice." Bioethics 29.2 (2015): 126-132.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
RAJCZI, ALEX. "One Danger Of Biomedical Enhancements." Bioethics 22.6 (2008): 328-336.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
SCHERMER, MAARTJE. "Enhancements, Easy Shortcuts, And The Richness Of Human
Activities." Bioethics 22.7 (2008): 355-363. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct.
2016.
Strickland, Eliza. "We will end disability by becoming cyborgs." IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved from
http://spectrum. ieee. org/biomedical/bionics/we-will-end-disabilityby-becoming-cyborgs
(2014).
Xie, Evaline. "What Makes A Better Human?" The Scope. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 21 Nov.
2016.