Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 67–92 | Cite as

Cochlear Implantation, Enhancements, Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Some Human Questions

  • Joseph Lee
Original Paper

Abstract

Biomedical engineering technologies such as brain–machine interfaces and neuroprosthetics are advancements which assist human beings in varied ways. There are exciting yet speculative visions of how the neurosciences and bioengineering may influence human nature. However, these could be preparing a possible pathway towards an enhanced and even posthuman future. This article seeks to investigate several ethical themes and wider questions of enhancement, transhumanism and posthumanism. Four themes of interest are: autonomy, identity, futures, and community. Three larger questions can be asked: will everyone be enhanced? Will we be “human” if we are not, one day, transhuman? Should we be enhanced or not? The article proceeds by concentrating on a widespread and sometimes controversial application: the cochlear implant, an auditory prosthesis implanted into Deaf patients. Cochlear implantation and its reception in both the deaf and hearing communities have a distinctive moral discourse, which can offer surprising insights. The paper begins with several points about the enhancement of human beings, transhumanism’s reach beyond the human, and posthuman aspirations. Next it focuses on cochlear implants on two sides. Firstly, a shorter consideration of what technologies may do to humans in a transhumanist world. Secondly, a deeper analysis of cochlear implantation’s unique socio-political movement, its ethical explanations and cultural experiences linked with pediatric cochlear implantation—and how those wary of being thrust towards posthumanism could marshal such ideas by analogy. As transhumanism approaches, the issues and questions merit continuing intense analysis.

Keywords

Enhancements Cochlear implantation Transhumanism Posthumanism Being human Deaf culture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the thoughtful comments, encouragement, and insightful suggestions of the editors and anonymous reviewers which assisted in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standard

There was no research involving human participants and/or animals conducted.

References

  1. Adams, V., Murphy, M., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity, 28, 246–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agar, N. (2007). Whereto transhumanism? The literature reaches a critical mass. The Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, Y., & Burch, S. (2010). Deaf and disability studies: A conversation with Yerker Andersson. In S. Burch & A. Kafer (Eds.), Deaf and disability studies: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 193–203). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, D. V. (2010). Therapeutic issues with recipients of cochlear implants. In I. W. Leigh (Ed.), Psychotherapy with deaf clients from diverse groups (pp. 300–319). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Balkany, T., Hodges, A. V., & Goodman, K. W. (1996). Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children. Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 114(6), 748–755.Google Scholar
  6. Béland, J.-P., Patenaude, J., Legault, G. A., Boissy, P., & Parent, M. (2011). The social and ethical acceptability of NBICs for purposes of human enhancement: Why does the debate remain mired in impasse? Nanoethics, 5(3), 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop, J. P. (2010). Transhumanism, metaphysics, and the posthuman god. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35(6), 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blume, S. (2010). The artificial ear: Cochlear implants and the culture of deafness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bodner-Johnson, B., & Benedict, B. S. (2012). Bilingual deaf and hearing families: Narrative interviews (p. 2012). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boot, B. P., Partridge, B., & Hall, W. (2012). Better evidence for safety and efficacy is needed before neurologists prescribe drugs for neuroenhancement to healthy people. Neurocase, 18(3), 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bostrom, N. (2005). In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostrom, N. (2009). Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up. In B. Gordijn & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Medical enhancement and posthumanity (pp. 107–136). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (2009). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(3), 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buller, T. (2013). Neurotechnology, invasiveness and the extended mind. Neuroethics, 6(3), 593–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, C. S., Keenan, J. F., Loy, D. R., Matthews, K., Winograd, T., et al. (2008). The machine in the body: Ethical and religious issues in the bodily incorporation of mechanical devices. In B. A. Lustig, B. A. Brody, & G. P. McKenny (Eds.), Altering nature, volume two: Religion, biotechnology, and public policy (pp. 199–257). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Camporesi, S. (2008). Oscar Pistorius, enhancement and post-humans. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavuoto, J. (2002). The market for neurotechnology. Journal of Medical Marketing, 2(3), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chandler, J. A. (2013). Autonomy and the unintended legal consequences of emerging neurotherapies. Neuroethics, 6(2), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chatterjee, A. (2013). The ethics of neuroenhancement. In J. L. Bernat & H. R. Beresford (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neurology (Vol. 118, pp. 323–334). Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V.Google Scholar
  20. Chorost, M. (2005). Rebuilt: How becoming part computer made me more human. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  21. Chorost, M. (2011). World wide mind: The coming integration of humanity, machines, and the internet. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2004). Children with cochlear implants: Changing parent and deaf community perspectives. Archives of Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 130(5), 673–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Christiansen, J. B., & Leigh, I. W. (2011). Cochlear implants and deaf community perceptions. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 39–55). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Clausen, J. (2009). Man, machine and in between. Nature, 457(7233), 1080–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clausen, J. (2011). Conceptual and ethical issues with brain–hardware interfaces. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24(6), 495–501.Google Scholar
  26. Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). Human being @ risk: Enhancement, technology, and the evaluation of vulnerability transformations. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen, R. L., Alfonso, Y. N., Adam, T., Kuruvilla, S., Schweitzer, J., & Bishai, D. (2014). Country progress towards the Millennium Development Goals: Adjusting for socioeconomic factors reveals greater progress and new challenges. Globalization and Health. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0067-7.Google Scholar
  28. Commey, P. (2014). Lessons in justice. New African, 543, 6–7.Google Scholar
  29. Cooper, R. (2012). Can it be a good thing to be deaf? In P. V. Paul & D. F. Moores (Eds.), Deaf epistemologies: Multiple perspectives on the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 236–252). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Cosetti, M. K., & Waltzman, S. B. (2011). Cochlear implants: Current status and future potential. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 8(3), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Crouch, R. A. (1997). Letting the deaf be deaf: Reconsidering the use of cochlear implants in prelingually deaf children. Hastings Center Report, 27(4), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Danaher, J. (2014). Hyperagency and the good life—Does extreme enhancement threaten meaning. Neuroethics, 7(2), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Diep, L., & Wolbring, G. (2013). Who needs to fit in? Who gets to stand out? Communication technologies including brain–machine interfaces revealed from the perspectives of special education school teachers through an ableism lens. Education Sciences, 3(1), 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Douglas, T. (2013). Human enhancement and supra-personal moral status. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 473–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Elliott, C. (2011). Enhancement technologies and the modern self. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 36(4), 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Farman, A. (2012). Re-enchantment cosmologies: Mastery and obsolescence in an intelligent universe. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(4), 1069–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1988). Talking off the top of your head: Toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 70, 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fjord, L. (2010). Contested signs: Deaf children, indigeneity, and disablement in Denmark and the United States. In S. Burch & A. Kafer (Eds.), Deaf and disability studies: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 67–100). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gerland, P., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., et al. (2014). World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, 346(6206), 234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goyal, A. K., Rath, G., & Malik, B. (2014). Emerging nanotechnology approaches for pulmonary delivery of vaccines. In M. Giese (Ed.), Molecular vaccines: From prophylaxis to therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 580–601). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Hang, A. X., Kim, G. G., & Zdanski, C. J. (2012). Cochlear implantation in unique pediatric populations. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 20(6), 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hardonk, S., Daniels, S., Desnerck, G., Loots, G., Van Hove, G., et al. (2011). Deaf parents and pediatric cochlear implantation: An exploration of the decision-making process. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(3), 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hermsen, L. (2011). Manic minds: Mania’s mad history and its neuro-future. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hiddinga, A., & Crasborn, O. (2011). Signed languages and globalization. Language in Society, 40(4), 483–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hollinger, D. (2013). Biotechnologies and human nature: What we should not change in who we are. Ethics and Medicine, 29(3), 173–190.Google Scholar
  46. Hyde, M. B., Punch, R. J., & Komesaroff, L. (2010). Coming to a decision about cochlear implantation: Parents making choices for their deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jebari, K., & Hansson, S.-O. (2013). European public deliberation on brain machine interface technology: Five convergence seminars. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1071–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, S., & Capdevila, R. (2014). ‘That’s just what’s expected of you… so you do it’: Mothers discussions around choice and the MMR vaccination. Psychology & Health, 29(8), 861–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kermit, P. (2012). Enhancement technology and outcomes: What professionals and researchers can learn from those skeptical about cochlear implants. Health Care Analysis, 20(4), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kerr, I. & Wishart, J. (2008). “A tsunami wave of science”: How the technologies of transhumanist medicine are shifting Canada’s health. Health Law Journal, Special Edition, 13–40. Google Scholar
  51. Kirmayer, L. J., Raikhel, E., & Rahimi, S. (2013). Cultures of the internet: Identity, community and mental health. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(2), 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kline, R. (2009). Where are the cyborgs in cybernetics? Social Studies of Science, 39(3), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Koch, T. (2010). Enhancing eho? Enhancing what? Ethics, bioethics, and transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35(6), 685–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lane, H. L. (2002). Do deaf people have a disability? Sign Language Studies, 2(4), 356–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Larriviere, D., Williams, M. A., Rizzo, M., & Bonnie, R. J. (2009). Responding to requests from adult patients for neuroenhancements: Guidance of the ethics. Law and Humanities Committee. Neurology, 73(17), 1406–1412.Google Scholar
  57. Leigh, I. W., & Maxwell-McCaw, D. (2011). Cochlear implants: Implications for deaf identities. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 95–110). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Levy, N. (2002). Reconsidering cochlear implants: The lessons of Martha’s Vineyard. Bioethics, 16(2), 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mauldin, L. (2014). Precarious plasticity: Neuropolitics, cochlear implants, and the redefinition of deafness. Science, Technology and Human Values, 39(1), 130–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mehlman, M. J. (2012). Transhumanist dreams and dystopian nightmares: The promise and peril of genetic engineering. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Menuz, V., Hurlimann, T., & Godard, B. (2013). Is human enhancement also a personal matter? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Michael, K. (2014). Beyond human: Lifelogging and life extension. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 33(2), 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miller, Margery. (2012). Deaf worldviews, views of the deaf world, and the role of deaf children of hearing parents in creating a deaf epistemology. In P. V. Paul & D. F. Moores (Eds.), Deaf epistemologies: Multiple perspectives on the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 147–157). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Mills, M. (2011). Do signals have politics? Inscribing abilities in cochlear implants. In K. Bijsterveld & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sound studies (pp. 320–346). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. More, M. (2013). The philosophy of transhumanism. In M. More & N. Vita-More (Eds.), The transhumanist reader: Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future (pp. 1–17). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nario-Redmond, M. R., Noel, J. G., & Fern, E. (2013). Redefining disability, re-imagining the self: Disability identification predicts self-esteem and strategic responses to stigma. Self and Identity, 12(5), 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. O’Brien, L. C., Kenna, M., Neault, M., Clark, T. A., Kammerer, B., et al. (2010). Not a “sound” decision: Is cochlear implantation always the best choice? International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 74(10), 1144–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Patil, P. G., & Turner, D. A. (2008). The development of brain–machine interface neuroprosthetic devices. Neurotherapeutics, 5(1), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paulesu, E., Harrison, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Watson, J. D. G., Goldstein, L., Heather, J., et al. (1995). The physiology of coloured hearing A PET activation study of colour-word synaesthesia. Brain, 118, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quadri-Sheriff, M., Hendrix, K. S., Downs, S. M., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Finnell, S. M. E. (2012). The role of herd immunity in parents’ decision to vaccinate children: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 130(3), 522–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Quet, M. (2014). It will be a disaster!. How people protest against things which have not yet happened: Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662514533752.Google Scholar
  72. Ramsey, N. F., Aarnoutse, E. J., & Vansteensel, M. J. (2014). Brain implants for substituting lost motor function: State of the art and potential impact on the lives of motor-impaired seniors’. Gerontology, 60(4), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Roberts, D. (2010). The social immorality of health in the gene age: Race, disability, and inequality. In J. Metzl & A. Kirkland (Eds.), Against health: How health became the new morality (pp. 61–71). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sarant, J. (2012). Cochlear implants in children: A review. In S. Naz (Ed.), Hearing loss (pp. 356–362). InTech. doi: 10.5772/32762.
  75. Schlaepfer, T. E. (2014). Deep brain stimulation of the human reward system for major depression—rationale, outcomes and outlook. Neuropsychopharmacology, 39(6), 1303–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sharon, T. (2014). Human nature in an age of biotechnology: The case for mediated posthumanism. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Siebers, T. (2010). In the name of pain. In J. Metzl & A. Kirkland (Eds.), Against health: How health became the new morality (pp. 183–194). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Sorkin, D. L. (2013). Cochlear implantation in the world’s largest medical device market: Utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants International, 14(Suppl 1), S4–S12.Google Scholar
  79. Sparrow, R. (2005). Defending deaf culture: The case of cochlear implants. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sparrow, R. (2010). Implants and ethnocide: Learning from the cochlear implant controversy. Disability & Society, 25(4), 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sparrow, R. (2014). Egalitarianism and moral bioenhancement. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(4), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Temkin, L. S. (2013). What’s wrong with enhancements? Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(12), 729–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. The Editors of the Lancet. (2010). Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 375, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tirosh-Samuelson, H., & Mossman, K. L. (2012). New perspectives on transhumanism. In H. Tirosh-Samuelson & K. L. Mossman (Eds.), Building better humans? Refocusing the debate on transhumanism (pp. 29–52). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tucker, B. P. (1998). Deaf culture, cochlear implants, and elective disability. Hastings Center Report, 28(4), 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Valente, J. M., Bahan, B., & Bauman, H.-D. (2011). Sensory politics and the cochlear implant debates. In R. Paludneviciene & I. W. Leigh (Eds.), Cochlear implants: Evolving perspectives (pp. 245–258). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Van Hilvoorde, I., & Landeweerd, L. (2010). Enhancing disabilities: Transhumanism under the veil of inclusion? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(26), 2222–2227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Veditz, G. (1912). Proceedings of the ninth convention of the national association of the deaf and the third world’s congress of the deaf, Colorado Springs, Colo. August 6–13, 1910. Los Angeles, CA: The Philocophus Press.Google Scholar
  89. Vermeulen, A. M., van Bon, W., Schreuder, R., Knoors, H., & Snik, A. (2007). Reading comprehension of deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Warwick, K., Gasson, M. N., & Spiers, A. J. (2007). Therapeutic potential of computer to cerebral cortex implantable devices. In D. E. Sakas & B. A. Simpson (Eds.), Operative neuromodulation volume 2: Neural networks surgery (pp. 529–535). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wolbring, G. (2013). Hearing beyond the normal enabled by therapeutic devices: The role of the recipient and the hearing profession. Neuroethics, 6(3), 607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wolpaw, J. R., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D. J., Pfurtscheller, G., & Vaughan, T. M. (2002). Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 767–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woolf, N. J., Priel, A., & Tuszynski, J. A. (2009). Nanoneuroscience: Structural and functional roles of the neuronal cytoskeleton in health and disease. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  94. Yokoi, H. (2009). Cyborg (brain–machine/computer interface). Advanced Robotics, 23(11), 1451–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations