Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 61–73 | Cite as

On Replacement Body Parts

  • Mary Jean WalkerEmail author
Original Research


Technological advances are making devices that functionally replace body parts—artificial organs and limbs—more widely used, and more capable of providing patients with lives that are close to “normal.” Some of the ethical issues this is likely to raise relate to how such prostheses are conceptualized. Prostheses are ambiguous between being inanimate objects and sharing in the status of human bodies—which already have an ambiguous status, as both objects and subjects. At the same time, the possibility of replacing body parts with artificial objects puts pressure on the normative status typically accorded to human bodies, seemingly confirming that body parts are replaceable objects. The paper argues that bodies’ normative status relies on the relation of a body to a person and shows that persons could have similar relations to prostheses. This suggests that in approaching ethical issues surrounding prostheses, it is appropriate to regard them as more like body parts than like objects.


Artificial organs Prosthetics Embodiment Organ sales 



This research was supported by Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence funding scheme (grant ID CE140100012). My thanks to Robert Sparrow for extensive comments on several drafts of the paper. Thanks also to other members of the ethics and policy team at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science and participants at the 2017 European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare Conference, for helpful comments and questions.


  1. Alpinar-Sencan, Z. 2016. Reconsidering Kantian arguments against organ selling. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 19(1): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkins, K. 2008. Narrative identity and embodied continuity. In Practical identity and narrative agency, edited by C. Mackenzie and K. Atkins, 78–98. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, L.R. 2000. Persons and bodies: A constitution view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bechara, A., and N. Naqvi. 2004. Listening to your heart: Interoceptive awareness as a gateway to feeling. Nature Neuroscience 7(2): 102–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkman, B., and S.O. Hanson. 2006. Bodily rights and property rights. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(4): 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, B. 2013. A farewell to arms (and legs): The legal treatment of artificial limbs. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 47(1): 69–102.Google Scholar
  7. Calder, G. 2006. Ownership rights and the body. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15(1): 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chadwick, R.F. 1989. The market for bodily parts: Kant and duties to oneself. Journal of Applied Philosophy 6(2): 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng, D.L., P.B. Greenberg, and D.A. Borton. 2017. Advances in retinal prosthetic research: A systematic review of engineering and clinical characteristics of current prosthetic initiatives. Current Eye Research 42(3): 334–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohrs, N.H., A. Petrou, M. Loepfe, et al. 2017. A soft total artificial heart—first concept evaluation on a hybrid mock circulation. Artificial Organs 41(10): 948–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordella, F., A.L. Ciancio, R. Sacchetti, et al. 2016. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Frontiers in Neuroscience 10: 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Couto, B., A. Salles, L. Sedeno, et al. 2014. The man who feels two hearts: The different pathways of interoception. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 9(9): 1253–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Preester, H., and M. Tsakiris. 2009. Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Vignemont, F. 2013. The mark of bodily ownership. Analysis 73(4): 643–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Vignemont, F., and A. Farne. 2010. Widening the body to rubber hands and tools: What’s the difference? Revue de Neuropsychologie 3(2): 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finch, J.L., G.H. Heath-, A.R. David, and J. Kulkarni. 2012. Biomechanical assessment of two artificial big toe restorations from Ancient Egypt and their significance to the history of prosthetics. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 24(4): 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). No date. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (CardioWest Total Artificial Heart). Accessed December 11, 2017a.
  18. ———. 2014. FDA-approved Cochlear Implants. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  19. Gallagher, S. 2005. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garreau, J. 2007. Cold reality of an artificial heart. Seattle Times, August 19. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  21. Gerrand, N. 1999. The misuse of Kant in the debate about a market for human body parts. Journal of Applied Philosophy 16(1): 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glynn, J., H. Song, B. Hull, et al. 2017. The Oregon heart total artificial heart: Design and performance on a mock circulatory loop. Artificial Organs 41(10): 904–910.Google Scholar
  23. Hampton T. 2014. Fully automated artificial pancreas finally within reach. JAMA 311(22): 2260–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyes, C.J. 2007. Self-transformations: Foucault, ethics, and normalized bodies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hume, D. 1969. A treatise of human nature. Edited by E.C. Mossner. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Hutchison, K., and R. Sparrow. 2016. What pacemakers can teach us about the ethics of maintaining artificial organs. Hastings Center Report 46(6): 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutchison, K., and R. Sparrow. 2017. Ethics and the cardiac pacemaker: More than just end of life issues. Europace 20(5): 739–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). 2014. Software as a medical device (SaMD): Possible framework for risk categorisation and corresponding considerations. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  29. Joung, Y-H. 2013. Development of implantable medical devices: From an engineering perspective. International Neurourology Journal 17(3): 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kant, I. 1997. Lectures on Ethics. Edited by P. Heath and J.B. Schneewind. Translated by P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kay, S., and D. Wilks. 2015. Bionic hand transplantation: Linking the cortex to the hand. Lancet 385: 2120–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knight, S.R., R. Aujla, and S.P. Biswas. 2011. Total hip arthroplasty—over 100 years of operative history. Orthopedic Reviews 3(2): e16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Locke, J. 1975. An essay concerning human understanding. Edited by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lundberg, M., K. Hagberg, and J. Bullington. 2011. My prosthesis is a part of me: A qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthetics and Orthotics International 35(2): 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mackenzie, C. 2009. Personal identity, narrative integration, and embodiment. In Embodiment and Agency, edited by S. Campbell, L. Meynell, and S. Sherwin, 100–125. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 2010. Conceptions of autonomy and conceptions of the body in bioethics. In Feminist Bioethics: At the Centre, on the Margins, edited by J. Leach Scully, L.E. Baldwin-Ragaven, and P. Fitzpatrick, 71–90. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2014. Embodied agents, narrative selves. Philosophical Explorations 17(2): 154–171.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, R. 1998. Self-Concern: An experiential approach to what matters in survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. McDonnell, P.M., R.N. Scott, J. Dickison, R.A. Theriault, B. Wood. 1989. Do artificial limbs become part of the user? New evidence. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 26(2): 17–24.Google Scholar
  40. MedGadget. 2016. Retina Implant’s higher resolution alpha AMS visual implant cleared in EU. MedGadget, April 1. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  41. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Mudry, A., and M. Mills. 2013. The early history of the cochlear implant. JAMA Otalaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery 139(5): 446–453.Google Scholar
  43. Munzer, S.R. 1993. An uneasy case against property rights in body parts. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 6(2): 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray, C.D. 2004. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs. Disability and Rehabilitation 26(16): 963–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———. 2008. Embodiment and prosthetics. In Psychoprosthetics, edited by P. Gallagher, D. Desmond, and M. Maclachlan, 119–129. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Nghiem, B.T., I.C. Sando, R.B. Gillespie, et al. 2015. Providing a sense of touch to prosthetic hands. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery 135(6): 1652–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nolan, H., D. Wang, and J.B. Zwischenberger. 2011. Artificial lung basics: Fundamental challenges, alternative designs and future innovations. Organogenesis 7(1): 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pazzaglia, M., and M. Molinari. 2016. The embodiment of assistive devices—from wheelchair to exoskeleton. Physics of Life Reviews 16: 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Resnik, D. 1998. The commodification of human reproductive materials. Journal of Medical Ethics 24(6): 388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ricoeur, P. 1992. Oneself as another. Translated by K. Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Robson, D. 2014. The mind-bending effects of feeling two hearts. BBC Future, December 5. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  52. Saal, H.P., and S.J. Bensmaia. 2015. Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface. Neuropsychologia 79(B): 344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schechtman, M. 1996. The constitution of selves. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schofield, J.S., K.R. Evans, J.P. Carey, and J.S. Herbert. 2014. Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: A review. Expert Review of Medical Devices 11(5): 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Second Sight. 2017. Frequently asked questions. Accessed December 11, 2017.
  56. Shoemaker, D. 2007. Personal identity and practical concerns. Mind 116(462): 317–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sparrow, R. 2015. Enhancement and obsolescence: Avoiding an enhanced “rat race.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 25(3): 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Svenaeus, F. 2010. What is an organ? Heidegger and the phenomenology of organ transplantation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31(3): 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tagney, J. 2010. A literature review comparing the experiences and emergent needs of adult patients with permanent pacemakers (PPMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Journal of Clinical Nursing 19(15-16): 2081–2089.Google Scholar
  60. Toombs, S.K. 2001. Reflections on bodily change: The lived experience of disability. In Handbook of Phenomenology and Medicine, edited by S.K. Toombs, 247–261. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Velleman, J.D. 1996. Self to self. The Philosophical Review 105(1): 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilkinson, S. 2000. Commodification arguments for the legal prohibition of organ sale. Health Care Analysis 8(2): 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson, C. 2017. Artificial lungs in a backpack may free people with lung failure. Daily News, March 21. Accessed December 11, 2017.

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department and ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials ScienceMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations