As can be deduced from the above title, this writing is a continuation of and supplemental to, a previous one (“THE ETHICS OF CAPABILITY, Blogpost #303). In the eaerlier writing, we chose to declare that there is a compelling humanistic need to distinguish between what we “can” do and what we “should” do. The adverse effect of the substitution of personal interaction by the “smartphone,” was cited as a negative development, due to its resultant, harnful impact on mental and emotional health. At the sme time, we lauded the positive aspects of digital advancement, where appropriate, citing the utilitarian benefits in scientific research and medicine; the cogent consideration being its humanistic effect.
There may be no illustrative example of ethical and humanistic advancement comparable to that of human organ replacement; the latter procedure is an inarguably beneficial advancement to the health and well-being of the global community. We would, however, humbly, choose to suggest the possible development of an additional relevantly utilitarian benefit, following a brief definition of this advance in the improvement of the health and well-being of the global community.
Our present reference to “human organ replacement” simply refers to the surgical substitution of a healthy human organ, provided by a generous donor, for the damaged or ineffective organ of the recipient.
The long-awaited availability of organ donors. and the medically relevant issue of the compatibility of systemic acceptance by the recipient are compelling and determinative considerations implicit in the universal surgical process of human organ transplantation. The additional complicating issue of the compatibility of the transplanted organ with the systemic nuance of the recipient reportedly mandates the use of chemical immunosuppressants, which have the anecdotal possibility for the creation of other health problems.
We, admittedly, have limited knowledge of the subject, but, nevertheless, would bravely elect to proffer our thematic suggestion, which, if feasible, would empirically ameliorate the dual problems of the long and agonizing period of waiting for an available and willing donor and the vital clinical concern regarding the organ’s systemic acceptance.
We would dare to propose an appropriate shift in zeal in the exponential development of (insalubrious) mechanical communication and convenient robotization ( ex., “Alexa,” robotic carpet cleaning, remote ordering of Chinese food) to the more existentially important goal and ethically responsive development of artificial. suitable human organs for needed replacement; analogous to the admittedly much simpler replacement of auto parts by catalogue. Case histories, considered and systemic nuances provided for, this advancement should be thoroughly explored and, if feasible, implemented.
Such an endeavor, contextually, would inarguably exemplify an ethically appropriate, aspirational goal for Man’s ingenious capacity for technical advancement.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 