The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Robotic limbs vs traditional treatment?
Otar
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I'm not sure if people around here are fully aware but quite recently one young Austrian man decided that after years of (ineffective) surgeries and treatments he would have his lame hand amputated and replaced with a robotic one routed up to his nervous system which he has full control over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLkDQUOu_Y0&feature=player_embedded
It was clearly a very effective treatment for his condition although it raises some ethical questions about surgery now. How do we know when robotic limb replacement is preferable to attempting surgery? How long until different companies start producing their own robotic hands and likely quite soon other limbs and how do we avoid physician posturing toward different brand, etc. How long until we have robo-augmented super soliders, and the slightly more rational question of whether or not military research in this direction is ethical?
Naturally there is much debate already about a few of this topics within the medical and religious communities, some physicians saying he should have continued with the old route of more surgeries, some saying this should be implemented more often, etc. It seems quite likely with the success of this operation there will be many more cases like this in the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLkDQUOu_Y0&feature=player_embedded
It was clearly a very effective treatment for his condition although it raises some ethical questions about surgery now. How do we know when robotic limb replacement is preferable to attempting surgery? How long until different companies start producing their own robotic hands and likely quite soon other limbs and how do we avoid physician posturing toward different brand, etc. How long until we have robo-augmented super soliders, and the slightly more rational question of whether or not military research in this direction is ethical?
Naturally there is much debate already about a few of this topics within the medical and religious communities, some physicians saying he should have continued with the old route of more surgeries, some saying this should be implemented more often, etc. It seems quite likely with the success of this operation there will be many more cases like this in the future.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Otar on
0
Posts
That said, this type of thing gives me the nerd chills. It's starting.
Seconded, I'm just waiting for when they invent a robotic hand that also houses a high-end Plasma Buster and modular weapon adaptation system...
And honestly? There is a limit to what surgeries can accomplish. Sometimes limbs are just so completely fucked that no amount of surgery is going to return the function, and in those cases the patient should be offered the possibility of limb replacement.
That's also when taking into account the downsides of batteries, maintenance and more when it comes to robotic limbs.
When the benefits of the former outweigh the benefits of the latter.
In this case, he appears to have relatively limited dexterity. The way he ties his shoes is particularly telling - he's basically just holding one shoelace in place at a time and using his other hand to do all the work.
I also assume that any proprioception and tactile sense he has are pretty crude.
If you're talking about replacing a fully non-functional or missing hand, this is clearly better. If you're talking about replacing a hand that still has some limited function, then the choice isn't quite so clear. It would depend on the particular damage and the quality of the technology available at the time.
Marketplace competition is a good thing, and given that not all brands will be of equal quality, physician "posturing" towards different brands would also be a good thing (as long as it's based on a professional assessment of quality).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Honestly, I think the more interesting questions are going to arise when/if we have the option of growing and grafting a new hand entirely from the patient's own DNA versus high-quality future-tech prosthetic limbs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Or when we can get biologically engineered limbs that are better integrated than robotic limbs and superior to regular limbs.
Bioborgs versus Cyborgs.
So while a prosthetic hand, even a really good one, is obviously not a perfect treatment, people who are passing judgment on him for making the choice that he did can go suck a big veiny one.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
How does this raise any ethical questions at all? He had an operation to replace his non functioning hand with one which works way better and he was the one who made the decision to do so. All this shows is that bionic prosthetics are awesome and that soon loads of people will have them.
Religious nuts and slippery slope logic abound. Cyborg limbs are bad because heaven forbid anything we ever invent be eventually used for anything violent or military related.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We already used this technology for military purposes. When some terrorist blows a leg off, it can be replaced with an artificial one, and isn't always service ending. I don't think in my lifetime we will get to the point where anyone but the smallest of small minorities replaces currently good biological equipment with cyber equipment, doubly so as the best examples of human bodies are pretty damn good at military applications already. It's easier, safer, and cheaper to do more pushups than to give someone cyber arms.
In any case, I see absolutely no ethical considerations. This is purely a question of what is the correct answer, given the specific patient's needs, condition, and desires, of a few different options.
A lot of damaged limbs are permanently fucked up in either usability or are a source of significant pain for the rest of someone's life, so it's important to remember that keeping "the real thing" is often not so good.
oh shi--
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The kind that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and are serious about the idea that all LGBT persons are part of a giant conspiracy to destroy Christianity and homosexually rape your children to death.
Edit:
...So basically the type of people who believe every word out of Glenn Beck's mouth.
Seriously though, this is pretty cool. I wonder how far away we would be from creating artificial organ replacements?
I'd say we're roughly 30 years away from the artificial heart.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4871540.stm
Agreed. I know that they're working on the how of it but I wonder if it'll ever be affordable for the people that could benefit from it.
When it comes down to the bottom line, cloning a limb for an amputee is still about improving the quality of their life. Cloning a new pair of kidneys for a patient is about improving their quantity of life. The research bucks are more likely to go first to the life-saving treatments.
The when to do this question was more aimed at when there is still some use in the hand, the grey area. And as for posturing I think this could be a big thing, since quite often newer devices end up entering the market with unforeseen issues (particularly electronics) and such and if the testing for this stuff isn't absolutely stringent that could be a big deal, I mean, we are talking about hardwiring something directly into a human being's nervous system, so if product control isn't tight or the product doesn't have a lot of positive testing behind it but it seems fancier than an older but more reliable model I could see issues arising.
Also the comment about super soldiers was more joke than anything else, while I'm sure there could be some future military application it's pretty clear from the video we're quite a distance from that point.
Edit: Although the question about whether or not military research in the direction of augmentation is ethical, obviously not normal limb replacement like what is currently going on but the US defence budget has enough money to research pretty much everything and my understanding is that it does...
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNgqQNovWTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiJzJ771vDw&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_mLumx-6Y
Jist: Dean Kamen, while working for DARPA, designs a better robotic prosthetic arm in under 15 months that has tactile feedback and can be controlled either by foot paddle's, nerves or muscle connection. Currently undergoing clinical trials.
As for other military research, it's gone mostly into exoskeleton's and the current hurdle is making the power supply quieter, smaller, lighter, and have a longer duration while the unit is mobile. BUT, the aim of these exoskeleton is basically just to allow the soldier to carry more gear, longer distances, without being encumbered. More gear as in more medical supplies, more ammo, more food, more gear, etc... rather than trying to graft a weapon onto it.
You'll probably see DARPA continue to plink down the majority of the funds for this and then once they have a complete working model all the civilian companies pick up from there. You'll probably end up seeing it used for non-military use, like fire and emergency, construction, space work, etc...
Prosthetic wise, same scenario. DARPA completes majority of working research, paves way through clinical trials, pharma and big medicine then copy and improve the DARPA model into actual marketable products.
That is awesome
Hoesntly though the only issue I have is using cybernetics for competitions, like the guy with spring legs. Not sure if that's really an 'advantage', but it is non-OEM to a significant degree and directly related to the sport of running. Not saying he's not in great shape otherwise; some fat-ass (like myself) with those isn't going to be breaking any records, but where do you draw the line if it's bolted on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-fbSHENjHc
One with no cybernetic anything, and one where each country gets to mess up their contestants however they want.
In the latter case, I think they should be allowed steroids too.
I don't know how much of what I'm saying is legitimately satirical.
The deal with the blade runner is he should be able to compete because the momentum he transfers to the ground is only utilized to 90% or something along those to which a normal sprinter's is. He is at a disadvantage so if he can be competitive his condition makes it MORE impressive.
It's very impressive - both the mental and physical conditioning required. He is doing the majority of the work, but should that be the only criteria? Can someone with become 'not human' at some point? Or even
not male'? Like the questionable-sexed athletes - should whatever box they check put them in one group or other, or should everyone be allowed to compete equally?
Tangent situation - for the guys with the bionic arms, should they be considered more/equal/less than someone 'non-enhanced' for a job? Is 15mins per shift to recharge their arm a reasonable accommodation?
There is no doubt he is doing 100% of the work, as for the gender I think a genetic test can handle that one no? Karyotyping will tell you if someone is XX or XY pretty fast. As for the bionic arms if they get advanced enough that physical labour is a possibility for them they'd still need a 'mental break'. During the summer I work a very physically intensive job and rarely take my government allotted breaks since it just means I'll have more to deal with later, but when I do choose to take a break it is definitely from mental strain more than anything else.
But what if their arm needs to be juiced up every four hours? They can perform the job requirements, but need to either work one-handed, or stop and power up for 15 mins. Obviously just completely making these numbers up. Would that be a reasonable accommodation like getting a step-stool or a ramp? I hope we see some of these developments in our lifetimes; from the pace of things, we will.
We've reached a solid 2 1/3 years with this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv9xB9HQsww
He got a heart transplant and kidney transplant this past February, and is back to living with 100% squishy organs.
http://www.kpho.com/news/26736116/detail.html
I'm honestly not sure why we have all the idiotic arbitrary lines that we've already drawn. Banning supplementary/cybernetic/whatever "augmentation" of a certain type just means people will have an advantage because of a newer and less detectable version. Why not open up competition to people who are willing to self-experiment, and see what kind of badasses come of it?
Because in the comic, Howard Stark had a butler named Edwin Jarvis who survived Howard Stark and was Tony Stark's butler as well and they apparently though it'd be cooler if Iron Man's butler was an AI?
XX/XY only tells you something at a molecular level that's (admittedly, rather good, but still) only a proxy for what you want. You want people competing roughly evenly. In most cases, what you want is someone to have approximately appropriate hormone levels for a few years before the event.
That does raise other questions though - what about people will endocrine disorders? What about people with sex typical hormones that are lacking a receptor, like women with androgen insensitivity syndrome?
But those questions aren't really new.
I suppose many around here would classify me as a "religious nut" but I have a hard time seeing what would be objectionable about robotic limb replacement at all.
I guess, if folks were just lopping off perfectly good body parts :winky: to replace with robot parts so they'd be "better" I'd think it was a bit on the iffy side; but folks who have legitimate issues with their body, lost limbs, control of limbs, or what have you, this is brilliant.
I think there are two thresholds that will have to be crossed before it becomes a 'norm': 1) It will have to match, or exceed, the dexterity of a natural limb that it replaces, fully controlled as a normal limb would be and 2) have full "flesh" sensation to touch and feel. I've read that in cases of amputees with phantom limbs, their brain can "feel" the non-existent arm, and it's entirely possible that if your brain can see and fully control the robotic limb, the "feeling" will just come on its own by the brain tricking itself into believing that is your limb. Which is pretty freaking awesome in of itself and opens up a whole slew of other questions about how your brain interacts with you.
Anyway, yeah...totally awesome. Watching that video made me geek out all over the place.
I should clean that up...
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The fact that people seeing that as iffy is weird to me is probably why this thread seems silly :P
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/269864/april-05-2010/dean-kamen
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-report/interviews-a-z/the-colbert-report---interviews-k/clip286607#clip286607
I won't even conceal it. What they're doing with prosthetics brings a tear to my eye, especially the stories he tells during the interview.
Edit: note; those are the same video, just included the latter for my Canadian brethren.