Cloning, 3D printing, and artificial parts are on the list of the most promising but ethically ambiguous replacement strategies. Notably, many believe them to promote eugenics, the philosophy of improving humanity through artificial selection. This is relatively reasonable when applied to cloning because it presupposes picking the highest quality stem cells from duplicated embryos. The possibility to turn such cells into any other is the main advantage of the method (Rugnetta, n.d.). However, the lack of the guarantee that an embryo will survive doubtlessly outweighs it.
Medical 3D printing is hypothetically possible to use for artificial selection as well. Specifically, the question is whether it can allow for intentionally mutated organs that, in turn, enable “a better lifestyle” (Hooper, 2020, para. 13). Poor predictability, in fact, is the main disadvantage of this technology, not only from the ethical viewpoint, but also from the practical one. However, further studies can make this concern less serious; in addition, the availability of 3D keeps growing together with its popularity in many spheres, including healthcare.
Finally, the link between eugenics and artificial organs or body parts is apparent, as they are specially designed for improving human beings. In utilitarian terms, such devices have several drawbacks as well; they are expensive, not necessarily comfortable, and less functional in comparison with the previous technologies due to their lower mobility (Siryj, 2017). Meanwhile, their advantages, such as the possibility to outperform natural bodies in strength, speed, and other, currently are hypothetical rather than real.
Considering that all of the above replacement strategies are ethically concerning, it would be reasonable to recommend the one whose advantages outweigh the disadvantages. This is 3D printing, apparently; as mentioned, it continues to grow more popular in medicine, which calls for studying it to minimize the existing drawbacks. In addition, the further spread of the
technology improves its affordability for the wide public and, therefore, ethicality.
References
Hooper, O. (2020). Five ethical concerns with 3D printing in medicine. Law Technology Today.
Rugnetta, M. (n.d.).Cloning. Britannica.
Siryj, E. (2017). The ethics of artificial organs.Viterbi Conversations in Ethics, 1(1).