Ethical Analysis on the Application of Neurotechnology for Human Augmentation in Physicians and Surgeons

TL;DR

This paper explores the ethical implications of using neurotechnology to augment physicians and surgeons, addressing potential benefits, risks, and injustices in medical practice.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive ethical analysis of neurotechnology applications for human augmentation in medical professionals, highlighting potential societal and individual impacts.

Findings

Neurotechnology can enhance physicians' diagnostic and surgical capabilities.

Augmentation may lead to ethical concerns like injustice and harm.

Implementation outcomes depend on ethical considerations and societal acceptance.

Abstract

With the shortage of physicians and surgeons and increase in demand worldwide due to situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a growing interest in finding solutions to help address the problem. A solution to this problem would be to use neurotechnology to provide them augmented cognition, senses and action for optimal diagnosis and treatment. Consequently, doing so can negatively impact them and others. We argue that applying neurotechnology for human enhancement in physicians and surgeons can cause injustices, and harm to them and patients. In this paper, we will first describe the augmentations and neurotechnologies that can be used to achieve the relevant augmentations for physicians and surgeons. We will then review selected ethical concerns discussed within literature, discuss the neuroengineering behind using neurotechnology for augmentation purposes, then conclude with an analysis on outcomes and ethical issues of implementing human augmentation via neurotechnology in medical and surgical practice.