Research Of The Ethical Issues Arising Around The Safety Of 3D Printed Products

In 3D technology we can see a significant increase in the progress of technology in this field, specifically in the Biomedical field with legal and ethical landscape currently still lagging behind. With in increase in this area of 3D printing can see the possible future of organ printing in the foreseeable future and ethical issues surrounding it, such as that of the possibility of human enhancements that would cause issues in the area of sports and human life span. It would also pose an issue since due to the justice of access to the technology as it is personalised medicine meaning that it would be costly marginalising those who don’t have the funds for this type of treatment. Outside bioprinting there is also an ethical issue around the safety of 3D printed products due to the reliance on the machine to be functional to ensure the product is safe for use. We will look at these issues from the ethical frameworks: Utilitarianism, Virtue ethic and Rights Ethics. These will also be analysed along side the Engineers Australia Code of Conduct space, to help engineers decide which is the ethical choice with 3D printing in the biomedical field. There also poses the current issue with 3D printing is the printing of firearms from the printer that could lead undocumented weapons, as well as whether the creator of the project should also be held responsible for the crimes that the weapon would be used for. These will be the ethical issues that will be discussed throughout the report.

What’s 3D printing?

3D printing is the additive manufacturing process in which they will create physical 3D objects from a digital design first invented by Chuck Hall. He called this process ‘stereolithography’ in 1983, this process using the successive “printing” of UV curable materials one on top of the other. In this way we would also be able to construct a particular organ structure to form a cell scaffold and in the distant future maybe have a breakthrough with printing tissue for organs such as that of a liver.

Ethics in Bioprinting and ownership and safety

The biomedical use of 3D printing through the use of stem cells could come with many benefits as the would be no risk of rejection from the transplanted organs significantly reducing the waiting lists for transplant organs. This technology would also allow for the right size organs for children would are on the list. Looking at this through the EA code of ethics we an see that this would promote sustainability as advancements in this area would significantly improve the heath of the patients and all future patients that would require organs to be printed. It can also be seen to promote sustainability as now people will not be required to wait for an organ to be donated from a dead patient as well as remove the possibility of rejection of the organ increasing the recovery time of the patient. However there is a possibility that this technology can be used in order to enhance humans beyond what is considered ‘normal’. This technology also has some issues with EA’s code of ethics to practice competently in how testing of these organs would go, as it would be highly unethical to use humans as test subjects for this type of technology.

Justice and Access

With significant advancements in bioprinting there will definitely be a period where the cost of 3D printing of organs or other medical procedures associated with 3D printing will be prohibitive for some. This type of treatment is referred to as personalised medicine which is often very expensive this would go hand in hand with an increase in disparities in health between the rich and poor, disadvantaging them as they would not be able to live as long a life than those with the means to use this technology. This would go against EA’s code of ethics for demonstrating integrity as it does not respect all people since it would only benefit those people who can afford treatment or have the insurance to cover it. However 3D printing has will bring down the time and cost of customising is the area of prosthetics. This can be seen in the case of Len Chandler would had his heel removed and replaced with a 3D printed titanium replica instead of the alternative treatment which was to remove his leg from the knee down. From this case we can see that 3D printing can promote sustainability as foster for the health of the community allowing for options that would not have been possible without 3D printing. An issue over the ownership of the printed organs as they become tradeable goods bringing the risk that the customer or patient would lose the right to their body which would violate the EA code of ethics to demonstrate integrity as this would not respect the dignity of all people.

Is bioprinting safe?

The issue with bioprinting is how we should test the treatment to determine whether it is safe and effective before being offered as a clinical treatment. Since this is based on the placement of living cells into the human body, it could come with the risk that cancer could develop and teratoma as well with many unknowns for what will happen to the surrounding tissue structures. This type of treatment would also be quite specifically tailored towards the one patient making it quite problematic in terms of efficiency. There also lies the possibility that it could steer human behaviour to towards keeping unhealthy habits such as if they were a smoker they would rather print a new lung rather than stop smoking entirely. This would go against the EA code of ethics as it opposes the idea to promote sustainability. As this would rather promote a culture of waste and unnecessary creation of organs for someone’s bad habits making this unethical.

Enhancement and Cloning

With bioprinting there runs also the possibility to create humans that are way beyond what is normal for a human being, seen through the examples where we replace bones with artificial ones that are significantly stronger, more flexible and less likely to break. We could improve muscle tissue such that we could enhance oxygen intake which could lead to the use in the military as we advantage them to become less fragile and less susceptible to wounds in battle. This could lead to a new arms race as warring countries would race to either find ways to further enhance their soldier well beyond what is normal or developing weapons that are designed to destroy or cause greater harm to these soldiers. The issue comes if this is applied to professional sports as they would sought to extend their speed, strength or endurance beyond what is believed to be ‘natural’. According to the EA code of ethics to promote sustainability this would not promote sustainability as it doesn’t aim to deliver outcomes that would not compromise the future life for better health and wellbeing as this would also cause a divide in the community as the normal human body could be seen as ‘basic’ causing a disparity between the rich and poor who would be able to afford the new enhanced body parts leading to further injustice. This technology would also allow us to print an entire human being which is already widely regarded as unethical.

Ethical Frameworks

Looking at through a deontological framework we can see that bioprinting can do a lot in the medical field reducing waiting time for organ transplants as we can weigh them against the safety of the printed organs since we currently have no way of regulating and testing the printed organs and human testing is regarded as unethical. In terms of justice and access, yes there would be a time in which the process would be too expensive for most of the population but as bioprinting this process would become more efficient costing significantly reducing the issue of justice and access following rights ethics as eventually this would be a basic human right to have this type of operation.

From a Utilitarian framework the possibility to eradicate the waiting list for organ transplants would benefit the most people and with the ability to help veterans with life changing injuries in the battlefield with the ability to print bones would allow for significant improvement in treatment and lifestyle compared to without bioprinting which in some scenarios would require the limb to be removed. This would also align with virtue ethics frameworks as this would align with the ideal character traits looking to increase these peoples lives to live without the injury.

Safety in printed products

We can also see a safety issue in printed products in general as 3D printing becomes more accessible to the public. These become issues as when products are produced in a factory they will under strict safety regulations and be tested and certified before being sold. 3D printing relies on the idea that the machine would print identical copies of the original product that passed the safety inspection. This model however would not be able to hold as one of the main appeals of 3D printing is that you would be able to manufacture whatever you want from your home. This would mean that the quality products would vary due to the use of different 3D printers despite using the same plan. To reduce this issue is through the controlling of shared plans preventing unsafe plans from being distributed and sold. Looking at this solution from the EA code of ethics this would comply with promoting sustainability as this would foster the health and safety of the community. It would also exercise leadership as this would increase the diversity of the people creating and monitoring these projects as well as allow for people to communicate honestly on the allowing for other people’s expertise to provide a clear understanding of issues with design as well as the risks that are associated with it. This would also have to take into account the type of products that would be printed from the 3D printer. This issue can be seen with the printing of a gun where guns will not be able to be tracked and allowing for everyone to have access to the weapon. This case has been seen with the design for the ‘liberator’ a fully functional 3D-printed gun which has currently been requested to be removed by the US government but still exists on sites such as pirate bay. Should the person who created the project file be responsible for what the gun will be used for? It is believed by Kirk O. Hamson, “If you help people to make terrorist bombs, you are morally and partially responsible for the damage that they do”. This would go against the EA code of ethics as it doesn’t align with promoting sustainability as it would not balance the needs of the future generation as guns become undocumented which would lead to crimes that would not be able to be tracked due to the gun not being documented. This asks the question on whether the 3D printing industry should be regulated or will such actions be too paternalistic. In regulating the 3D printing we would be seen to remove the individual autonomy is 3D printing. This starts to become a major issue as 3D printing starts become significantly cheaper and easier to access. Making it more likely for criminals to access undocumented guns.

Looking at this issue from a utilitarian framework, 3D printing has provided many new possibilities allow for the convenient creation of products in your own home. This would mean that it would be the path of most benefit to allow 3D printing but regulate the designs and projects that are uploaded to ensure that none of them are dangerous to the public or would be illegal. This would mean the government would need to develop a system to regulate designs or have the community test and regulate them as well. This would also fall in line with duty ethical framework as well.

From a virtuous ethics framework we can see that it would be best as well to keep this technology while ensure the safety of those who use it. From a rights ethics framework it would be important for individuals to have autonomy so for the safety of 3D printing to be ensured some of those rights must be taken away as can be seen in the case of the 3D printed gun. Meaning that the government cannot enforce any restrictions to the downloading of any 3D printing projects ensure full autonomy respecting the rights of the individual.

Conclusion

In conclusion, 3D printing can provide many advantages to society seen with bioprinting but not without risks and ethical dilemma. But as time goes on the technology and efficiency would increase allowing for better use in society and provide an increase in the lifestyle of society. This would not come without limitations to possible designs that would be legal as seen with 3D printed guns. This would fall on the user who downloaded the project to print and used it unethically but would also fall on the creator who thought it to be a good idea to share a 3D printed firearm to those around the world. There ethically I believe that the benefits of using 3D printing significantly outweigh that of being without it due to the possibilities in medicine as well as those possible in many factories and industries.