Cyborgism

What is Cyborgism?
"A cyborg is a being with both biological and artificial (e.g. electronic, mechanical or robotic) parts. The term was coined in 1960 when Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline used it in an article about the advantages of self-regulating human-machine systems in outer space." Wikipedia.org

Often the subject for works of science fiction, cyborgism is seen by many as an extremely contentious issue.

Steve Mann (professor at the University of Toronto) describes cyborgism as "The incorporation of technological compnents that violate or transform the bodily/agential integrity of human beings" 

There is a school of thinking that cyborgism is wrong and that humans should remain natural and not artificial. The question then is what is natural, nearly everyone has modified themselves in one way or another, for example it can be argued that having pierecd ears is not natural. Scientific research and new technology have allowed for the treatment and cure of all manner of diseases that would have otherwise 'naturally' killed people. We've nearly all been vaccinated against diseases as children technically that means our risk of disease has been reduced artificially.
Is it really wrong then for human life to be 'artificial'?

Pacemakers are technology surgically inserted into a person's body to do a job that keeps the person alive, this is cyborgism. Imagine a loved one is dying, if there was anything you could do to keep them alive would you do it? I'm sure the vast majority of people would answer yes, maybe even if it goes against their core beliefs.
From this you could draw the conclusion that cyborgism in the form of a pacemaker is most definitely acceptable

Now say for instance a child is born with bradycardial arrhythmia his heartbeat is too slow and he cannot get enough blood to his body, he struggles his whole childhood with fatigue, shortness of breath and fainting. He's in and out of hospital and struggles to make friends, suppose as he gets older it becomes worse and his organs are at risk of failing. A pacemaker is fitted that saves his life, he then goes on to lead a very active lifestyle, trains hard, becomes a competent cyclist and dreams of racing in the Tour de France... But he can't because its deemed cheating to have a pacemaker, its not acceptable and he will never be permitted to race.
In this sense cyborgism is not acceptable seemingly under any terms.

Could you in all good conscience deny this person the chance of acheiving his dream? Is it morally right to say because you chose to have a pacemaker fitted (so that you didnt die) you can't compete?

Say he is allowed to compete, does this open the door to other cyclist paying to have pacemakers fitted as an attempt to gain an advantage? Essentially using technology as a way of upgrading or enhancing themselves. Is it then morally right to allow this?
What if technology advances and electric limbs begin to make their way into sports making athletes without them too inferior to qualify for events. The athletes with the most money or the best technology will have a distinct advantage and be likely to win everything. Young up and coming athletes will have to invest in technology, will be forced to become cyborgs to compete. The inspirational rags-to-riches stories of olympians or world champions born to poverty, yet against adversity rising to become the world's best, will be something of the past.

Will a day come when technological enhancements of the body will be something that can be paid for, in much the same way as cosmetic surgery is sold today?
Could there come a time when Cyborg technology is mass produced, a mobile phone implanted in the ear, or the internet available literally at the palm of your hand. These may seem like ridiculous or fantastical ideas now, works of science-fiction, but then that is exactly how a lot of the technology we have today was viewed in the past.
People with the money to afford this will become far superior to the people who cant. Today no matter how much money you do or dont have at the end of it all we are all the same, we're all just people. If no line is drawn on the potential of cyborgism it could be argued that this fundamental fact that underpins our society may no longer apply, we wont be all the same and who knows what the consequences of this could be!
 (Here's a link to a short debate about a similar subject of whether a procedure that could give humans wings would be ethical or not...
 http://www.debate.org/debates/cyborgism-genetic-modification-of-humans/1/) 
 
Clearly a line needs to be drawn, the controversial issue is where do we draw it?

It could be argued that if a procedure saved a persons life, i.e. if its available and absolutely necessary to keep the person alive (e.g. a pacemaker) then that is fine and therefore where the line should be drawn.
It could also be said however that the line should perhaps be pushed a little further, to say that if a technology will improve a persons quality of life then perhaps that should be acceptable. In the case of the pacemaker perhaps the person suffers symptoms such as fatigue and fainting but it is not life threatening, surely its still morally justified to allow the procedure. Or for example if a woman has lost her legs. If at some point in the future fully workable mechanical legs are available, it will not save her life but is it fair to deny her the opportunity to have back the ability to walk?

Below is a link to a blog post, talking of Professor Kevin Warwick's work controlling a robotic hand with his own nervous system, and of a moral dilemma that may occur if this technology could be applied to save a husbands life, and questions what happens then if the couple's relationship ends in divorce and the wife seeks something worth the value of the man's life as alimony because he owes his life to her.
http://loveforknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/02/cyberneticscyborgism-romantic.html 

In my opinion the line should be drawn at the point where cyborgism enhances human beings. Technology I feel should be used up to that point. If someone has lost a hand, giving them back a mechanical hand to restore them to the point before they lost it I feel is fair and ethical and if that technology is available it would be morally wrong to withold it. However I dont feel this sort of technology should be used to make humans better or set modified humans above or beyond non-cyborgs.

Is it possible to make technology with these limits? is it possible to regulate the technologies being created to ensure these limits? Will we ever face a time when it is essential to have this sort of technology available even if it is never intended to be used, in much the same way the U.S.A and other powerful nations have nuclear weapons?

All these questions and Im sure many others will continue to blur what is moral or ethical and determine whether or not the line, if ever drawn, should be crossed. I feel the issue of cyborgism will be a contentious one for a very long time; as time goes by and technology advances it will continue to throw up more questions than answers.

Check out the blogpost: http://multiplatformfirstyear.posterous.com/cyborgs-arent-just-sci-fi-anymore, It discusses a few real life cyborgs today!