In 1984, a man named Charles Hull created the first 3D printer, who made it possible to print a tangible object from a digital file (Price, n.d). At this time, the 3D printing process was called stereolithography, but is commonly known as 3D printing (Price, n.d). Three-Dimensional Printing or 3D Printing is defined as ‘The action or process of making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many thin layers of a material in succession’ (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.). The 3D printer has greatly evolved since 1984, with high-end printers now being able to create things such as human organs, limbs, cars and jewellery. However, these advancements have allowed the 3D printer to be used to create things that save and destroy life. The focus of this paper is to explore the ethicality of 3D printing, specifically with the ethical theory of act utilitarianism, which is defined as ‘the ethical theory that an action is good if its net effect (over all affected beings) is to produce more happiness than unhappiness’ (Quinn, 2017).
Three-dimensional printing can produce happiness when used occupationally and educationally. Occupationally, people in careers such as art, interior design, and architecture can use low cost 3D printers to produce their work (Price, n.d). Using a 3D printer to showcase their work can save the person a lot of time, as building a model can be time consuming. The printers can also be more accurate in producing work, for example, if an architect were to print a model of a new hotel, the printed hotel would be more accurately scaled than if it were made otherwise. The same benefits apply for students studying in fields that require them to build their own models. Using less time on manually building these works, can allow more time for students to be innovative on the ideas and designs of their projects. This would result in a more creative and intelligent student, who is likely to get better grades. In these situations, a low cost three-dimensional printer also provides for the greater good. This is because allowing students and workers to be more accurate in their workplace would result in direct benefit to their own reputation, while their skills also benefit others who require their skill set for a job.
On the other hand, the advancements of three-dimensional printing has gotten to the point where it can be used to negatively impact other people’s lives. The ability for the printer to create almost anything gives a little too much flexibility with what you can create. For example, a dangerous weapon can be easily created with a 3D printer, making a wide variety of weapons available to anyone (Walther, 2015). Thus, making weapons more easily accessible and allowing them to be custom made can make them more powerful and unpredictable for law enforcement. In a paper written by Gerald Walther, he notes that being able to print weapons also increases the chance that it can go undetected, and terrorist attacks can also become easier (Walther, 2015). If 3D printers can be used to create harmful weapons, then this does not satisfy the greater good of the community from an ethical standpoint. This is especially true if the weapon is created with intent to maliciously harm others, but may not be the same circumstance if it is created to protect oneself or used for leisure.
According to act utilitarianism, using bioprinting to save lives does benefit the greater good. The term ‘bioprinting’ is explained as a type of 3D printer that ‘deposit[s] layers of biomaterial, that may include living cells, to build complex structures like blood vessels or skin tissue’ (Little & Wallace, 2017). This technology allows scientists and doctors to work together and build human organs, reduce the need for organ donors, and save lives at a faster rate. Although there has not been many cases of bioprinted organs being put into humans yet, with more testing, in the future a human organ can be created in just a few hours depending on its complexity (Little & Wallace, 2017). If bioprinters produced new ample amounts of organs, there would be a reduced need for doctors to make difficult ethical decisions on who deserves an organ over another person. Being able to give the gift of life through bioprinting benefits the donors, doctors, the recipients, and their families. Giving a bioprinted organ can not only save lives for some, but also improve quality of life. For example, if a person were to receive a set of bioprinted lungs to save their life, they would be able to breathe better and engage in more activities with their friends and family. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, as of May 6th 2018, there are 114’806 people currently waiting for an organ transplant in the United States. With the help of bioprinting advancements and research, this number can be significantly reduced.
Although bioprinting is ethical in its potential to bring happiness, bioprinting still needs more research to be commonly used as a source for organ transplants. More tests and research still need to be done to study the responses in the human body for it to be an ethical use of technology to save lives. The Karolinska University Hospital in Sweden is an example of an unethical use of bioprinting being put into the human body without prior testing (Gilbert, Viaña, O’Connell & Dodds, 2018). The university hospital had bioprinted nine tracheas, and implanted them into nine people who needed the organ (Gilbert et al., 2018). After the implants, patients had experienced positive responses at first, but soon after, their health dramatically declined, resulting in infections and eventually death of seven out of the nine patients (Gilbert et al., 2018). The death of nearly 80 percent of the patients strongly suggests that bioprinting used in this manner was not ethical, because of the amount of physical and emotional pain caused to the patients and their families. Therefore, this example does not satisfy act utilitarianism because the majority did not benefit from the bioprinted organs.
Three-dimensional printing has the potential to change the world as we know it. It has the potential to save lives with bioprinting new human organs in a short amount of time. Although, bioprinting at this point in time is unethical according to act utilitarianism because there has not been enough research on the risks for it to benefit patients. Putting bioprinted organs into humans is not safe, and the person has a high chance that their body is going to reject the organ. However, the future of bioprinting organs has the potential to be ethical by act utilitarianism because of the life it can bring. With other 3D printing technologies, like using the printers for educational and occupational uses, the technology is ethical by act utilitarianism. This is because the printers enhance a person’s academic or professional career, and benefits the majority. Even though the printers can be used to make weapons unethically, the intent for these weapons cannot be accurately measured. The amount of happiness from 3D printers being used elsewhere, outweighs the potential unhappiness from people making weapons from them. I came to this conclusion through the belief that there are more students and industry professionals with access to 3D printers compared to criminals. If there were more regulations on buying 3D printers, it would be more difficult for criminals to buy them. With this, I conclude that bioprinting is unethical, and 3D printing is ethical according to the ethical theory of act utilitarianism.