5 ms·

While an artifical ear or eye has practical benefits, genitials might mean more to the recipients. Hard to tell: which would you rather go without? It mentions

• astrieanna 12y ago
  Considering that the 4 patients were teenage girls born without vaginas, it seems unlikely that they'd be able to tell how it compares to non-artificial one. Maybe that would be included in another study, on using it as a replacement (after injury/cancer).
• GeneralMayhem 12y ago
  Yes, but at least now it's two-weeks-into-the-future science fiction, not Star Wars science fiction.
• ijk 12y ago
  There's a cultural bias against medical treatment for stuff that is less visible or critical. There's a general consensus that things like eyes or legs are useful, even though surveys of paraplegic patients report that partial restoration of genital sensation is more meaningful to them than walking. Fewer people think about less obvious senses like _tasting_ and _smelling_, to the point that it can be difficult to get the condition taken seriously, even though complete loss of smell can be highly traumatic.
  • anon4 12y ago
    There is a class of people who regard humans (including themselves) as highly advanced and complex robots which slot neatly into worker roles in society, defined by their objective utility. Such a view basically means things that you don't need to function are frivolties and spending resources towards guaranteeing the personal joy of people is an anathema. It kind of seriously makes me consider the "philosophical zombie" hypothesis.
  • cdjk 12y ago
    It's interesting that you should mention smell, since I was born without a sense of smell - the term is anosmia. It is very poorly studied, and most studies deal with people who lose their sense of smell due to neurological diseases or head trauma. In my case it's clearly genetic (my mom and her dad both can't smell), and almost no one studies it. From what I've read I'd much rather be born without a sense of smell than lose it, since that can be very traumatic.
    • ijk 12y ago
      I was specifically thinking of anosmia and ageusia. There are many invisible disabilities that most people aren't aware of; anosmia is one of the ones where most people who don't have the issue don't even see why it might be a problem until they've really thought about it. Couple of articles about or by people who have experienced the loss: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2008/07/the_nose_that_never_knows.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa... http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/life-without-a-sense-of-smell-20110217-1axu9.html http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/life-withou...
      • cdjk 12y ago
        Anosmia is much more serious when it's the result of trauma or some other disease - it makes food taste radically different, and is likely to cause depression. That said, I've never had a sense of smell, so I don't know what I'm missing. And the world is much less smell-focused than vision or hearing, so if you have to lose a sense, smell is near the top of the list.
        • ijk 12y ago
          Sounds like for you it's a drawback but not a trauma. It's also not a problem I have personal experience with, though I have with others. I guess my point was a lot of people hearing about traumatic loss think its no big deal because you can still work without it and don't immediately make the connection between "losing your sense of smell" and "losing the ability to taste chocolate like you're used to".