Myoelectric Prosthetics: An Ethical, Economic, and Environmental Perspective

Author: Andreas Östlin Course: Perspectives on Computer Technology
Institution: Halmstad University

Abstract

This report explores myoelectric prosthetics—advanced robotic extensions designed primarily for upper-body amputees. These devices currently represent some of the most anatomically functional alternatives to natural limbs. However, their high cost (ranging from $30,000 to $100,000 USD) raises significant economic and ethical questions, including concerns about accessibility and human enhancement. Meanwhile, low-cost 3D-printed prosthetics, although less functional, offer promising accessibility at a fraction of the price. This report evaluates myoelectric prosthetics through three lenses: Ethical, Economic, and Environmental.

Introduction

Myoelectric prosthetics are robotic limbs powered by the electrical properties of muscles (myoelectric signals). These devices use surface electromyography (EMG) sensors to detect electrical impulses from residual muscles, allowing users to control the prosthetic with natural muscle movements.

While early prosthetics were mostly cosmetic or provided basic support, myoelectric limbs offer functional utility by enabling complex movements. A battery pack—often worn around the waist—powers the prosthetic and stores usage data, which helps the device adapt and improve over time.

According to a 2019 report by the Amputee Coalition, over 185,000 amputations occur annually in the United States alone, a figure projected to double over the next 30 years. Although war and trauma contribute, the primary causes are chronic diseases such as diabetes and vascular conditions.

Economic Perspective

Despite their impressive capabilities, myoelectric prosthetics are prohibitively expensive, often costing upwards of $100,000 without insurance. According to research from the University of California, this cost includes not only materials and electronics, but also personalisation, fitting, and post-installation support.

This financial barrier has led to the rise of 3D-printed mechanical prosthetics, which can cost as little as $50 and are produced with far simpler mechanisms. Although less sophisticated, their affordability and accessibility—especially in low-income or developing regions—make them an attractive alternative.

This disparity raises questions about funding priorities in prosthetic development. It is speculative, but plausible, that unless significant innovation or cost-reduction occurs in the myoelectric field, investments may shift toward more scalable, low-cost alternatives.

Ethical Perspective

The ethical challenges surrounding myoelectric prosthetics extend beyond cost. As prosthetics become more advanced, some experts (e.g., Prof. George Church, Harvard Medical School) raise concerns about human enhancement. What happens when artificial limbs outperform natural ones? Would elective replacement of healthy limbs become acceptable—or even desirable?

Additionally, ethical debates persist around definitions of “normalcy” and “disability.” Is someone born without a limb inherently “incomplete,” or should society focus more on inclusivity and accommodation than on technological compensation?

Parallels may be drawn to other areas of medical ethics, such as prenatal screening for Down syndrome. While the analogy is speculative, it underscores how society often grapples with defining the line between treatment and enhancement.

Environmental Perspective

As prosthetics become more widespread, particularly in emerging economies, environmental concerns have come into focus. Most low-cost limbs rely on plastic and rubber components, which require frequent replacement and are often non-recyclable.

Research into renewable materials for prosthetics is still limited. According to certified prosthetist-orthotist John W. Michael, unless specific funding is directed toward environmentally sustainable designs, it is unlikely the industry will prioritise this area.

This creates a potential long-term issue: increasing global accessibility may come at the cost of increased environmental burden unless more sustainable practices are implemented.

Current Research and Challenges

Myoelectric prosthetics involve diverse research domains: biomedical engineering, neuroscience, software development, and material science. Two of the major ongoing challenges are:

• Signal degradation over time: The ability to capture strong EMG signals depends on existing muscle memory and tissue condition. For individuals born without limbs, this creates a significant limitation, as the necessary neural pathways may not be developed or functional.

• Personalisation complexity: Every amputation is unique. Customising a prosthetic to fit both physically and functionally often requires close, prolonged collaboration between engineers and users.

One promising advancement is Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR), a surgical technique where nerves from the amputated limb are redirected to remaining muscles. These new pathways can produce usable EMG signals, allowing for better control of the prosthetic.

However, many of these solutions add complexity and cost, further reinforcing the accessibility gap.

Computer Science and Myoelectrics

Building a functional myoelectric prosthetic requires deep interdisciplinary collaboration. From a computer science perspective, critical components include:

• Embedded systems programming
• Signal processing algorithms
• Adaptive learning models
• Real-time control systems
• Data storage and calibration software

While a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering (such as the one offered at Halmstad University) may not directly qualify someone for biomedical device design, it provides an excellent foundation for a master’s programme or research track in fields like biomedical engineering or robotics.

Conclusion

Myoelectric prosthetics represent one of the most promising advancements in assistive technology for upper-body amputees. However, their high cost, technical complexity, and limited environmental sustainability present serious challenges for widespread adoption.

Ethical debates surrounding human enhancement and access to technology will continue to shape the future of prosthetics. While low-cost 3D-printed alternatives are not yet a functional match, their rapid development may shift the direction of research funding.

The field remains deeply compelling, and if society chooses to prioritise functionally superior prosthetics that integrate with the human body and mind, myoelectrics will likely remain at the forefront of innovation—provided we can overcome their current limitations.

References

1. Hudgins, B., & Englehart, K. (IEEE EMBS). Pattern Recognition for Myoelectric Control: State of the Art
2. Parker, P. A. et al. (2006). Myoelectric signal processing for control of powered limb prostheses.
3. Hargrove, L. et al. (2013). Targeted Muscle Reinnervation for Real-Time Myoelectric Control.
4. Lam, S. (2020). Amputation and Prosthetic Statistics in the United States. University of California.
5. Michael, J. W. (2007). Ethical Concerns in Prosthetic Innovation. American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists.
6. Church, G. (2021). Interview on Human Enhancement and Genetics. Harvard Medical School.
7. Kuiken, T. A. et al. (2009). Targeted Muscle Reinnervation for Enhanced Prosthesis Control. JAMA.
8. Open Bionics (2020). Cost Comparisons of 3D-Printed vs Myoelectric Limbs.

Recommended citation:
Download Paper | Download Slides