World’s first head transplant volunteer could experience “worse than death”
sciencealert.com
sciencealert.com
This proposal is unethical. To show why, consider Christiaan Barnard, who did the first heart transplant.
His first operation failed. So did his next. But his first 50+ attempts were on dogs, and were eventually successful. Only then did he do a heart transplant on a person. (Yes, I find it easier to kill dogs to save the lives of humans than to kill humans for the same reason. Don't mistake that for thinking I find it easy to kill dogs.) That operation was a success, though the patient died 18 days later due to pneumonia as he was taking immunosuppressive drugs.
Where are the dogs with a successful head transplant? Or rats or monkeys or other mammal?
One of the links a couple of years ago was to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5972171 :
> Jerry Silver, a colleague of White’s [who did monkey head/body transplant experiments in the 1970s] and the neurosurgeon behind the rat spinal cord experiment [where a rat's severed head was reconnected with its own body], objects to the entire notion of a human head/body transplant. “It’s complete fantasy,” he said in an interview with CBS News. Reminiscing about the psychic torture that he believes White’s original monkey patient suffered, he added, “I remember that the head would wake up, the facial expressions looked like terrible pain and confusion and anxiety.” He dismissed Canavero’s theory as “bad science.” Given how controversial the monkey experiment itself was, it’s highly likely that Silver is one of many.
I like jessriedel's comment in the HN discussion from 647 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5972171 :
> There are plenty of crazy doctors out there who make nutzo claims not backed up by evidence in their field. One neuroscientist chosen at random is probably reasonable and competent, but a neuroscientist chosen conditional on publishing an astounding claim that isn't shared by any of his colleagues is almost certain to be cray.
But they didn't specify where would they find the body (it should be fresh, right?) ?
Do you think that his intentions are ignoble? Or do you think he's simply reckless?
First, it's more that those two conditions. Modern ethics requires informed consent. If your doctor lies to you to get you to agree to a treatment, then just because you are of sound mind and agree to it doesn't make it ethical. If this doctor says there's a 5% chance of success, and that number is pulled out of his ass, can the patient really make an informed decision?
Second, this falls under futile medical care. The chance of survival should this work is well under 1%, and would normally suggest palliative and comfort measures rather than a highly experimental procedure. There is nothing special about this case which makes it outside the normal guidelines.
Third, experimental surgery can be warranted even under this case, but only if the knowledge gained is worthwhile and effective. The estimated cost of this surgery is over $10 million. As a straight cost/benefit analysis, the cost to do the same on a mouse or dog is much cheaper, so there can be more experiments, giving better overall information, and provide concrete data used to make a real informed consent.
The worst-case cost to the patient is miniscule relative to the benefits to society.
No one has established that there is a benefit to society for doing a human head transplant now vs. spending the equivalent amount of money on animal head transplants.
All evidence says that this transplant will not work and there won't be any gain from it that we couldn't have gotten cheaper and better in another way. The claims of a single surgeon are not evidence that it might work. Animal tests are evidence that it might work.
With your view we end up with things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. The Declaration of Helsinki - a foundation of modern medical research ethics - rejects your viewpoint. Quoting from https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/organtransplant.html :
> 5 Every biomedical research project involving human subjects should be preceded by careful assessment of predictable risks in comparison with foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others. Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society.
The surgery requires a staff of 150 doctors and nurses and exclusive use of a state-of-the-art operating theatre. The doctor clearly can't afford to go testing on animals.
I gave links to people who did research with monkey head transplants, and reattaching rodent heads to the same body. I give links to the Declaration of Helsinki which rejects your stated belief.
And all you do is repeat yourself. It's getting boring.
And I do, because I've actually run human subjects experiments as approved by an IRB. QED.
And does that bring to mind for anyone that weird movie about where you have to purchase minutes of life to stay alive? Anyway, creepy, considering how real the illicit trade in transplant organs is already.
PS: At least in Shadowrun you only get 6 units of Essence.