Main article: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/head-transplant-volunteer-might-face-fate-more-terrifying-death





To summarize, in a 36-hour procedure, a man whose body is wasting away due to a genetic disease is going to be rendered comatose and have his spinal cord, blood vessels, esophagus, and trachea fused with another body. This procedure been attempted with animals, where early attempts saw animals dying a few days after the procedure. However, though there has been more success in recent years.

The "volunteer head" belongs to a 30-year old man, who has a genetic disease that is slowly degrading his nervous system. He sees no alternative, and is willing to try the procedure to simply have a chance to move again. The body will come from a brain-dead donor.

The volunteer, if he wakes, may not be able to move, or breathe, essentially accelerating the process his disease will take anyway. Even if he is able to move, he may be in constant pain, or the new body may reject his head, necessitating a lifetime of anti-rejection medication. However, there is also the possibility, however slim, that the procedure will succeed and he will live a full life, in total control of the new body.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this -- if you were overseeing all new medical procedures, should this be allowed from an ethics and morals standpoint, or is the risk to the patient too great?

I'm going to be honest here. I think this is a good idea and we need to take more advantage of opportunities like this when they come up to increase our understanding of what we are capable if medically. I see nothing wrong with taking a willing terminal patient and giving them a hope that they can survive while making a difference with their sacrifice.

This is really all that needs to be said. It's better to have a non-zero chance of overcoming the disease.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 2 2015, 9:55 pm by Azrael.

From an ethical and morals standpoint?
No.

But I agree with everyone else, we should really take every single opportunity we have to increase our knowledge on any topic whatsoever, not quite just medical. If all parts agree, that is obvious, in which case that condition is met.

It's as unethical as receiving a heart transplant.

I'd be interested in knowing what part of this might perturb your personal morals.

The problem is not the exchange of bodily parts...or bodies, for that matter, the problem is that what the person will have to endure, if the procedure is succesful, is just shy of putting someone through torture, although willingly.

The article (and other I've read since) all support the theory that even if the patient survives, the way I see it, he'll still be "sick". I mean, common, No movement for a year, the recovery to regain at least some motion would take several years, I assume, the constant pain, the anti-rejection threatment...

It just sounds wrong putting a human through all that even if he already knows the risk, I mean, and this is a very extreme case, would you torture another person if he asks you to?

I'm sorry but can someone explain to me why this is unethical? As long as the body wasn't taken by force or anything unsavoury like that, I see absolutely nothing immoral or unethical about this procedure whatsoever.

Also: bring on immortality please!

Ethics in medicine: Primum non nocere

Ehh, any sort of blanket rule like that is ripped apart because it's a generalisation that isn't of use in lots of specific scenarios. I mean, there is going to be a first time for every new procedure. This procedure will be risky, and may even result in the death or chronic pain of this patient, but if it works or if the procedure fails but gives vital information to make a future procedure work then the future harm it will avert will be boundless.

Best to take the word of internet journalists who just copy/paste what other sites have said. But no, he won't still be sick. He's already going to die if they do nothing.

Sounds very similar to the restrictions placed on heart recipients. I can only assume you're not familiar with organ transplants in general. You don't start skipping out of the hospital with a twirl in your step, your body immediately as good as new.

If you believe that recovering from an organ transplant is worse than death, that's your own very skewed and unfortunate opinion. Most people place enough value on their own lives that they'd agree to endure most anything to avoid dying. That's, you know, kind of permanent.

No. What sounds wrong is that you believe you should have more of a say than terminally-ill strangers in what operations they can have. The fact you think it's your personal place to judge that for everyone else on the planet is disturbingly egomaniacal.

Right, because "the unavoidable side-effects of a life-saving procedure" is equivalent to "torturing someone just cuz". Maybe your next hypothetical can be "Would you still be okay with this if the surgeon was Hitler?"

what? did you not read my post? i am pro-taking this chance to better our understanding and knowledge on how things work.

never did i say that i have any kind of "say" on whatever a terminally ill patient should do, or did i? my bad...

seems to me that the one judging is you, and not only that but also putting words in my mouth, seemsto me that you just came in here for a fight and not a real discussion, and i will not take part in this. are you the new devilesk around here?

I did, but apparently you didn't, somehow.

These are all your personal judgments, otherwise known as your personal "say".

You did, multiple times; see above. I was kind enough to leave out the hysterically inappropriate comparison you made, while you were trying to defend your position that you're the sole moral authority of terminally-ill patients everywhere, where you directly compared the life-saving procedure to voluntarily torturing someone.

No problem.

Seems like something devilesk would do; are you guys twins?

This all reminds me of the part in full metal alchemist when the dude combined his daughter and dog to create a talking chimera. Made me sick to my stomach man.

Of course, after that knee jerk reaction, I suppose that this is only (and take this with a grain of salt) a new type of brain surgery, albeit with a much more extreme possible negative outcome - though, I guess, the possible negative outcomes in any type of brain surgery would be pretty extreme.

Since there is a purpose for doing this and a chance that it will work, the fact that the patient is willfully volunteering for this treatment does make the difference that this is okay.

Hope it goes well for the guy.

Isn't this what Professor Xavier did at the end of the X-men movie where Jean Grey atomizes him?

I don't think I have a major problem with this, just I doubt it will work.

Alright, now that I have free time, and you guys have discussed it a little: I don't have a personal problem with this either. While there is a huge risk (read: highly probable) that he will be in constant or near constant pain, if he lives long enough to use his limbs, all individuals involved (including the body donor, insofar as the body was not forcefully taken) are totally aware of the risks and are willing to participate.

That said, I would never want this for myself while I have my current health.

I don't think anyone would casually want a body/head transplant. The chance that this works is reason enough to try it in this case though. I actually think the body is pretty adaptable and would be able to rewire itself to gain function of the body over time.

Exactly my point. The man is aware of the risks, the likely outcome, and still chooses the option because he has no other choice. The critics against the procedure don't have the genetic condition he does; they can't feel themselves losing control of their own body. They don't have any more right to oppose this potentially life-saving treatment than you or I do.

I agree with euthanasia and abortion so this is fine.

I will say that a doctor who knows the procedure is much less likely to go through the procedure themselves unless it has a reasonably high chance of success and low side effects. There's no way I'd go through this.

Let's not do things because they might not work.