4 ms·

I find this highly unethical and selfish that the doctor is using a disabled and vulnerable human being as a guinea pig. There is no way that this works. Such

by abhi3 11y ago

I find this highly unethical and selfish that the doctor is using a disabled and vulnerable human being as a guinea pig. There is no way that this works. Such a procedure should have been attempted successfully on monkeys several times before being allowed on a human. I suggest everyone read this article in full.

S_A_P 11y ago
I too find the claims that he can just glue two spinal cord stubs together highly suspect. If this glue worked this well, why are we not trying it on para/quadriplegics? Maybe it has, but I would think this sorta news would have been shouted from the rooftops as it is kinda like curing cancer.
- duaneb 11y ago
  Because para/quadriplegics don't have the benefit of avoiding scarring and other tissue damage by precise cuts on nerves.
  - S_A_P 11y ago
    What is to stop cutting the scar off and trying new? There should be at least some slack there. Shoot I would lose a vertabrae to the prospect of walking again if i were in that situation.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      I suspect neither of us know. I am simply pointing out that you're shooting in the dark here.
sushid 11y ago
They have performed this surgery on monkeys already (although without attempting to fuse the spinal cord). The doctor and his colleagues will have performed more attempts on primates before a human attempt, which is why he has an estimated year of operation at 2017. While I do agree that the doctor may be being selfish in search of fame (or infamy), but shouldn't the human be given the choice to make his decisions? He can't perform basic human functions without assistance much less enjoy other pleasures in life due to his disease. The candidate's decision-making process isn't impaired and many other people with late-stage cancer often undergo controversial treatments that are not fully tested all the time, even outside of clinical trials [0]. [0] http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/clinicaltrials/compassionate-drug-use http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/cli...
jbob2000 11y ago
Why do you find it unethical and selfish? The patient is volunteering for the procedure, are you ok with removing his autonomy by making this decision for him? Is it ok to let this patient essentially rot away in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, knowing that there is a treatment that might help him?
- nkrisc 11y ago
  I think what many people might find objectionable is that they believe this doctor is essentially offering false hope to someone who is very desperate.
  - abhi3 11y ago
    That too for personal fame. Make it work on monkeys, do it multiple times and see how long they live. Once it works then do it on humans.
    - jasongill 11y ago
      Did you read the article? It clearly says that they are backing up their plan with multiple research studies on mice and monkeys.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
  The knowledge gap between doctors and patients (or researchers and study subjects) is so great that it is very easy for someone to sign up a desperate patient by misleading them. This is why we have such things as institutional review boards to make sure that the risk vs benefit vs chance of success are not too out of whack.
  - pjlegato 11y ago
    There is nothing in that article that suggests institutional review boards are not involved.
interfixus 11y ago
Why would such a thing be more ethical if performed on a non-consenting monkey than if on a consenting human?
- Camillo 11y ago
  Because animals are not people. Their ethical value, while nonzero, is incommensurate to a human's. It would be ethical to behead ten thousand monkeys if it meant we could cure paralysis.
  - sshbio 11y ago
    Human is an animal. It is an Ape from the beginning. And the first thing that the monkey that actually got its head transplanted on another monkey body was to bite a nearby surgeon, before to fall unconscious and die. So I guess it was painful. It was not a head exchange, and the monkey that loss its body was not saved. Would it be ethical to you if 100 Houyhnhnms[1] got cured from paralysis if hundred human lost their head? Of course, I'm not aware of any Houyhnhnm existing, so this can not be applied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houyhnhnm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houyhnhnm
  - sshbio 11y ago
    "More ethical" I still agree that we feel this more ethical to harm other species, just like it could be less ethical to harm family than a pure stranger.
  - 6nf 11y ago
    But the human is consenting
kamaal 11y ago
>>Such a procedure should have been attempted successfully on monkeys several times before being allowed on a human. From the article: After all, back in 1970 American neurosurgeon Dr. Robert White conducted the first successful transplant of a head to another body when he operated on a rhesus monkey.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  I've read about that. "Successful" might not mean what you would think in that sentence.

by abhi3 11y ago

S_A_P 11y ago

I too find the claims that he can just glue two spinal cord stubs together highly suspect. If this glue worked this well, why are we not trying it on para/quadriplegics? Maybe it has, but I would think this sorta news would have been shouted from the rooftops as it is kinda like curing cancer.

duaneb 11y ago
Because para/quadriplegics don't have the benefit of avoiding scarring and other tissue damage by precise cuts on nerves.
- S_A_P 11y ago
  What is to stop cutting the scar off and trying new? There should be at least some slack there. Shoot I would lose a vertabrae to the prospect of walking again if i were in that situation.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I suspect neither of us know. I am simply pointing out that you're shooting in the dark here.

sushid 11y ago

They have performed this surgery on monkeys already (although without attempting to fuse the spinal cord). The doctor and his colleagues will have performed more attempts on primates before a human attempt, which is why he has an estimated year of operation at 2017. While I do agree that the doctor may be being selfish in search of fame (or infamy), but shouldn't the human be given the choice to make his decisions? He can't perform basic human functions without assistance much less enjoy other pleasures in life due to his disease. The candidate's decision-making process isn't impaired and many other people with late-stage cancer often undergo controversial treatments that are not fully tested all the time, even outside of clinical trials [0]. [0] http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/clinicaltrials/compassionate-drug-use http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/cli...

jbob2000 11y ago

Why do you find it unethical and selfish? The patient is volunteering for the procedure, are you ok with removing his autonomy by making this decision for him? Is it ok to let this patient essentially rot away in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, knowing that there is a treatment that might help him?

nkrisc 11y ago
I think what many people might find objectionable is that they believe this doctor is essentially offering false hope to someone who is very desperate.
- abhi3 11y ago
  That too for personal fame. Make it work on monkeys, do it multiple times and see how long they live. Once it works then do it on humans.
  - jasongill 11y ago
    Did you read the article? It clearly says that they are backing up their plan with multiple research studies on mice and monkeys.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 11y ago
The knowledge gap between doctors and patients (or researchers and study subjects) is so great that it is very easy for someone to sign up a desperate patient by misleading them. This is why we have such things as institutional review boards to make sure that the risk vs benefit vs chance of success are not too out of whack.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  There is nothing in that article that suggests institutional review boards are not involved.

interfixus 11y ago

Why would such a thing be more ethical if performed on a non-consenting monkey than if on a consenting human?

Camillo 11y ago
Because animals are not people. Their ethical value, while nonzero, is incommensurate to a human's. It would be ethical to behead ten thousand monkeys if it meant we could cure paralysis.
- sshbio 11y ago
  Human is an animal. It is an Ape from the beginning. And the first thing that the monkey that actually got its head transplanted on another monkey body was to bite a nearby surgeon, before to fall unconscious and die. So I guess it was painful. It was not a head exchange, and the monkey that loss its body was not saved. Would it be ethical to you if 100 Houyhnhnms[1] got cured from paralysis if hundred human lost their head? Of course, I'm not aware of any Houyhnhnm existing, so this can not be applied. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houyhnhnm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houyhnhnm
- sshbio 11y ago
  "More ethical" I still agree that we feel this more ethical to harm other species, just like it could be less ethical to harm family than a pure stranger.
- 6nf 11y ago
  But the human is consenting

kamaal 11y ago

>>Such a procedure should have been attempted successfully on monkeys several times before being allowed on a human. From the article: After all, back in 1970 American neurosurgeon Dr. Robert White conducted the first successful transplant of a head to another body when he operated on a rhesus monkey.

thaumasiotes 11y ago
I've read about that. "Successful" might not mean what you would think in that sentence.