3 ms·

Most of your comment makes sense to me, except this bit: > Then, there’s the ethical aspect. Unlike heart transplants, a hand transplant isn’t life-saving, but

Most of your comment makes sense to me, except this bit: > Then, there’s the ethical aspect. Unlike heart transplants, a hand transplant isn’t life-saving, but like it, it condemns patients to the life-long use of immunosuppressants, with the side effect of a weaker immune system. Prosthetics may be the better choice. Surely it's up to the transplant recipient to decide what will be best for them? I'm sure there are many people to whom the trade off will be worth it. How exactly do "ethics" come into play here?

djsumdog 7y ago
I assume the doctors would make the patient aware the drugs that prevent rejection could compromise their immune system? I doubt many even get the opportunity with the prohibitive costs and difficulty of the surgery.
aaron695 7y ago
> Surely it's up to the transplant recipient to decide what will be best for them? If they pay for it sure. When society pays then no. When society pays for things they have a right to pay when it statistically makes sense. Just because someone has a feeling they are different doesn't mean society should take large amounts of communal money from the disability sector to give to them.
Someone 7y ago
It can be (and in his case has been) argued that (some) patients do not know what will be best for them. Patients typically are fairly shortly after traumatic injury, and don’t really know what either option entails. Combine that with the Hippocratic oath or its modern equivalent, which requires doctors to do what’s in the best interest of the patient, and there’s a clear conflict. (Couldn’t find an example directly related to this, but the general problem is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Between_autonomy_and_beneficence/non-maleficence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Between_autonom...)

3 ms·

Most of your comment makes sense to me, except this bit: > Then, there’s the ethical aspect. Unlike heart transplants, a hand transplant isn’t life-saving, but

by notRobot 7y ago

djsumdog 7y ago
I assume the doctors would make the patient aware the drugs that prevent rejection could compromise their immune system? I doubt many even get the opportunity with the prohibitive costs and difficulty of the surgery.
aaron695 7y ago
> Surely it's up to the transplant recipient to decide what will be best for them? If they pay for it sure. When society pays then no. When society pays for things they have a right to pay when it statistically makes sense. Just because someone has a feeling they are different doesn't mean society should take large amounts of communal money from the disability sector to give to them.
Someone 7y ago
It can be (and in his case has been) argued that (some) patients do not know what will be best for them. Patients typically are fairly shortly after traumatic injury, and don’t really know what either option entails. Combine that with the Hippocratic oath or its modern equivalent, which requires doctors to do what’s in the best interest of the patient, and there’s a clear conflict. (Couldn’t find an example directly related to this, but the general problem is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Between_autonomy_and_beneficence/non-maleficence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics#Between_autonom...)