15 ms·

His victim's family (yes, really) doesn't like that he was the first to get a heart transplant. https://nypost.com/2022/01/13/historic-pig-heart-recipient-was-c

• giantg2 5y ago
  "...and a tremendous waste of resources that could be used to fund research that might actually help humans." Hey PETA, source?
  • TulliusCicero 5y ago
    PETA hates anything that makes animals useful to humans. It could solve world peace and they’d be arguing that surely there’s a better way.
    • hiptobecubic 5y ago
      I don't think peta would consider it "world peace" yet.
      • TulliusCicero 5y ago
        Was it not clear I was talking about a hypothetical?
        • hiptobecubic 5y ago
          No.
    • bigyellow 5y ago
      Why do animals need to be useful to humans to justify their existence to you?
  • cyral 5y ago
    ..but, this does help humans? (Or at least one so far).
  • zem 5y ago
    if there's one thing peta knows inside and out it's being a tremendous waste of resources
• paxys 5y ago
  Ugh PETA, always have to butt in just to keep themselves relevant. For the first one, I can totally understand what the victim's family must be going through, but doctors aren't (and shouldn't) be in the business of making moral judgements on who should and shouldn't get to live. There is an established process in place for organ transplants (time on the wait list, viability of the transfer) and that's all that needs to be followed.
  • giantg2 5y ago
    He's still serving his sentence, right? At least he's being useful as a guinea pig. Maybe it's selfish, but at least it's data that will help the next person. Frankly, I could care less what the family thinks. If they feel so strongly, then they should advocate for some legislative change. Most families would kill if given the option, and also the luxury of having someone else do it for them.
    • foota 5y ago
      Doesn't sound like it, it was 24 years ago according to the article, and they had a ten year sentence.
      • benatkin 5y ago
        Right, he injured someone and shortened that person's life, but the justice system didn't know about that last part until long after he was sentenced. So it's not surprising that he's been out for a long time.
      • giantg2 5y ago
        I mean it doesn't affect the time they did.
      • dagurp 5y ago
        34 years
  • meowface 5y ago
    [deleted because I didn't articulate this well]
• carrolldunham 5y ago
  Why are these points of view (especially the first) worth noting? They are quoted saying the heart 'should have gone to someone more deserving'. Yes, the precious, rare pig heart. It would be more fitting to look on this guy as a Guinea pig, so if he is a bad guy to you, who better to use?
  • burrows 5y ago
    I’m not familiar with the details of this case, but I can imagine that the time and expertise of physicians capable of doing the surgery is scarce. What do you say to the claim that, “The time and resources including the surgeons and the pig heart should be put to use helping a more deserving person.”
    • carrolldunham 5y ago
      I already said: First time surgery that might not work is an experiment as much as a treatment. Hypothetically dialling the risk level up - just a matter of degree, still - we'd find ourselves regarding this operation as his sacrifice for the greater good.
      • burrows 5y ago
        > I already said: First time surgery that might not work is an experiment as much as a treatment. I don’t think changing the name of what happened from “treatment” to “experiment” tells me anything new. If another person with a roughly identical health status but without the violent history is also willing to accept the pig heart, then the decision must be made to use the scarce resources to treat Ed or the “non-violent” person. > we'd find ourselves regarding this operation as his sacrifice for the greater good. I agree that people may be talking about the transplant and Ed differently had he died on the table.
• drewbug01 5y ago
  The idea that a prior criminal record - even a violent one - should disqualify you from medical care is just vile. And in any case: seems like the man served his time.
  • tclancy 5y ago
    It’s The Post, kind of their thing.
• emptyparadise 5y ago
  >“The key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are,” said Arthur Caplan, a bioethics professor at New York University. “We are not in the business of sorting sinners from saints. Crime is a legal matter.” This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that.
  • foo92691 5y ago
    "The New York Post (NY Post) is a conservative[8] daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City. The Post also operates NYPost.com, the celebrity gossip site PageSix.com, and the entertainment site Decider.com." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
    • LAC-Tech 5y ago
      What was the purpose of posting this?
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • jessriedel 5y ago
      The NY Times and Washington Post also had silly articles that presented this as a serious debate.
      • woodruffw 5y ago
        I don't remember WaPo's article, but the NYT article that I read didn't mention any ethical issues or the recipient's past[1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-pig-bennett.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-p...
        • jessriedel 5y ago
• ahevia 5y ago
  Read the article. Sadden he took such drastic actions & that it led to someone’s suffering for so many years until their eventual death, but he served his time in jail. Isn’t that how we repay criminal debts in society? Not a very good argument to deny anyone life saving care after they served their sentencing(or because for their past actions for that matter). If the family believed the sentencing wasn’t accurate that’s a different matter Glad Doctors don’t discriminate based on past actions of an individual. Would be a very dystopian society if we did.
  • mannykannot 5y ago
    > If the family believed the sentencing wasn’t accurate that’s a different matter. It probably depends on what you mean by 'accurate'. They almost certainly do not believe this person has repayed a debt to the victim, the victim's family or society in general. Phrasing the issue as one of repaying a debt is problematical when it is beyond the means of the perpetrator to make amends. Note that this is not an argument for the doctors doing anything different. All else aside, it is in the best interests of society as a whole that they should select the most medically-suitable candidate available for this research.
    • agumonkey 5y ago
      Considering the situation, a very important medical experiment but over a socially sensitive patient, would it help to keep the guy anonymous ?
    • ehnto 5y ago
      There isn't even a consensus on what prison is actually for, so this discussion is doomed to be ambiguous and fruitless. Is it punitive, is it rehabilitation, is it about separating danger from the rest of society, or is it some kind of morale debt collection?
  • ehsankia 5y ago
    I don't understand what people are arguing, he didn't even get a real heart that could've potentially gone to "a more deserving person". He literally got something that no one else would've gotten. The only reason they agreed to do this experiment on him is because he was about to die and he agreed to be part of an extremely risky surgery that he very likely would've never wake up from. I could see him being all over the press being annoying for the victim's family, but I don't see this as him being rewarded with anything. What he got is one of the worst option, though the fact that he's survived this far makes it better in hindsight. Then again 2 weeks means nothing, let's see if it actually lasts.
• TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  > was charged with intent to murder and openly carrying a concealed weapon, among other charges. I know what a concealed weapon is, but what is 'openly carrying a concealed weapon'?
  • rory 5y ago
    The knife had a fake mustache and googly eyes glued on as he waved it around, so people didn't realize it was a weapon.
  • anonymousiam 5y ago
    I'm carrying a concealed weapon right now. (It's a S&W .380 M&P.) I have a card in my wallet that makes this completely legal in the state where I live, and in 35 other states. I'm always amazed at the culture clash between the anti-gun lobby (including the press), and people who choose to exercise an important constitutional right. A gun is just a tool. It can be used for both good and bad purposes. Also, the NY Post article says; "To some families, it’s an outrage that a person convicted of a violent crime would be awarded an organ others so desperately need. But doctors often disagree and there are no laws prohibiting someone with a criminal history from receiving a transplant." Elsewhere in the same article, it says; "A jury found him guilty of battery and carrying a concealed weapon but acquitted him of of intent to murder. Washington County Circuit Judge Daniel Moylan called the stabbing a case of “extreme violence” and sentenced him to 10 years behind bars." The facts of the crime are not given, but apparently a jury did not believe he intended to kill, and since the victim did not die right away, there was no killing to prosecute.
    • nuclearnice1 5y ago
      Given your expertise, maybe you know, what is 'openly carrying a concealed weapon'? In particular, ‘openly’
      • anonymousiam 5y ago
        There is "open carry" and "concealed carry", but I've never heard the usage you are asking about. I suppose that if one had a knife sheathed and attached to their belt, but was wearing a jacket that concealed the knife, that might qualify. I know of people who were legally openly carrying a firearm and got convicted of carrying a concealed weapon because of a jacket. The laws vary by state, so such a thing is possible in some states.
• ridaj 5y ago
  I see many answers arguing that doctors treat everyone the same regardless of their criminal past. That's ethically right, and the victim's family doesn't have to like it either. PETA doesn't have to like it either. My grandmother doesn't have to like it either. Maybe the victim's family would've been happy that he got the transplant if that had caused him to die; maybe PETA would be happy if pigs got transplants from humans. Thankfully it doesn't really matter what the victim's family or PETA thinks of it.
• kingcharles 5y ago
  I was in jail with someone who had been given a life sentence. He needed a kidney transplant. He said there had been a lot of talk about giving a kidney to someone who was going to die in prison. He got the kidney transplant while he was locked up, and then he was later exonerated of the crime in an appeal. I'm glad that he wasn't refused the kidney transplant simply because he was incarcerated, although I'm sure it happens.
• sgjohnson 5y ago
  This is why we’ll never have a rehabilitative justice system. We don’t deserve it. He was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to 10 years behind bars, probably served less so it’s likely that he’s been a free man for 25+ years. It’s been over 30 years since the incident. Give the man a break.
  • omgitsabird 5y ago
    Some want vengeance in place of justice.
    • Loeffelmaenn 5y ago
      I think it's more that justice means something different to different people. I think that vengeance can be justice.
      • omgitsabird 5y ago
        Why do you think that? Lets say a man goes to prison for 25 years for murder, and upon release the victim's husband kills him. The victim's husband gets revenge, but is it just? Justice shouldn't be subjective, imo.
        • Loeffelmaenn 5y ago
          I of course think that example is not just. However I think there a certain crimes like mass murder are beyond being forgivable. It's where I think the only just thing is vengance. Also justice can't be objective. Put n people in a room and ask them what is just and you'll get n different answers.
          • deleted 5y ago
            [deleted]
          • omgitsabird 5y ago
            Justice, by definition, necessitates objectivity. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/
• kazinator 5y ago
  Dude looks more like 77 than 57. Life-long stress, I'm guessing.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• throw__away7391 5y ago
  Reading all the responses to this on social media is both sad and mildly entertaining. The level of hypocrisy combined with fever and sensitivity everyone has been worked up into over the past few years, when anything even slightly complicated or nuanced comes up everyone is jumping almost panicked to figure out the "right" position is.
• buryat 5y ago
  a pig deserves a pig's heart
  • benatkin 5y ago
    A literal pig.
• josefrichter 5y ago
  Haven’t you learned anything from M.A.S.H.?
  • benatkin 5y ago
    Would M.A.S.H. teach me to put the peta link first? Just kidding, I think I know what you mean. I think the main problem is not the life saving but the good publicity the guy gets. I'm not going to publicly agree or disagree with either article right now, though - I'm conflicted about each of them.
• teewuane 5y ago
  Not to invalidate that person and family's feelings, but it was from 1988, not recently.
• hiptobecubic 5y ago
  Well they are literally named "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." It shouldn't be surprising that they are not in favor of killing animals for replacement body parts. I'm not either, but at least this was a case where the personally arguably "needed" it. Usually we treat animals like garbage just for fun.
• Hnaomyiph 5y ago
  I’m surprised to see such irrelevant and sensationalized information being pushed to the top of the comment section of a hn post. Does a crime that happened 34 years ago, and a sentence served for said crime, hold any at all relevance to the medical breakthrough posted here? Does a questionably-ethical nonprofit’s viewpoint matter on said medical breakthrough? No to either.
• 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  Excuse my"rough language" but I find PETA people stupid, aburd and straight up dangerous. Those bastards want to leave a human being to die because they care about an animal. Fuck you. Look. I am a Muslim. That means, by religious scriptures, we are programmed to avoid pork. why? Simply because "god told us to avoid pork". No other thing. Abstain from eating pork and people follow that. Now, when it comes to saving a life, those religious considerations do not stand because a life is at stake. Same for " consuming wine is prohibited" but if alcohol is necessary as a medicine, its allowed because the intention is not to get drunk but to get treated. That is important. Now, when it comes to using a pig heart as a replacement, I am pretty sure no resonable person, from any religion would have problems with because the end goal is to save a human life. These PETA people are keeping themselves relevant by being the dissenting voice that nobody has to listen. Yeah, if PETA or their supporters are reading this, again, fuck you. Let us save lives and your organization can watch us do it.
  • bigyellow 5y ago
    Wow, this is one triggered ego! "I'm more important than animals because I said so!!!". Hilarious watching you throw this little tantrum.
    • 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
      yeah.. pretty much. i did not say "I'm more important than animals because I said so!!!". i said "humanity is more important than animals". there is a difference. if you can't see that then the joke is on you
• nappy 5y ago
  This comment is a great example of why social media doesn't work. Factual, cited, but totally irrelevant to anything around the technology. It's the top comment because it brings up the controversial elements that spur more comments, and it's in a positive feedback cycle from there.
• ChuckMcM 5y ago
  My understanding is that given this was the first time this was tried, there was a strong possibility that the patient would not survive. Instead, the manner of their death would inform the doctors for the next person they tried it on. Given that their chance of survival is so slim, choosing to use a person for whom such small odds give more information to science, rather than do moral good by helping this person survive, seemed a reasonable tradeoff. Is this too cynical a read on the choice they made?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  > PETA doesn't like [...] anyone FTFY. PETA is a shit organization.