Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 731 posts

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#381

Post by kevinmchugh »

tptacek wrote: post #265
cwkoss wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are pigs used in biomedical testing ever butchered for their meat? Seems like we kill a lot of pigs every year anyways. Would be neat if we could get multiple birds from one stone - for experiments where there isn't a risk of making the meat dangerous at least.

It depends! One of my kids is a biochemist wrapping up his degree this semester in a vet-med lab (send job opportunities!). He's done one study with pigs, where they were developing new enteric vaccines. At the conclusion of the study there's nothing wrong with the pigs --- they're just hyper-vaccinated --- but without a place to send them, all they can do is euthanize. He spent a week or two trying to re-home the pi…

Dave Arnold tried to take euthanized research pigs to cook, back when he worked in, iirc, Dr. Oz's lab. No dice.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#382

Post by deltaonefour »

screamingninja wrote: post #375
deltaonefour wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. Our bodies produce all of the enzymes, such as protease and lipase, necessary for the breakdown and absorption of meat. The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things. Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" and become "vegetarians" effectively masking o…

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consuming meat is a choice, not a necessity.

A swiss army knife is designed to be used in many different ways. Just because you don't use all the ways doesn't mean it's not designed for it.

You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie part is just the back up mechanism?

Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#383

Post by mlyle »

JimDabell wrote: post #372
JetAlone wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God's will is not so forceful as to supernaturally reach into the world and kill someone clinging to life, even if by evil means. If it were, and He reached down and destroyed the device every single time, you'd be likely to rebel all the more, calling Him a tyrant! No, this monk was truly no fool, he must have been a wise, simple old man who lived his life humbly doing his best to love those around him.

What do you mean by “not so forceful”? If you mean that it is literally too weak to accomplish this, then this doesn’t fit typical conceptions of deities. If you mean that it’s more of a preference than something he is insisting upon, then if a person chooses to extend their lifespan it isn’t going against your god’s will. Is there another meaning I’m missing?

Eh, this is a pretty fundamental piece of theology. There doesn't seem to be a God that is meddling in everyday choices and outcomes. At least, really bad things seem to be happening that one hopes aren't God's will.

So, pretty much everyone who thinks about this and has a faith has to come up with some compromise. E.g. that there is a deity that has permitted humans free will to make their own decisions and that various bad things happen as a result of that free will / those choices.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#384

Post by screamingninja »

XorNot wrote: post #218
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only recently acquainted with the idea that there are many people on the internet who become very angry that some people eat dog meat, but do not with say cow meat or pig meat. — I find this rather strange and do not understand this.

Dogs are carnivores. It is incredibly inefficient to raise dogs for meat, because you have to feed them meat to do so. This pretty obviously isn't what people are principally reacting too, but it is massively understated when people get into "why do we eat A and not B?"

> Dogs are carnivores.

Omnivores, not carnivores.

Ref: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Canis_lupus_familiaris/

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#385

Post by chii »

alex_sf wrote: post #376
chii wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction between wild animals and reared ones is that they existed independently of humans, where as animals reared by humans would not have existed otherwise. I hold the same distinction to fishing - i do not like wild fish, but farmed fishes (note: farmed, not fishes caught from the wild, then fattened) are ok (esp. in an enclosed, hydroponic system). Unfortunately, most "farmed" fishes refer to caught fish…

> Anything that humans create, live or dead, is fair game to be used for any purpose deemed desirable by the creator. Does that same distinction apply to human children? The objection to animal testing or consumption isn't about the source of the animals, it's about the ethical treatment of them. The potential suffering/emotional responses from the animal are the same regardless of the source. I'm more sympathetic to…

> Does that same distinction apply to human children?

it would if it weren't for the universal application of human rights today. And it did apply in the past - a slave's children are also slaves. I'm sure one day humans will move past this idea, but it is not today.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#386

Post by _nothing »

deltaonefour wrote: post #353
Sporktacular wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how this is said without a shred of sympathy or concern for an intelligent, helpless creature. Weirder how it can be said without a sympathetic or concerned response. I hope we can someday move beyond seeing animals as a mere resource.

It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. Our bodies produce all of the enzymes, such as protease and lipase, necessary for the breakdown and absorption of meat. The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things. Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" and become "vegetarians" effectively masking o…

Chasing an animal down, killing it, and eating it is in my opinion a significantly different activity than subjecting it to thirty likely-invasive procedures over the course of its life and then continuing to perform experiments on its dead body. Not saying it's more or less morally questionable, but significantly different.

Evolutionary biology is overused as justification for human behavior. We were not "designed" to eat meat because we were not designed. We evolved the capacity to eat meat just as we evolved a capacity for sympathy/empathy. Other animals have also been shown to "befriend"/care for/grieve over animals of different species, so our own capacity to sympathize for animals should be no surprise.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#387

Post by screamingninja »

deltaonefour wrote: post #382
screamingninja wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, humans are omnivores, not carnivores. Our bodies are designed to function on a wide variety of food including fresh produce. To each their own, but consuming meat is a choice, not a necessity.

A swiss army knife is designed to be used in many different ways. Just because you don't use all the ways doesn't mean it's not designed for it. You are an omnivore and you are designed to eat meat. Additionally, you are not designed to eat cellulose which is a huge component of what it means to be a herbivore. You are designed to eat meat, and designed to eat certain types of veggies. Who's to say that the veggie pa…

> Either way you ARE designed to eat veggies and MEAT, you can choose to eat veggies and deny half your nature, yes.. that is your choice.

Is that similar to you only acknowledging being designed to eat meat and denying half of your nature?

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#388

Post by W0lf »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #354
xwdv wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can live indefinitely with animal valves though they may need to be replaced every 15 years or so. It’a a fairly straightforward minimally invasive procedure though.

Wait, what? Are you saying that replacing a valve in your heart is "a fairly straightforward minimally invasive procedure"?

Pretty much standard procedure nowadays. The search term for this is TAVI (Transcatether Aortic Valve Implantation)

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#389

Post by deltaonefour »

codebolt wrote: post #373
deltaonefour wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not weird at all. Biologically speaking, we are designed to eat meat. Our bodies produce all of the enzymes, such as protease and lipase, necessary for the breakdown and absorption of meat. The weird thing is how we developed sympathy and concern for such things. Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" and become "vegetarians" effectively masking o…

Human beings are also designed for aggression towards each other, yet we generally try to control those parts of our 'savage nature' in modern society. Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.

>Human beings are also designed for aggression towards each other, yet we generally try to control those parts of our 'savage nature' in modern society.

No. There is no evolutionary benefit for raw aggression. Raw aggression appears during times of limited resources where aggression contributes to survival. Humans as all living things, are designed to survive and use any means to achieve it.

Given minimal resources we all will revert to our primal natures.

>Torturing defenseless animals is not an inescapable facet of human nature. It's something we choose to do and be OK with.

Nothing is inescapable. You are designed by nature to live out a certain lifetime yet you can escape your nature by killing yourself. This does not change your fundamental nature. We are more prone to follow our nature then to ignore it.

Re: U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient

#390

Post by JetAlone »

JimDabell wrote: post #372
JetAlone wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God's will is not so forceful as to supernaturally reach into the world and kill someone clinging to life, even if by evil means. If it were, and He reached down and destroyed the device every single time, you'd be likely to rebel all the more, calling Him a tyrant! No, this monk was truly no fool, he must have been a wise, simple old man who lived his life humbly doing his best to love those around him.

What do you mean by “not so forceful”? If you mean that it is literally too weak to accomplish this, then this doesn’t fit typical conceptions of deities. If you mean that it’s more of a preference than something he is insisting upon, then if a person chooses to extend their lifespan it isn’t going against your god’s will. Is there another meaning I’m missing?

I think it's on my end. I think I failed to make a crucial distinction between "will" and "allow" here. God does allow us to do things that go against His will. He is not too weak, but chooses not to use all His power to force us to do stuff in our lives because He wants a relationship. He has a preference which, while it may not always be easy to see, is borne out of love and is ultimately better for us than what we might insist upon.
Post reply on HN