U.S. surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by reportingsjr » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

medstrom wrote: post #519

catgary wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know University of Calgary had a bio professor who got in hot water for abusing animals (essentially: he encouraged his student to not anaesthetize animals before surgery to fudge numbers). So there are definitely grad students who will happily torture animals if it can help their career.

Damn, they require you to tell them how many mice you've got so you can get that many anaesthesis doses? That rule wasn't thought through.

It is common to use ketamine for anesthesia in animal testing. It's a controlled drug, so you have to keep a pretty good log of it's use.

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

#572

Post by Blikkentrekker » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 1:51 PM UTC

iancmceachern wrote: post #226

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make me wonder how the transplanted pig heart or any transplanted heart connects so seamlessly. The issue simply heals and grows together with the foreign tissue?

They use a common medical technique called anastomosis. Basically they just sew the two arteries/vessels together with suture and the blood and tissue seals it as any other cut or nick in the body. Sometimes they use "bioglue" but its not strictly needed, just a timesaver.

And the pig tissue then connects with the human tissue and eventually heals to form a connected vessel? or it never grows together but it is sealed with a blood cloth?

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

#573

Post by evancoop » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 1:52 PM UTC

Firstly, I will resist the urge to quip about the culinary potential of the remainder of the pig or the moral implications of using animals for their organs (especially since we've already decided, at a societal level, that eating them is acceptable).

Secondly, this begs the question, "how many other high-risk, high-potential treatments deserve resources and experimentation?" Clearly, if this is successful, the potential for adding quality-adjusted-life-years to humans is enormous. Does this inform how we view other experimental treatment? Does this inform how cryonics is perceived more broadly (at its core, another experimental tool to extend life)?

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

#574

Post by badRNG » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 1:53 PM UTC

jakear wrote: post #343

badRNG wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A (somewhat?) vegan perspective. I've teetered on staying committed to veganism for ethical reasons, and have spent time on and off with vegan diets. I don't at all think (nor do I think most vegans think [see disclaimer]) that pigs are worthy of equal moral consideration as humans. I, along with most humans, think that pigs as well as other animals are worthy of some level of moral consideration. Most would be right…

A bit off topic but you seem level-headed and I've been wondering about this for a while: what's your vegan "endgame"? The way I see it, the "vegan utopia" would get rid of all small family farms (even strictly milk/egg ones) -- where animals are given all the food they need, have access to good medical care, are sheltered from predators, and are able to reproduce and nurse offspring -- and replace all that with... a…

Industrialized farming is worlds different from these idealistic "small family subsistence farms." The hypothetical world in which one might be able to raise animals ethically as a food source isn't the same one that can have massive businesses turning a profit from supplying animal meat to millions of people. I don't think a business could survive in a market economy while treating their animals humanely. The cost would simply be unimaginable.

Most people who oppose the torture of animals and are sufficiently educated with how industrialized farming works face either discomfort and cognitive dissonance to some degree, or feel inclined to make a change (whatever that may look like.)

As far as the difference between living in the wild and living in industrialized farms, I think allowing animals to live in the wild is vastly more ethical than the misery that awaits them on factory farms. Of course, the current generation of livestock should never be returned to the wild. The "end game" would be the cessation of breeding of these animals.

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

#575

Post by Blikkentrekker » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 1:55 PM UTC

postalrat wrote: post #404

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.

We owe dogs a great debt for helping humanity for many thousands of years.

I have never personally been helped by any dog.

Collective responsibility is such a strange philosophy. I owe an entity because a member of it's helped a member of my species in the past?

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

#576

Post by Strs2FillMyDrms » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:01 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #493

riversflow wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human civilizations' current abundance of resources allows us the luxury to develop moral "philosophies" You've got it backwards; Human's current abundance is the creation of human cooperation, which doesn't really work without some sort of ethical framework. Philosophy enables us to achieve more, it is not the result of our achievement.

A dictatorship is a human cooperation as well and while it technically has an ethical framework it's not exactly a victory of philosophy.

"Dicatorship and Cooperation are the same thing, lots of people are telling me this, rigth now!"

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

#577

Post by chii » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

kaba0 wrote: post #526

chii wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both food, or medical, is a use of a resource that is created by and for humans. The pig wouldn't have been born had their purpose for food, or medical use, not been there. it's not like humans are capturing wild pigs and using them. I would say that wild animals deserves the right to exist and not hunted (unless they're threatening human interests), but the same cannot be said for bred animals.

I think bounding morale boundaries to the way of something coming to life is a terrible idea (instead of sentience). Is it okay by extension to eat/do research on/torture on a human baby that was created in a lab and was came to term without a mother, but in vitro?

it isn't OK because it is a human (whether created in vitro, or born al natural) - humans are granted human rights (by other humans, out of self-interest i might add) which ostensibly prevent such things from happening to them. That is why slavery is against human rights.

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

#578

Post by MrFlibbles » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

hungryforcodes wrote: post #430

tcgv wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your clarification. It's good to read that the pig was well cared and experiments passed ethics reviews. To be fair your original comment was lacking this information, hence when I first read it felt (unintentionally as we can see now) a bit cold-hearted to me as well.

Do you EAT pig?

Yes, frequently.

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

#579

Post by uhtred » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:28 PM UTC

dexwiz wrote: post #342

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.

From what I heard, the pig lived a relativity good life. It was well cared for by the large animal veterinary school on campus. Had more space and better food than any factory raised pig. All experiments passed an ethics review. The pig was anesthetized before any procedure. The number of experiments may sound barbaric on the surface, but it was to reduce the overall number of pigs used in trials. Modern medicine wou…

So the bar for how well we treat other animals is now "is it having a better life than a factory farmed animal"? We have a long way to go don't we?

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

#580

Post by Simon_says » Tue, Jan 11, 2022, 2:29 PM UTC

libertine wrote: post #541

scoopertrooper wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures, then the fact we perform ethics-reviewed anesthetised procedures and later dissect the same animals really shouldn't keep you up at night.

>If you can accept humans can eat helpless intelligent creatures Not only we can heat... we stuff our faces into it several times a day and we keep rearranging the forms we eat it. We even make an effort to make it more enticing to children in the form of small golden nuggets like it's some sort of a treasure of flavor.

> treasure of flavor.

Heck yea, it is!