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

691–700 of 731 posts

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

#691

Post by fastball »

zizee wrote: post #677
fastball wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can feel sympathy without displaying it on queue for your gratification.

I think your missing the point I am trying to make. Hint: It's not for my gratification, I am not asking people to show sympathy. Ironically, you accuse people of "strawmanning", and then proceed do the same to me. Perhaps take a leaf out of your own book and stop assuming intent. Have a splendid day.

> with a comment that showed no sympathy

> but they were ignoring the original call to express sympathy to these animals.

How is this not asking people to show sympathy?

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

#692

Post by kgin »

Sporktacular wrote: post #240
GiorgioG wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what are the ethical implications for raising them with the intention to harvest their organs, if any? We slaughter more than 100m pigs per year in the US for food. I don’t think a few more million are going to cause a moral dilemma.

It's vivisection, but hopefully less painfully/traumatically than some slaughterhouses.

There isn’t any propofol at slaughterhouses

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

#693

Post by kgin »

garren wrote: post #15

I wonder why a pig heart rather than one from another primate? The article mentions a baboon heart in an earlier attempt at xenotransplantation with an infant. Is a pig’s heart as, or more, compatible or is it more a matter of availability?

From what I’ve read, the additional biological advantages are small but the additional ethical issues are large.

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

#694

Post by throw10920 »

wanda wrote: post #533
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.

Are you... are you serious? The day that every statement of unfortunate fact has to be prefaced by an expression of emotional disapproval... that is the day I officially give up on our already laughable species. No one should have to explicitly state their disapproval of something unpleasant -- it can go without saying. And I, for one, prefer to get facts and information without a person's opinion on the matter -- no…

I believe that the GP poster was intentionally using emotionally-charged language in order to try to push that position, or alternatively to make an excuse to bring it up in the thread without otherwise having a reason to do so.

Not really in the spirit of HN, of course.

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

#695

Post by kbelder »

nsonha wrote: post #530
snovv_crash wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wishing you had never been born is one thing, wishing someone/something else had never been born is not a response of empathy but rather personal guilt.

This is not even a question, being born into a life of slavery and ultimately being slaughtered is worse than not being born. Think about it, you are born into a prison and given no chance to even develop a proper consciousness. This is very different than a fully aware human getting locked up in a prison.

I don't know that all slaves would agree with you.

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

#696

Post by Blikkentrekker »

OrangeMusic wrote: post #688
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.

Please let's not pretend to ignore that some species are more "human like" than others. - Plants are less "human like" than insects - Insects are less "human like" than sharks - Sharks are less "human like" than pigs - Pigs are less "human like" than dogs - Dogs are less "human like" than primates - Primates are less "human like" than humans Pretending that this is is irrelevant doesn't help discourse. And yes of cou…

> And yes of course this sorting is subjective, some people may find pigs and cows "just as" "human like" as dogs - but most people won't.

I honestly find it a very strange idea to say dogs are more human like than pigs.

Have you ever socialized with a pig? It is immediately clear to me that they display intelligence and emotional awareness of a far higher level than dogs. With pigs, it almost feels as though they are mute humans, trying to communicate in some way but being unable to do so due to an inability to speak, similar to dolphins and nonhuman apes. — They are also inquisitive creatures that inspect their environment and seem to apply some level of cognition to it that I never saw in dogs.

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

#697

Post by Blikkentrekker »

wruza wrote: post #475
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also remember reading about a criminal defence attorney who did not handle cases involving sex crimes. Apparently he was fine with defending murder suspects, but not suspects charged with even street groping. Or Gerard Spong's statement of being willing to defend anyone charged with anything, except Dési Bouterse; there are certainly worse military dictators on the planet.

An attorney? I've had a hard time finding any attorney (not in US) for my grand-uncle who groped an underage girl on the street. Almost everyone refused, despite my request was only to get any information about the case^ and where it may possibly go, not the actual defense. The person who agreed to help said they wouldn't do it too, but they were asked by people they couldn't say no to. (Uncle ended up in an asylum d…

And these people would defend murder suspects?

How very strange. — In many jurisdictions defence attorneys do not have a right to refuse any case they are competent in and timewise available for, something I approve of.

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

#698

Post by mensetmanusman »

chii wrote: post #385
alex_sf wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are an absolute higher number of slaves today than in the past, is that what you are referencing?

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

#699

Post by deltaonefour »

_nothing wrote: post #685
deltaonefour wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never talked about "rules" or "intent" the way you put it. I am simply saying how else do you describe the hand. The hand is for grasping things the rock is not. How to I ascribe this difference without using the word design or purpose because clearly the hand is much much more efficient at grasping things. Sure you can use the hand for things it was not "designed" for like hand stands and walking while hand sta…

I appreciate that explanation. While awkward, I believe "efficiency zone" is a much clearer term to use, or at least it was worthwhile clarifying that that's what you meant. While I understand what you're saying, I still don't think that ultimately matters when talking about what humans should or shouldn't be doing, what we're supposed to or not supposed to be doing, considering: 1. Human nature is not particularly e…

"suppose to" is another loaded and ambiguous word. You can smoke and inject your self with heroin everyday. It's not efficient and it doesn't mean you're not "suppose to" do it.

But there is something off with doing these things and I don't want to get into the pedantics of it all. Not eating meat is in the same general area without the social stigma of being a drug abuser.

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

#700

Post by tempestn »

mleonhard wrote: post #675
saalweachter wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding -- which should be taken with two grains of salt, I'm a programmer not a doctor -- is that the pacemaker cells which actually go "beat now beat now beat now" are part of the heart itself, and transplanted with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_pacemaker The nerves from the rest of the body are needed to tell these cells "we need more oxygen, beat faster" or "sleepy time, beat slower".

Could a surgeon cut the nerves and pacemaker cells away from the diseased heart and implant them into the donor heart?

I assume if they could reconnect the nerves to the new heart they would. There's no need to replace the pacemaker cells in the new heart with the old ones though.
Post reply on HN