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

Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

irishtimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 527 posts

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#61

Post by polishdude20 »

burrows wrote: post #50
emptyparadise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“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.

> The key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are. The victims family is saying “Our principle is that people who stab Ed should not get a heart, therefore David should not get a heart.” The doctor is saying “Our principle is that we don’t use the patient’s past violence or convictions to determine whether they should get a heart or not, so the stabbing doesn’t disqualify Davi…

The first argument is a slippery slope. What crimes disqualify you from getting a heart? How much repentance do you have to go through the get qualified back? Who judges that?

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#63

Post by throw__away7391 »

benatkin wrote: post #5

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-w... PETA doesn't like that anyone got a pig heart transplant. https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/first-heart-transpl...

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.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#64

Post by mannykannot »

ahevia wrote: post #15
benatkin wrote: post #5

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-w... PETA doesn't like that anyone got a pig heart transplant. https://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/first-heart-transpl...

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 th…

> 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.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#65

Post by stult »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #58
burrows wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are. The victims family is saying “Our principle is that people who stab Ed should not get a heart, therefore David should not get a heart.” The doctor is saying “Our principle is that we don’t use the patient’s past violence or convictions to determine whether they should get a heart or not, so the stabbing doesn’t disqualify Davi…

People who commit crimes should not get a heart can be transformed to Only people who have not committed crimes should get replacement hearts . The problem is, who hasn't committed crimes? Which crimes count? Who decides? That question makes the more-topical issue When the ER fills up, should unvaccinated people be treated by administering carbon monoxide in the hospital parking garage? look trivial to resolve, in co…

Seems pretty damn simple to me. If you wouldn’t put someone to death for a crime, you shouldn’t deny them medical care in a manner that will kill them for the same crime. It’s functionally and legally the same as putting them to death. Withholding necessary medical care is the same as withholding food, water, air, or shelter.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#66

Post by bastawhiz »

chana_masala wrote: post #38
sydthrowaway wrote: post #27

I am not a vegan but this is unethical

Maybe I can add some nuance as a vegan (I'm vegan btw, and I use Arch btw). I think that it's amazing that this is possible, but where it seems unethical to me is that there still are many other ways we could route heart transplants from willing humans. I think the only way I'd find this ethical is if the pig died from natural causes. But that probably complicates using the heart. If a pig is killed for food and then…

I'm curious how you'd extract a human heart from a willing human donor without killing the donor. I'm also curious how you'd similarly prepare the human donor in any way to meaningfully reduce the chances of rejection, like genetic modification.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#67

Post by nuclearnice1 »

anonymousiam wrote: post #55
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'?

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 Pos…

Given your expertise, maybe you know, what is 'openly carrying a concealed weapon'?

In particular, ‘openly’

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#68

Post by carrolldunham »

burrows wrote: post #57
carrolldunham wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.”

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.

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#69

Post by fennecfoxen »

mlyle wrote: post #36
emptyparadise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“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.

> This is so simple and newspapers trying to make it into a matter for debate is actually compromising that. Even if one were to consider moral character when allocating organs in general: the researchers needed someone who was sick and likely to die, ineligible for human organ transplant (here, because of severity of condition), and not so sick that there was no chance of success or useful data. So, we're already pi…

Yeah, the Post complaint (echoed elsewhere) is basically a call for having a social credit score that can say “you’re not a good person, so we’re not going to let the doctors save you.”

Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly

#70

Post by hallway_monitor »

jostmey wrote: post #8
phnofive wrote: post #2

Discussed here fifteen days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882912 Not a huge update but an interesting discussion of FDA approval; can the FDA actually stop or sanction experimental procedures like this?

Yes, the FDA will insert itself to regulate medicine wherever it can. For example, the FDA has been pushing to regulate diagnostic tests as medical devices. It’s funny how Americans surrender medical autonomy to the government but draw a strict line in the sand in other issues

If there was indeed a way to pull back the scope and power granted to the government I think a lot of us Americans would love to hear about it. The way it is, it seems like the US government is an unstoppable machine that will grow until it destroys itself.
Post reply on HN