I wonder how long it'll last, given the pig it came out of was probably already an adult, and pigs live far shorter lives than humans.
Can’t they just keep replacing it every ten years?
It's difficult to do repeat surgeries in the chest.
Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
231–240 of 527 posts
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and the next step would be "we're not going to treat you for Covid because you're not vaccinated".
This is not same. The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people.
I think you're confused on what the word 'actively' means.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are so many vocal advocates for the covid vaccine such demons? Is the rhetoric surrounding the covid vaccine so toxic that it turns otherwise normal people into people who are so hate filled, or are such hate filled people simply predisposed to being influenced by such rhetoric?
Why are people like you so hyperbolic? How is anything that the OP said demonic? The unvaccinated are literally causing people to die besides themselves. There is nothing hate-filled about that.
> The unvaccinated are literally causing people to die besides themselves. There is nothing hate-filled about that.
As a soon to be triple vaccinated healthy adult I wish we could soon admit that we do this for our own good and to not be away from work.
By now it is very clear that about the only thing the current vaccine does against Omicron is lessen the consequences for the individuals who take the vaccine.
I still recommend it but it won't save anyones life except those who take the vaccine.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Neither party can offer a valid argument as to why their principle is true, because both of their principles are normative. Can you offer a valid argument for the truth of your own principle, that it is impossible to offer a valid argument for the truth of any normative principle? I think your own position is a normative principle, and hence your position is self-refuting. To call an argument "valid" is to make a n…
Not being able to use emperical evidence to prove a normative claim is a very common (albeit not universal) belief. Probably because nobody has really convincingly done so in thoussands of years. > To call an argument "valid" is to make a normative claim; it is to claim that a rational agent ought to accept it. Idk, it could just be a claim that the argument can be expressed in a logical system, combined with the nor…
The practical/empirical argument would essentially be to extrapolate out what the world will become like if we spread X or Y normative belief/practice.
You can argue that one will lead to a preferable world than the other.
Of course, we may have different preferences, so we may not agree even if we agree on that extrapolation. But often basic human preferences like not wanting to be the victim of unprovoked public violence do align.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for prompting me to reevaluate my position. Initially I claimed, “There are no valid arguments for normative claims.”, I would like to amend my claim. Def: An inferential system is a tuple of axioms and inferential rules. Def: An argument is a non-empty ordered sequence of statements. The last statement is called its conclusion. Claim: If an inferential system produces an argument for a normative claim, the…
You are saying that, a valid deductive argument with a normative conclusion must either have a normative premise, or else rely on a logic whose inference rules permit normative statements to be inferred from non-normative ones. I agree with you there. But you haven't explained how this (obviously true) statement is relevant to the original discussion, about the morality of providing life-saving medical treatment to p…
> But you haven't explained how this (obviously true) statement is relevant to the original discussion, about the morality of providing life-saving medical treatment to perpetrators of serious crimes.
My original point was in response to the claim that “the key principle in medicine is to treat anyone who is sick, regardless of who they are”. I took this to be an ought and wanted to point out that its truth isn’t established anymore than the ought indicated by Ed’s family, and that in fact there would be serious difficulties with establishing either one for the reason given by your last post:
> a valid deductive argument with a normative conclusion must either have a normative premise, or else rely on a logic whose inference rules permit normative statements to be inferred from non-normative ones.
But also I think that this poster makes a good point that the doctors are actually making a positive claim.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30081152
> To call an argument "valid" is to make a normative claim; it is to claim that a rational agent ought to accept it.
I think I had in mind a textbook definition I had read.
An argument is called valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. And then we say that an argument is sound if it is both valid and has true premises.
Which seems like a useful pair of definitions, and in that context I was confused about the terms.
I actually haven’t ever thought about or heard of this idea of ‘when is a rational actor committed to accepting claims’. But yeah, seems interesting to me.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's different because there's no moral judgement in that position. If you refuse treatment for a condition, even a preventative one, then there's no moral imperative to offer a different treatment later. Doctors did their best to save you, but you didn't do your part. That's on you.
I couldn’t disagree more. Everyone deserves the same level of care.
Everyone deserves care. It’s unpleasant to think about giving emergency care to people who actively refuse preventative treatments at the cost of canceled appointments and surgeries for non-COVID patients. Triaging really sucks.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not same. The non vaccinated are actively choosing to be a danger to people around them. It is like actively carrying concealed unlicensed gun which can silently and anynomously fire at people.
I think you're confused on what the word 'actively' means.
'Actively' seems to be accurate for the scenario when one is choosing to make body conducive to incubate virus, or already incubating them (albeit unknowingly if asymptomatic).
[Edit] And if you meant active in context of 'Active shooter', then still use of the word active is not wrong. Virus laden body is like carrying a concealed gun which is on 'auto pilot', it is actively spraying bullets; it IS active all the while.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I understand the family though. The unfairness is heavy.
The unfairness of a terminally ill person that's not eligible for a regular heart transplant receiving an experimental treatment that might just as well kill him, but in the long run might save many more?
Or is it the unfairness of never being able to escape ones past?
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Ugh PETA, always have to butt in just to keep themselves relevant. This is literally what they are all about. It's like complaining that the IOC keeps whining about athlete doping just to try to stay relevant.
I originally downvoted you but then removed the downvote since what you write is correct and not trollish.
That said I have though about it more than once, simulation in the head style and a world were PETA wins turns in to a uglier world in most cases.
Note: this is specifically about PETA, some other animal rights/welfare organizations are somewhat reasonable.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#240His 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...
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.