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

Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 241 posts

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#181

Post by kelnos »

Fomite wrote: post #114
sonicggg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choosing a guy next to his deathbed is not the greatest PR move. People will associate the death to the transplant.

Choosing someone not next to their deathbed is very likely something that would never get approved by an ethics board.

I do wonder, however, if there were potential patients available, who were near death solely due to the need for a heart transplant (and were near-certain not to get a conventional human transplant in time), and not also because of a host of other issues.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#182

Post by kelnos »

kyleee wrote: post #97
als0 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder how it must feel to be a doctor who is one bad call away from being sued or revoked.

what's the alternative in practice; having no recourse if a negligent doctor maims or kills you?

There's a big difference between negligence and making a good-faith decision based on training and experience that later turns out to be wrong.

Actual negligence should, of course, absolutely be punished.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#183

Post by brigandish »

thehappypm wrote: post #156
treyfitty wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that it should detract from the main story, but the man who received the heart isn’t a hero at all… he stabbed a man multiple times leaving him paralyzed to die a slow death. Better to reserve the title “hero” to someone more deserving. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60010155.amp

His contribution to science is his penance.

It's hardly penance to be given the chance to live longer.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#184

Post by brigandish »

missedthecue wrote: post #66
jjtheblunt wrote: post #43

this is sad. it's kind of bizarre from a mile high view, but all so normal too, that no one comments on the sacrifice of a pig, i found myself observing.

I think most take it as a given that human life > swine life

Sadly, speciesism relies on the same foundational arguments that were prevalent when slavery was also still prevalent (in the west, at least) - which is why slavery was so prevalent. I'm sure those having their organs harvested in China are the subject of similar specious (ha) reasoning, which humans are all to ready to accept uncritically, as it benefits us too much.

There's no bias stronger than self interest.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#185

Post by kelnos »

mulmen wrote: post #26
DiffEq wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to be callous by this comment but if you mean "live differently" as living unhealthy well I have a problem with this. People that live in unhealthy ways cause all sorts of grief to others as well as financial loss. It is not right that I have to pay for people that decide to essentially eat themselves to death; it is not right that my wife and I had to care for my mother for months because she decided to…

Living is unhealthy. It’s universally fatal. In a free society we (should) retain autonomy over our bodies. This isn’t purely philosophical, it is practical. Who decides what is healthy? What if they are wrong? How many eggs should I eat today to meet your personal definition of healthy living? And what do I do when it differs from someone else?

This is kinda an extremist straw man, though. I don't think anyone is claiming that the fields of nutrition and physical fitness are settled and that we know everything about what people need to do to be healthy.

But if you're obese and eat junk food all day, or if you just sit around on your couch and never get any exercise, and then end up with (for example) heart disease, that is something that was likely preventable, and we have a pretty good idea why and what could have been done differently. I'm force to subsidize these people's health care to some extent, and I think that's unfair.

The whole autonomy thing is tricky. We live in a society where we "care" for each other in collective ways (taxes etc.). People who want to live in that society lose some autonomy as a part of the bargain. I don't think this means we should legally force people not to eat or drink certain things. But I do think that (for example) denying people liver transplants when they won't stop drinking excess amounts of alcohol is fine. They can have their autonomy, but then they have to live with the consequences of their choices.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#187

Post by throwaway5752 »

phkahler wrote: post #44
slowhand09 wrote: post #5

My friend was a member of the transplant team at Johns Hopkins. "They" said he was near multiple organ failure prior to the transplant. And he survived significantly longer than expected. Recovery under those circumstances was a very long shot already. Kudos to him for undergoing the procedure, and furthering the research. Condolences to he and his family.

Well that really raises the question of what did he die from? If not from the heart, how do they proceed with the research? Gotta do the next one on a person whose not already nearly gone. That seems like a highly sensitive line, no doubt it's a big discussion to move it.

I think that "Exactly what has happened since and the precise cause of Mr Bennett's death is not clear." indicates that the reporter is not clear, not the physicians. Other sources like https://www.wbaltv.com/article/man-received-historic-pig-hea... talk about infections and indicate his illnesses and treatment were well understood. Even though the patient was a public figure he has HIPAA rights and the hospital has obligations towards him. I don't doubt much more will come out in subsequent published research.

The chance they don't understand in great, great detail the cause of Mr. Bennett's death is nearly zero. The chance that IRBs aren't equipped to handle the ethics of this decision in the future are also very low.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#188

Post by sundarurfriend »

missedthecue wrote: post #66
jjtheblunt wrote: post #43

this is sad. it's kind of bizarre from a mile high view, but all so normal too, that no one comments on the sacrifice of a pig, i found myself observing.

I think most take it as a given that human life > swine life

However, if it had been a dog's heart that was used, there'd be without a doubt at least one comment - probably several - expressing either kudos or sympathy to the "donor" dog.

I love dogs (especially mine), but there's no objective reason a pig's life has to be worth less than a dog's.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#189

Post by dymk »

brigandish wrote: post #183
thehappypm wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His contribution to science is his penance.

It's hardly penance to be given the chance to live longer.

You seem to be missing the point - his repayment to society was being the guinea pig for a medical experiment, which would have been unethical to do on somebody in nearly any other circumstance.

Re: Man given genetically modified pig heart dies

#190

Post by dymk »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #188
missedthecue wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most take it as a given that human life > swine life

However, if it had been a dog's heart that was used, there'd be without a doubt at least one comment - probably several - expressing either kudos or sympathy to the "donor" dog. I love dogs (especially mine), but there's no objective reason a pig's life has to be worth less than a dog's.

> no objective reason

Why would the reason have to be objective? It's perfectly fine that the reasons are subjective. We're talking about people's emotional responses afterall.

Post reply on HN