This is great news! I am very hopeful there is no reject in a year … hopeful for him and his family
No post body was provided.
Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
141–150 of 527 posts
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#142His 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...
Dude looks more like 77 than 57. Life-long stress, I'm guessing.
[deleted]
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#143Earlier 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.
It is even simpler than that. Someone who has served their time in prison and is now released is considered to have paid their debt to society. You may think, as I do, that this man served nowhere near what he should have for the crime he committed. However, the law has been followed and he is no longer in prison. If the people the New York Post is targeting think that he should still be punished, then he should stil…
My experience has been that the kind of people that want longer prison sentences for folks like this are more than willing to tolerate higher taxes to pay for them.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#144I am not a vegan but this is unethical
If you're not a vegan and you're against this you're letting your squeamishness override your ethics. If an animal is worth killing for the convenience and taste of a meal, it's worth killing to save a human being with a transplant.
Your objection sounds like squeamishness, and in that case I'd avoid looking at medical procedures in general.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#145Earlier 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…
I mean one of those principles generalize, the other does not. I would argue making medical decisions based on ad-hoc principles is unjust.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#146Earlier 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…
> 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…
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 system is either inconsistent or permits inference from positive statements to normative statements or the argument proceeds from normative axioms.
Proof. Suppose S is a consistent inferential system and that A is an argument in S from S’s axioms to a normative conclusion. If S has only positive axioms then A makes inference from positive to normative statements. QED
Corollary: There are no arguments for normative claims that don’t proceed from normative axioms in consistent systems that don’t permit inference from normative to positive statements.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you think is a good candidate for such a statement? Here's an intuitive one: "you shouldn't kick puppies." Most people think that expresses a true statement (not that "most people" is itself indicative of truth value). In terms of my own ethics: "act only in a way that you can will be universal law." Of course, not everybody agrees with that one, but I think it's an awfully good candidate. We can talk about…
> a book of rules that doctors (broadly) are not allowed to disagree with. They’re allowed to disagree, as long as they still follow them.
You're right, sorry. "It doesn't matter whether they disagree" is a better way to put it.
Dura lex sed lex and all that.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#148His 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...
Well they are literally named "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." It shouldn't be surprising that they are not in favor of killing animals for replacement body parts.
I'm not either, but at least this was a case where the personally arguably "needed" it. Usually we treat animals like garbage just for fun.
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO. As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.
Wouldn’t you need to kill the animal in the prime of its life, causing a moral issue?
Pigs reach slaughter weight at about 6 months[0] and the lifetime of a domestic pig is 15 to 20 years. Their breeding age is 8+ months. So we kill them before they reach the prime of their life most of the time. Killing them at their prime might be less of a moral issue than what we do currently.
[0]https://modernfarmer.com/2016/05/raising-pigs/#:~:text=Most%....
Re: Two weeks later David Bennett is alive, his pig’s heart beating soundly
#150I'm a full on speciesist. let's do more of this. since we're already eating them I feel like this even a more reasonable usage of their lives. can we do kidneys next please? we can basically shut down most dialysis clinics after that.
The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO. As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.
And then the next step is to do research showing that pigs that are happy, stress free, and eat a good diet produce organs that are better for transplant. If so, this might be one of the most ethical animal industries.