Live data from Hacker News

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

irishtimes.com

251–260 of 527 posts

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

#251
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...

My understanding is that given this was the first time this was tried, there was a strong possibility that the patient would not survive. Instead, the manner of their death would inform the doctors for the next person they tried it on.

Given that their chance of survival is so slim, choosing to use a person for whom such small odds give more information to science, rather than do moral good by helping this person survive, seemed a reasonable tradeoff.

Is this too cynical a read on the choice they made?

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

#252
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…

The weird thing about saying "Do not save those who took another's life" is that you are saying, "The person took a life. That's bad. We should punish them for the bad thing." Then saying, "Let's take their life to punish them." (not saving a life you could being essentially the same as life taking, to me, here). To me, you are undermining your view that life-taking is bad, by engaging in it yourselves. To me, this i…

Confining a person is bad. But we imprison someone who did that. Thereby, to show that freedom taking is bad, we engage in it. To me, this is a paradox.

r/im14andthisisdeep

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

#253
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…

The weird thing about saying "Do not save those who took another's life" is that you are saying, "The person took a life. That's bad. We should punish them for the bad thing." Then saying, "Let's take their life to punish them." (not saving a life you could being essentially the same as life taking, to me, here). To me, you are undermining your view that life-taking is bad, by engaging in it yourselves. To me, this i…

Well put. Apart from the lengthy threads here regularly on how flawed the very notion of free will that's necessary to even justify this focus on vengeance, I absolutely agree with you that if you're going to argue for vengeance and have a moral leg to stand on you better at least not argue for such an outcome.

I like to point to this page from Franquin's Idées Noires (finally in English as "Die Laughing", only a few decades late) [1], which makes much the same point as you. (The whole book is very much worth it if you like dark humour - it's a crime it took so long for it to get translated to English given how many other languages it's been translated to decades ago)

Translated the speech bubbles are roughly:

"The law is clear: Every person who voluntarily kills another will have their head cut off. Let the executioner do their job."

"Over here, my friend."

"And so a good deed done..."

"Sorry, but the law is clear: Everyone who voluntarily kills another..."

[1] https://i.pinimg.com/474x/c5/3c/45/c53c451e1fea4fd04ea6cf674...

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

#254
I've said this before here and got downvoted for it, but bioethicists as a profession are responsible for more death than pretty much anything else I can quickly think of.

People are dying from heart disease all the time, very often in predictable conditions. Literally millions every year. Statistically this means we should hear about such failed procedures many many more times than we do now - there is literally no downside from doing this much more often, and a strict upside: a chance to live longer and a definite advance in medicine leading to other lives saved. Sure, it may mean more stress for a dying patient, but quite a few would prefer their death have some meaning. But they can't chose this because it's not "ethical".

Moderna had the mRNA vaccine for Covid ready in about 3 weeks. This means the tech was already there - I'd really like to see an argument where we had three major companies create mRNA vaccines, only one failed (harmlessly!) but we shouldn't have used this technology a few years early. mRNA tech is incredibly versatile - it should have applications from curing cold to curing cancer. But no, we needed a pandemic and 10 months of testing to start using it, because it wasn't "ethical".

We knew from month 1 that the young and healthy are not hit hard by Covid. Mortality in those groups was always comparable to flu, more or less. But we didn't do challenge trials. We wasted ... I have to take a break from typing, tbh, I'm overwhelmed. We wasted almost a year while literal millions died while wondering if Covid is transmitted by touch, aerosols or airborne when we could have fixed this in two weeks with a bunch of 25 year olds. We spent half a year before even realizing masks help, and we still don't know for sure how much and what's the difference between each kind. We had Omicron - we knew it was different, we had good reason to think it's not significantly worse from the start, but we still had a _lot_ of questions. But two years from the start of the pandemic we STILL didn't put a bunch of healthy volunteers through a completely harmless study to find out things early. Because it wouldn't have been "ethical".

This isn't ethics we're talking about. It's pure and unadulterated cowardice. We as a society shy away from doing things which we _know_ would save more lives in the aggregate because we'd have to risk causing much less harm, but harm which we'd be directly responsible for. Joe from the street would be excused from making these decisions, but when you deal with the people directly charged by the society from making these decision, it's just failure to do their job. And in a supermajority of case we're dealing with volunteers anyways.

If you feel like reading more about how stupid the whole system is: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/29/my-irb-nightmare/

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

#255

Earlier 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…

> Idk, it could just be a claim that the argument can be expressed in a logical system, combined with the normative axiom that rational agents should only trust arguments that can be validly expressed in such a formal system.

The term "valid" has both formal and informal senses. I agree some of its formal senses are non-normative, but I think its informal uses have a strong normative element. The original comment to which I was responding wasn't very clear about in what sense it was intending the term, but when people aren't clear, it is not unfair to assume they mean a term informally rather than in some specific formal sense.

> Regardless this seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Nobody has put forth any arguments for either position that are emperical in nature. Is there really a practical difference between impossible and possible but nobody knows how?

What is the proper role of empiricism in human knowledge, including moral knowledge? You seem to be making some assumptions here which you are not making explicit.

If one accepts moral sense theory – that moral intuitions are a form of empirical knowledge – then we can have direct empirical knowledge of the truth or falsehood of moral propositions.

If one accepts pragmatism – that beliefs can be justified by the pragmatic benefits of believing them, and that pragmatically justified beliefs can constitute genuine cases of knowledge – then empirical evidence can be used to establish the pragmatic benefits of a moral belief, and hence (indirectly) to establish its truth.

One may believe that some axioms are self-evidently true, and that one's knowledge of the truth of those axioms is innate rather than empirical – in which case, if one accepts that for non-moral axioms, how about accepting it for moral axioms as well?

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

#256
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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 wh…

I can't think of a single person I know that hasn't ducked down to the shops to pick something up when they have the flu. By your definition, they are actively attempting to cause harm to others - which is an interesting take.

Even before covid, I would always wear a mask if I had a flu and would try as much as possible not to go to shops or pick up anything. A lot of people I know do the same.

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

#257

A good test. The guy is older and wanted to remain alive, despite the wishes of his family. And pigs are so close to humans anyway -- which is why I have the theory of why humans love bacon so much. Best wishes to Mr. Bennett, and hope that whatever happens, it will be a good leap for humanity.

Human Bacon, the final frontier. How long until you can buy Beyond Human burgers?

You may enjoy the first story in the compilation of Clarke stories called The Wind From The Sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_from_the_Sun

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

#258
post #127

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

But are they wrong?

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

#259
post #18
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's still serving his sentence, right? At least he's being useful as a guinea pig. Maybe it's selfish, but at least it's data that will help the next person. Frankly, I could care less what the family thinks. If they feel so strongly, then they should advocate for some legislative change. Most families would kill if given the option, and also the luxury of having someone else do it for them.

Doesn't sound like it, it was 24 years ago according to the article, and they had a ten year sentence.

34 years

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

#260

Earlier 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.

They're getting it. Everyone is offered the vaccine. If people choose not to accept that care then what happens afterwards has to be assessed and prioritized on a case by case basis. If there's an ICU bed and two patients, one who's a Covid patient who refused to protect themselves and the other someone who has something not preventable, the second one should get priority.

Ideally there would be two beds, and everyone would get the care they need, but reality means choices have to be made. Refusing a vaccine should send you to the back of the queue.

Post reply on HN