If the man starts to grunt one fine morning he should sue the doctors. Is it even worth to prolong his life in the first place? There are much younger people waiting for a heart. Was he a guinea pig for the doctors? Is that why they didn't give it to a younger people in need?



Why should a theist have a problem with this? I'm one but I have no problem with it. Is it playing god somehow?

Your Theism seems to be on a shoogly peg. From your Thanatos and Hypnos commentary,(you believe in them....you don't believe in them) to your (I am theist but.... fingers to the gods)
Read back on your own comments......

Why should a theist have a problem with this? I'm one but I have no problem with it. Is it playing god somehow? — Raymond

Many theists considered a pig to be a filthy animal. I cant see an orthodox Islamist accepting a pig heart, even to save his/her life. Even if it's been 'modified.'

Many versions of the Yahweh myth or Islamic myths or other myths such as Elah Yisrael or Elah Elahin, etc or the various versions of Christianity will not even have a tattoo as they believe it is against God never mind replacing parts of yourself with bits of modified animal so that you can stick around Earth longer, instead of joining your God in his heavenly paradise! For eternity!

1. Yes, it's in our best interest to prolong the life of the latter man. It's a simple answer, but the reality is much more complicated. There are millions of ways to challenge this answer by introducing new variables to the equation.
2. You should refer to the existing clinical and ethical guidelines for organ transplantation. The problem of morality of organ transplantations is relatively old and incredibly complex. Luckily for us, there are guidelines that have been developed through extensive time and effort. It's very difficult to challenge them in a way that they haven't been challenged already.

I'll offer an answer that I personally find satisfactory. Why not give both men a new heart? It seems like the novelty of the transplantation described in the OP is that we can genetically modify pig hearts and offer them to the people who otherwise wouldn't receive a hearth. Sounds like a win for everyone. We should celebrate this. — pfirefry

I really appreciate you taking time to answer, I think this answer is pretty level-headed. I am not in the medical profession, so I'm not entirely familiar with all the guidelines they follow. I did read a bit of the doctors oath. What ethical theories do you fall in line with?

I guess for me, I still think both men should get a heart. I just think it rubs people the wrong way sometimes when we prolong, ignore, or increase the chance of suffering to be "fair". For example, a child dying because they were next in line behind a serial killer/rapist with no regard for human life.

Many suns ago, I was quite impressed by all these reportedly "life-saving" transplant surgeries (my friend J, lucky chap, had a kidney transplant), until I found out J crossed over in, what?, about 5 years or so. Transplants only extend life for very brief periods (their success, if I'm not mistaken, is measured in 5/10-year survival rates). So much for medical brrakthroughs! I could be mistaken though - I haven't bothered to update myself in these fields.

5 or even 10 years is a wink, goes by in a flash. You just retuned yourself (hopefully become a better person) after a transplant and declare to the world "meet the new me!" and it's already time for a priest to give you your last rites!

Oops! Went off on a tangent!

I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line". — Cobra

At least in the past, convicted felons were not rarely used in medical experiments. It's how they can be useful to society. This practice is nothing new.

The prolonging of their life isn't so much interesting, but instead the decision to select over another, and whether or not that is the best one to make.

This recent xenotransplant wasn't a standard heart transplant, but an experimental one, so the situations aren't actually comparable. (Who payed for the pig heart transplant? Surely not an insurance company.)

The actual dividing line here isn't between who is more deserving of a life saving medical procedure and who isn't, but where the line is between an experimental medical procedure and a standard medical procedure (and who pays for these things).


Importantly, also, we're talking with the benefit of hindsight: In this case, the man with the pig heart is still alive. Had he died during or soon after surgery, many people who are currently opposed to him getting the pig heart, would then feel vidicated and would view the situation differently.

Should these then be elements be taken into account, when selecting recipients of organ transplants? — Cobra

There are already criteria in place for selecting recipients of organ transplants. There is an official waiting list and a board of doctors who decide on a case by case basis.


Also, do you know what is the actual probability that in the same region, at the same time, there are two or more people who need the same new organ, and they also have the exact same medical predispositions for it?
How many prospective recipients does any particular donor organ have at any given time?

IOW, how often does the type of situation you describe in the OP actually happen?