Re: the recent news about the French woman who got a “partial face transplant” – The stories all describe so-called “ethicists” and “psychologists” who are opposed to the operation for various reasons that seem bogus to me.
The operation took the donor’s skin from the nose, lips and chin area, and transplanted it to the woman, whose face had been badly mauled by a dog.
How could anyone oppose this? Would they prefer that the woman remain disfigured and unable to speak or eat properly for the rest of her life?
I think these so-called “ethicists” should all become priests and that way they’d be more honest about where they’re coming from. Calling oneself an “ethicist” is just another way of saying “I’m right and you’re wrong” for the most bogus of reasons.
Ethicists were not exactly opposed to the surgery; they merely felt that traditional reconstruction should have been tried before risking an entirely new procedure. Some also felt that a suicidally depressed patient was a poor risk for experimental surgery. Both positions are perfectly reasonable, though not necessarily correct.
Only the doctors and patient should decide which procedure is most appropriate. Why should the woman have to go through extra surgery that may be less appropriate (assuming it’s even feasible)? Some so-called “ethicist” who has never met the patient and may not even be a doctor cannot make this kind of decision, and should not presume to do so.
She’s going to have one mighty face-off with the recipient.
I didn’t see much in the linked article about ethicists being opposed to the procedure. Only stuff about how some doctors wanted to proceed with caution. Is there something I’m missing?
Maybe I lack reading comprehension skills, but to me that sounds like doctors first wanted to attempt tried and proven procedures rather than risking an untried procedure. Proceed with caution. Sounds terribly sensible and responsible to me.
I’m a bit weirded out that the donor was not technically dead yet. Yes, she’s brain dead, but is she still hooked up to machines for breathing and feeding? :eek: They’re just harvesting body parts now? I was in favor of disconnecting Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, but I would not be in favor of someone carving up her face while she’s still hooked up to the feeding tube.
I know that once someone has died, the organs are not fit for harvesting, but is the donor still hooked up to machines, even though she’s missing half her face?
I don’t know. Not necessarily. It sounds like the doctor was basing his judgement on this actual case.
“Dubernard acknowledged that he had initial reservations in the planning stages of the surgery, but he added that when he saw the extent of the woman’s disfigurement, “I no longer hesitated for a second.””
He determined that in her case normal procedures would not leave her able to eat or speak correctly. Therefore she was a good candidate for a new procedure (someone has to be first don’t they?) And if he’s determined, medically, that standard proceders are not going to be adequete, it’s not sensible and responsible to subject her to additional surgery (and all of the risks of any surgery), “first” just because that’s SOP.
And it sounds like the panal was in fact going by “what we’re always supposed to do”.
Yes, they need to keep the organs functional, which means making sure oxygen and food are going in and wastes are going out, until the organ is ready to be moved to a new body (usually only a few hours can elapse with the organ on ice before it needs to be in a new body). While it’s probably possible to keep some organs functioning directly on machines, the body is the safest and cheapest place for them. So organ donors are kept on machines to keep their organs usable for a bit until a suitable recipient is found and transportation is arranged. Because so many people need organs, this is usually not for very long, and then the rest of the body is disposed of in whatever way the deceased wanted.
Probably because it’s been misrepresented in the media.
I’ve heard two stories on this on NPR and in neither one did I ever hear mention of the woman not being able to eat (an important distinction). It was made very clear that this wasn’t a vanity operation but instead one to fix something that could be fixed no other way, and this would allow the woman to go out, function normally in society, and all of that.
But they never mentioned the little fact about not being able to eat…
I can only imagine what the screamsheets are saying about it.