First ever heart transplant using a pig's heart.
Discussion
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/10/ma...
Guess that'll solve the lack of available organs. Amazing.
Guess that'll solve the lack of available organs. Amazing.
Sounds like an amazing medical advancement. Does pose a few questions though.
I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
croyde said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/10/ma...
Guess that'll solve the lack of available organs. Amazing.
Why was he "ineligible for a human heart"? Guess that'll solve the lack of available organs. Amazing.
jimothyc said:
Sounds like an amazing medical advancement. Does pose a few questions though.
I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
Surgeons make the decisions for medical reasons. Simple as that.I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
If someone doesn't want one of the hearts because their imaginary friend objects then they can die. Alternatively they can read up on the bit in the koran where Mo says use the pig because you're no good to Allah if you're dead.
johnboy1975 said:
Why was he "ineligible for a human heart"?
The surgery last Friday took seven hours at the Baltimore hospital. Dr Bartley Griffith, who performed the surgery, said the patient’s condition — heart failure and an irregular heartbeat — made him ineligible for a human heart transplant or a heart pump.
jimothyc said:
Sounds like an amazing medical advancement. Does pose a few questions though.
I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
You clearly don't know Judaism then. While a non-pig alternative medication is preferable, even when it comes to ingested medication, if the only appropriate one available is pig based, you take it.I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
Apart from murder, sodomy, or blasphemy, you can break any Jewish religious law to save life.
A heart transplant wouldn't even be considered eating, so renders the whole question moot.
And I believe Islam has a similar necessity clause.
Solocle said:
You clearly don't know Judaism then. While a non-pig alternative medication is preferable, even when it comes to ingested medication, if the only appropriate one available is pig based, you take it.
Apart from murder, sodomy, or blasphemy, you can break any Jewish religious law to save life.
A heart transplant wouldn't even be considered eating, so renders the whole question moot.
And I believe Islam has a similar necessity clause.
Has there ever been a case of sodomy saving someones life? Apart from murder, sodomy, or blasphemy, you can break any Jewish religious law to save life.
A heart transplant wouldn't even be considered eating, so renders the whole question moot.
And I believe Islam has a similar necessity clause.
Genuine question
Biggy Stardust said:
Surgeons make the decisions for medical reasons. Simple as that.
If someone doesn't want one of the hearts because their imaginary friend objects then they can die. Alternatively they can read up on the bit in the koran where Mo says use the pig because you're no good to Allah if you're dead.
Bit of a non issue here. If its to save your life then "not eating pork" doesn't really come into it for muslims. I personally would have no issue with it for that reason, but weirdly enough, ethical treatment of animals comes into it, even though I eat meat - hypocrisy i know.If someone doesn't want one of the hearts because their imaginary friend objects then they can die. Alternatively they can read up on the bit in the koran where Mo says use the pig because you're no good to Allah if you're dead.
Which bit in the quran is that then fella? (highlighted in bold)
Great, this turned into a religious thread?
Biggy Stardust said:
s1962a said:
Which bit in the quran is that then fella? (highlighted in bold)
al-Baqarah 2:173 fella.Quran 2:173 said:
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Mufti Biggy Stardust 
Solocle said:
jimothyc said:
Sounds like an amazing medical advancement. Does pose a few questions though.
I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
You clearly don't know Judaism then. While a non-pig alternative medication is preferable, even when it comes to ingested medication, if the only appropriate one available is pig based, you take it.I would expect at least 2 religious groups would be vehemently opposed to this treatment. So what would happen if you had 2 patients and 2 donor hearts, one from a pig and one from a human. Presuming the human heart is the better option, what would a surgeon decide if the non religious patient had likely better outcomes from a transplant, but the other patient is religious and would refuse the pig organ. Would they prioritise the human organ to the religious patient even if they were likely to benefit less from it? Would the non religious patient be given the pig organ, even though they would be better off with the human one, just because they don't have a religious issue with it?
Definitely one of those medical advances that raises a few ethical and moral questions.
Apart from murder, sodomy, or blasphemy, you can break any Jewish religious law to save life.
A heart transplant wouldn't even be considered eating, so renders the whole question moot.
And I believe Islam has a similar necessity clause.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff