Religious, medical, and rights debate regarding the implantation of a pig's heart to a human
An American man has become the first person in the world to be fitted with a genetically modified pig's heart.
Fifty-seven-year-old David Bennett's doctors said he was not as healthy as he could have been with a human heart, but now, after three days of seven hours of experimental treatment, he is feeling much better.
The surgery is being hailed as a significant medical breakthrough as it will reduce the wait time for transplants and change the lives of patients around the world. But some are also questioning the moral justification for such treatment.
Critics say such transplants raise patient concerns, animal rights and religious concerns.
Let's see what the controversy is about putting pigs' hearts into humans.
Medical effects
It was an experimental surgery and could be dangerous for the patient. Human-donated organs that have matched the recipient's body are also sometimes rejected by the body, and animal-derived organs are at greater risk.
Doctors have been trying for decades to transplant animal organs into humans through a technique called xenotransplantation, which has met with mixed success.
In 1984, doctors in California implanted an infant's heart in an infant, but she died 21 days later.
But despite the risks involved in such treatments, medical ethicists say that if the patient is aware of these risks, they should be treated.
"You can never know if someone will die tragically immediately after treatment, but you can't go on without risking it," said Julian Sevolisco, a professor at Oxford University.
He says,''If the person (associated with it) is fully aware of all the dangers, I think people should be allowed to be a part of such unique experiences.''
Professor Sevolisco says it is important to inform them of all available options, including artificial heart or human heart.
''Doctors working on David Bennett's case say the operation was justified because he had no other treatment options and that he would have died without it.''
Professor Sevolisco says that in order to be completely safe before any surgery, "the strictest tissue testing and testing on any animal" should be done.
''David Bennett's transplant was not a clinical trial required for experimental treatment.'' In addition, the drugs that were given to them have not yet been tested in animals other than humans.
But Dr. Christine Lau of the Maryland School of Medicine, who was involved in David Bennett's treatment plan, says no effort was spared in preparing for the operation.
He told,''We've been doing this on monkeys in the laboratory for decades and trying to get to the point where it's safe to give this treatment to a human.''
Animal rights
''The treatment has once again sparked debate over the use of pigs for organ transplants in humans, and many human rights groups oppose it.''
The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has called David Bennett's use of a pig's heart "immoral, dangerous, and a waste of resources."
Says Peta,''There are no animal tool stores to be looted, but they are complex and intelligent creatures.''
Animal rights activists say it is wrong to alter the genes of animals and bring them closer to humans. It should be noted that the pig heart that was implanted in David Bennett had 10 genes modified so that David's body would not reject the heart.
Presentational white space
''The pig's heart was removed on the morning of the operation.''
A spokesman for Animal Aid, a British animal rights group, told that the organization was opposed to "genetically modifying" or "xenotransplants" in animals.
The group said,''Animals have a right to live, without the pain and trauma that comes from genetic mutations, and then they are killed and their organs taken away''.
Says Dr. Katherine DeWilder, a biology ethics fellow at Oxford University,''We should only use the organs of genetically modified pigs if we can 'make sure they are not harmed unnecessarily".
She says,''The use of pork for meat is far more troubling than their use for survival, but even here there is no reason to neglect the welfare of animals''.
Religion
It can also be a problem for those who face religious restrictions on obtaining organs from animals.
Pigs are chosen because their limbs are closer to human size and easier to raise pigs.
But what will be the effect on the followers of Judaism and Islam, which have strict restrictions on pigs?
Jewish religious law prohibits raising and eating pigs, but Dr. Moshe Friedman, a senior rabbi in London, says that obtaining a heart from a pig is "in no way a violation of Jewish diet."
Dr Moshe Friedman is also on the board of the British Department of Health's Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG).
''Since the fundamental importance of Jewish law is to save human life, if the acquisition of animal organs could give a person the best chance of survival and the best quality of life in the future, then a Jewish patient It will be necessary to get an organ from an animal,''he told.
Egypt's capital, Dar es Salaam, has said in a fatwa that if "there is a risk of death of a patient, failure of any of his organs, spread of the disease and worsening, or severe damage to the body," Can be applied to human beings.
Professor Sevolisco, on the other hand, says that even if a person refuses to receive an organ from an animal on religious or moral grounds, he should not be given less priority in the waiting list for an organ from a human being.
He says,''Some people will say that once you had a chance to have a transplant, now you go down the list, but some people will say that you should have the same rights as others.''
"These are the positions we have to deal with," said Professor Sevolisco.