Living-Donor Nerve Transplant 91
Over at CNN there is an AP report which might remind you alternately of stories by William Gibson and Mary Shelley: Doctors in Texas have just transplanted nerves from a living donor (in this case the mother of the recipient, an 8-month old baby) to replace ones damaged at birth. The operation itself was successful, but whether the nerve will successfully carry signals between the infant's arms and brain won't be known for a while. Seems like we can now transplant just about everything short of the brain in one form or other -- skin, bone marrow, major organs.
Well, I am a doctor, and let me clarify this. (Score:1)
Re:You and I both know it's not an 9 month old (Score:1)
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
Re:You and I both know it's not an 9 month old (Score:1)
--
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
um... they don't seem to have this problem with heart transplants...
Brain Transplants (Score:1)
Re:NOT a real nerve transplant (Score:1)
Re:An anecdotal evidence (Score:1)
Invicta{HOG}
Re:Not really transplanting nerves (Score:1)
You know you were drunk last night, when you wake up next to yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
OffTopic but very helpful (Score:1)
if you are the ultimate nerv-less geek who has trouble even looking at girls, check out this link,
How to overcome fear of rejection [sosuave.com]
it works! really.
Re:An anecdotal evidence (Score:1)
Braindead Lusers (Score:1)
On the other hand - I'm afraid the resources are rather limited - remember that one with "Population on Earth is increasing in number - however, the intelligence amount is constant"
--
related interesting things (Score:1)
He doesn't know the results for this particular patient yet, but experience by Chinese surgeons (who were the only ones to have done it so far) shows that the unhurt arm is still perfectly usable (no change at all except for a numb feeling in two fingers that disappears after a few weeks), and the previously paralyzed one can get up to 80% functionality again.
So the brain relearns that nerves control something *completely different* now. And I presume both arms are controlled by the same hemisphere now.
The brain is amazing, isn't it?
Another point to be made... (Score:1)
-HobophobE
Not really transplanting nerves (Score:1)
Taken form the article:
"Her nerves are not providing any function. They are serving as conduits, pathways to direct the child's own nerves to grow back together."
It is important to note that the mother's nerves are not actually growing into the child's nervous system. When that occurs it will substantually more impressive, as we will be much closer to repairing more substantial injuries, such as those to the spinal cord. That could also lead to more controvertial future operations like brain transplantation.
Re:We can replace the brain actually (Score:1)
Our population problem is big enough now, and that's with most people never getting to really know their great-grandparents.
Imagine the over-crowding problem that we would have if everyone from the previous 12 generations in your family were still around.
No thanks... I'd rather live in a less populated world than have a beer in an extremely overflowing bar with my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-gr eat-great-great-grandfather.
Scary Day (Score:1)
It gives me the willies, almost the same feeling I get when people tell me they use Windoze.
Re:"Brain transplant", of course. (Score:1)
What you're doing is transplanting an individuals' personality. Now what do you consider more important, a person's identity or their physical presence. If their identity defines them, then in a way you've done a lot more than what is conventially meant by the term "transplant". I would argue that the item being replaced is the body, and not the brain. I mean, would you be doing the transplant for the good of the body or for the good of the brain?
Of course, if you're going to be a pedant, then you're right, semantically. But your scientific (anal?) approach to reading prevents you from seeing the point he was trying to make.
I bet when you're losing an argument, you're the kind of person who starts to criticise your opponent's use of language in an attempt to avoid having to acknowledge their points.
Re:"Brain transplant", of course. (Score:1)
Actually, I think it was quite a good point, and I disagree that the answer is a "brain transplant".
Then you are wrong. Period.
That's your dismissive conclusion because we're talking about different things. You're talking about the meaning of words, whereas I'm talking about the philosophical (note: not physical) implications of his comment, which I believe are interesting enough to warrant discussion, and which you believe are merely worthy of being semantically criticised. Furthermore, they leave you with the impression that they, "should have their competence seriously questioned. ", which I'll come back to at the bottom of this post.
Accusing me of pedantry simply for expressing myself clearly is quite low, BTW.
I am indeed, and justifiably I think, accusing you of pedantry. I am not, however, doing it because you explain yourself clearly. Your use of language is obviously very scientific, but this doesn't make you right. The reason I pointed out the pedantic nature of your post was because it belittled a philosophical point in the original message simply because it wasn't expressed in a way that conformed to your linguistic standards.
Who gives a damn if the words, "body transplant" are not the precise construction required to explain his point? - it doesn't take a genius to see what he was trying to say. Try seeing through the words to the meaning that the poster was trying to impart. He had a point. (I disagree with, "There was no "point" put forward by the post I replied to. The post consisted of a single question. Questions don't express propositions, thus, there was nothing in that post to agree or disagree with" because you once again use linguistic construction to ignore the fact that his question implied a debatable philosophical premise, and even if it was not made explicit in his message, the point was there)
Since you obviously need it to be made explicit:
When transplanting a person's brain, is it more meaningful to the individual concerned that his brain has changed, or that his body has changed? Is it correct to assume that the correct point of view is that of the body, or should we consider that of the individual undergoing surgery instead, who will regard the operation as having changed their body rather than their mind - assuming, of course, that the procedure were made possible in the first place.
Unfortunately, I take no pleasure in discussing things like this when I have to phrase them so drily.
On the subject of judging people.....
Statement 1 : you are so arrogant and foolhardy, making judgements about what you have not enough information to judge (like me)
Statement 2 : you show yourself not to be very bright
Statement 3 : So anybody who uses such a term should have their competence seriously questioned.
I rest my case.
Not only brains can't be transplanted (Score:1)
As might be read, it seems that only the brain can't be transplanted, this is not fully true.
As by it's complicated nature, the nerves in the backbone can't be transplanted too. It's simply a too complicated task to connect all nerves from the receiving side to the transplant. Hopefully this will once be possible, so partly paralised humans can walk again.
I'm looking up some information about this, I'll reply to this thread as soon as i've found anything appropriate.
Re:You really can't buy/sell people anymore (Score:1)
An anecdotal evidence (Score:1)
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
You're not really extending their life like that, though. More of a case of simply extending their existance in the current state.
Re:"Brain transplant", of course. (Score:1)
I think his point is well taken when you narrow the definition by your own words to 'the medical sense' of the word 'transplant'. Granted, the original poster was referring to a medical procedure, but his question was more philosophical than physiological. I am a 'transplant' in the sense that I moved to a different region of the country.
While your arguments are technically correct, I don't believe you missed the meaning behind the post you originally replied to. It may have been better to point out a better alternative for the word, 'transplant' in this case.
grandmother said it best... (Score:1)
--Nick
Re:Arm transplant (Score:1)
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
The idea... (Score:1)
don't break out the champagne just yet. (Score:1)
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
It's often the case that due to severe head injuries the body is functionally healthy, but brain activity has stopped. These patients can survive for very long periods of time because functions such as breathing, the heart pumping and digestive peristalsis are autonomous. That is, they are driven by the brain stem and spinal cord, rather than active brain function.
The problem that I see is how would you hook up nerves to give you any *senses*? You would have to have something, or be entirely isolated from the world.
You would be alive, but your *quality* of life would be another matter.
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
Actually - body transplant. And IIRC, it's been done already. For some terminally ill patients which struggle some advanced degenerative disease (Parkinson or something else) sometimes the body starts to colapse. The only way for the patient to remain living is to transplant the living head to another body. Of course - they won't be able to neurologicaly sense anything from the body nor control it - but they weren't able to do that before either.
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
Heinlein feminist? (Score:1)
Oh, puhleeeze. I love Heinlein. I grew up reading him, but his women are wet dreams. Smart, funny, bright, daring, sexual (all Good Things), but ultimately serving the males.
Not everybody is glad. (Score:1)
I'm always glad to see progress in this field- hopefully the long-term results of this surgery will be successful. I just thought this might be a golden opportunity to remind the typically idealistic community of this site that "our" (== the ruling class of powerful countries like the US) understanding of the human nervous system, and many other things about human biology, comes in a big part from harmful experiments performed on third world peasants or prisoners, without their consent or even knowledge. Thus, people in places like Aztlán, Central America, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Haiti, etc., have been exposed to mutagens, radiation, experimental birth-control pills that cause birth defects, etc.
Thus, there are many among us that have reasons *not* to be glad about the "possibilities" that others at the top of the international food chain may see into this. We can only ask ourselves: what further abomination will be imposed on nuestra gente in the name of "progress"?
"Brain transplant", of course. (Score:1)
This has got to be one of the dumbest ways to try to sound smart ever.
To transplant means "to remove and put somewhere else". And of course, in the hypthetical operation in question, a brain is removed from a body, and placed in another. Thus, it is a brain transplant.
A "body transplant" (I can hardly believe I brought myself to actually *write* that oxymoron) would involve removing a body, and putting it in another body. Of course, since the concept of "removing a body" is senseless, there can be no such concept.
No weirder than *millions* of other examples... (Score:1)
Gee, that was a small book...
Re:"Brain transplant", of course. (Score:1)
Then you are wrong. Period.
What you're doing is transplanting an individuals' personality.
No, you're transplanting an individual's brain. In any case, it's not the body you're transplanting.
Now what do you consider more important, a person's identity or their physical presence. If their identity defines them, then in a way you've done a lot more than what is conventially meant by the term "transplant". I would argue that the item being replaced is the body, and not the brain. I mean, would you be doing the transplant for the good of the body or for the good of the brain?
All of this is wholly irrelevant. "Transplant" in the medical sense involve taking an organ from one organism's body and putting it in another's. The definition excludes the concept of "body transplant" right off the bat, since a body is not an organ. And it certainly excludes "personalities" or other such mentalistic fictions you seem to reify.
Of course, if you're going to be a pedant, then you're right, semantically. But your scientific (anal?) approach to reading prevents you from seeing the point he was trying to make.
There's nothing particularly scientific to my approach. Using words to mean what they mean is an habit by no means exclusive to scientists.
Accusing me of pedantry simply for expressing myself clearly is quite low, BTW.
I bet when you're losing an argument, you're the kind of person who starts to criticise your opponent's use of language in an attempt to avoid having to acknowledge their points.
I hope gambling is illegal in your state, because you wouln't be very successful. Not only because you are so arrogant and foolhardy, making judgements about what you have not enough information to judge (like me), but also because you show yourself not to be very bright in your comment:
Well, technically speaking, if we disregard all that we know about linguistic pragmatics, and take it on plain semantic grounds, it actually *does* have a meaning. But the extension of the term "body transplant" (ugh) is null, thus any proposition which involves it will be either tautologous or contradictory. And while real language use involves a good deal many obvious tautologies ("war is war", "men are men"), it is extremely uncommon for these to involve terms with null extensions. So anybody who uses such a term should have their competence seriously questioned.
Reminds me of the story.. (Score:1)
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
This is utter bullshit.
How are they going to bring a "recently dead" body back to life? Even supposing they were going to sacrifice a living person to do it, could they carefully remove the brain and then replace the new one before the heart reached the point where it will never start again? Are you sure you didn't read this under the name of "Dr. Frankenstien's monster"?
-
Re:Not A Brain Transplant... (Score:1)
Parkinson's disease is caused by degeneration of dopamine producing neurones in a certain area of the brain, and there is some evidence that transplanting dopamine producing cells into this area may help to treat the disease. I think the research you mention involved persuading embryonic stem cells to differentiate into dopamine producing cells in the laboratory, which would then allow a much larger supply of dopamine producing cells for transplantation than if they had to be transplanted directly. I don't think there was any question of these cells growing the proper interconnections with other nerve cells after they had been implanted, so they can only have a fairly crude effect on brain function.
It is probably better to think of it as a clever way of delivering a drug (dopamine) directly to the part of the brain it is needed in than as anything like a brain transplant.
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
Hearts and stomachs are TinkerToys! (I'm surprised nobody said it yet, and I know that wasn't the exact line, Mr. & Ms. Pedantic.)
You would have to have something, or be entirely isolated from the world.
You would be alive, but your *quality* of life would be another matter.
How about a neuron-Ethernet bridge? Connect to a dedicated server for providing basic senses, with microphone, speakers, webcam, and 'Net access.
Sure, I'd miss the taste of a medium-rare sirloin from a rusted-out Weber grill in mid-Autumn, but as long as I could get on
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
Brain transplants: original literature citations (Score:1)
For those so inclined, here's some references to the original literature prepared by AJ Annala::
Subject: REQUEST: Literature on Isolated Brain Perfusion Experiments
From: A J Annala (annala@neuro.usc.edu)
Date: Thu 04 Apr 1991 - 08:52:03 BST
I am writing a review paper describing the history (through the present day) of experiments designed to provide artificial support for maintaining normal brain activity following total circulatory or respiratory collapse. The ultimate goal of such research is to preserve normal brain function across lengthly periods (weeks/months) of cardiac or respiratory arrest.
There is a very substantial scientific literature (a brief chronology of which is provided below) describing an increasingly successfull series of experiments where animal brains have been supported by artificial methods after complete circulatory and respiratory failure.
If you are aware of any additional literature which should be included in this review or if you have comments regarding the appropriateness of this technology for current laboratory / distant future human clinical therapy please reply with an email note to annala@neuro.usc.edu.
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Spinal cord repair:
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
What are the right conditions? Well besides having a live patient and a recently dead donor body it sounds like he needs an operating room that is twice the size of a regular one so that they don't have to move from one room to another so that they can quickly move a few feet rather than a couple of yards.
So there is at least one doctor who is ready to do this kind of surgery on a real patient. I think he would only accept candidates that are currently quadriplegics and whose bodies are severely degenerating to the point where they need a new body or will die. I don't think that this doctor necessarily thinks that doing such a surgery will provide a person with the capability of getting up and walking but would provide nutrients to their brain and thus extend their life.
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
"...Homer is building a ladder, but it is of poor quality..." - Bart Simpson
Super brains Auctioned! (Score:1)
Re:The Next Logical Step (Score:1)
Re:Transplants of nerves (Score:1)
Theres been an interesting series running on the BBC about the miraculous abilities of the body, superhuman [bbc.co.uk], and one of those episodes was about stem cells.
Apparently, these stem cells "know" what cells need replacing and change themselves into them. Even spinal cords can be replaced this way, although its like joining wires at random.
If you think about it, joining nerves at random should work -- the brain should be able to relearn to use new wiring as it's a neural system, it would just take some time and patience.
Fascinating
~matt~
0
o
><>
Re:Arm transplant (Score:1)
Cross-species Nerve Transplants (Score:1)
---
Re:Cross-species Nerve Transplants (Score:1)
brains!! (Score:1)
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:1)
-----------------
Transplants of nerves (Score:1)
Watch a Nerve Transplant (Score:1)
dept. (Score:1)
Posted by timothy on Monday November 20, @02:39AMe dept.
from the with-extra-nerves-i'd-meet-girl-X-in-the-bookstor
Heh, I think a lot of people can relate to that..
Re:Wow... (Score:1)
The nerves of a kid at that time are so delicate that they just got torn to shreds.
Re:Brain Transplants (Score:1)
Nerve transplant (Score:2)
Meaning of Life (Score:2)
Part 5
Live Organ Donation
Just Remember that you're standing / On a planet that's evolving
Re: Brain Transplantation (Score:2)
Actually, there's a company offering brain transplants here [216.247.9.207]. I've had it done three times now, and I've NUT n0TiSSeDD aY-KnEe sIyD FekTs YeTTT.
--
Re:We can replace the brain actually (Score:2)
I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm having a head-swap I'm going to want a life expetancy a little longer than "maybe he'll make it 'til lunch-time"!
--
Re:now and then (Score:2)
--
Re:Which raises the question: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people would call it a body transplant (and not a brain transplant)--leaning toward the conclusion that B-body-person is indeed person A, because of the sameness of brain.
There's a collection called Personal Identity edited by John Perry that covers a wide range of problems like this if anyone's so interested ;) I've got this on the brain, so to speak, since I'm reading Slashdot to put off writing a draft of my final on Personal Identity :P
clarification? (Score:2)
So, the transplanted nerves can help damaged (torn, in this case) repair themselves, while serving no actual nerve functions? I didn't think nerves could self-repair, but then, IANAD by any stretch of the imagination. However, this would suggest real hope for paralysis victims (as the result of certain kinds of accidents/nerve damage). Or am I misunderstanding the doctor's statement?
Re:clarification? (Score:2)
No, you've about got it dead on. I first learned of this technique several years ago. Tests were performed on mice, where nerves were strung between two ends of a damaged nerve bundle, providing a pathway for the nerves to regenerate.
The nerve bundle being regenerated was the spinal cord.
The operation worked; the mice regained some movement in their hind legs.
Hope springs eternal, for good reason.
-------------
Re:It's night on impossible (Score:2)
now and then (Score:2)
Re:Why use a live donor ? (Score:2)
I don't know what nerves (and how much of them) they used, but if they do it right it shouldn't be a problem.
They probably used cadavers because they don't need treatment afterwards 8) and for legal reasons.
nerve regrowth (Score:2)
Re:Nerve transplant (Score:2)
Even weirder (Score:2)
in most cases, the nerves were taken from cadavers.
I find this even more amazing. I know, I know, the implanted nerves just act as conduits for regrowth, but still, being able to implant nerves coming from dead people is pretty amazing. Reminds me of science fiction books where they talk about criminals being executed by dissassembly (no dissassemble, Stephanie!), and raise the question of whether the convict is truly dead.
I know, I'm reading too much into the implanting of dead nerves, but I just got up, so I'm easily impressed right now.
Hmm... Do you mean HEINLEIN? (Score:2)
The story in "I Will Fear No Evil" is a bit more complex than you mention, actually he was able to remember a lot from the body donor's memory too. And the donor was a woman; this book is actually a feminist manifesto, where an old male finds himself inside the body of a young woman.
You may not agree with everything Heinlein wrote, for instance, I find the militarism in "Starship Troopers" a bit too much, but you will often find yourself thinking new ideas when you read his books.
Not A Brain Transplant... (Score:2)
...but close. Hasn't there been some rather controversial research involving "stem cells" from fetuses? IIRC, they can be placed in certain parts of the brain, where they will differentiate into neurons.
Arm transplant (Score:2)
...been done before... (Score:2)
Apparently, science journalism isn't keeping up with reality very well, though I've noticed that a few articles on the recent transplant have been corrected to mention the earlier procedure. I bet TCH's PR people are raising a ruckus...
Re:Arm transplant (Score:2)
The second operation was on a man who was transplanted the arm of a executed murderer. He and the arm have taken to each other much better, as he followed the doctors' orders, and he can now pick things up etc with it.
But it all sounds SO Vincent Price to me, what with all these prisoners and murderers having body parts grafted on to them. Creepy.
Why use a live donor ? (Score:2)
If anyone knows the rationale for using a live donor, please fill us in. I can imagine there would be some reasons to want to use live donors, but the article just doesn't say.
Re:Cross-species Nerve Transplants (Score:2)
wow...lets just hope that never comes true. i shudder at the thought of the brain of an old nasty lady in a young ladies body. (but it isn't really inhumain, because the ditzy blond didn't have much of a brain anyways.)
We can replace the brain actually (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:2)
As a result, my left arm is smaller, and significantly less able than the right one.
It's hard sometimes to do everyday things, but you get by.
Now to see that nerve regeneration (or stimulation) may become reality, I feel excited. Hopefully, kids in the future will not have to go through what many have gone through in the past.
One question, though...
WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!?!?!?
hehe
Living-donor brain transplant (Score:3)
-russ
Re:clarification? (Score:3)
Both are wrong. Brain development slows to an absolute crawl, comparitively speaking, after youth. But it still grows and changes.
Now, nerve cells in the rest of the body generally don't repair themselves, but that's not a hard and fast rule. For instance, pain receptors are hooked up by nerve cells, and when you loose a chunk of skin(including muscule beneath it), you can still feel pain afterwards.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Which raises the question: (Score:3)
Would you call it "brain transplant" or "body transplant"?
this poor kid.... (Score:3)
not only will his mom hit him with the whole "pain of birth" argument when his room is messy, she'll light her feet on fire to drive home the point of what an ungrateful little bastard he is.....
wow, they just keep getting younger (Score:4)
I know the saying "Kids having kids" but an 8 month old mother is just wrong!
Geoff
My facial nerves had to be fixed... (Score:5)
After the complex surgery, the right side of my face were irressponsive (i.e. couldn't move and feel). That included my right eye where I couldn't move my eye lids (not even close fully).
After about two months, I went to another surgery to fix these damaged facial nerves. The doctors fixed this by connecting working nerves to the damaged ones. Basically, they were rerouting these signals as if you were rerouting a network.
Some of my broken nerves are currently recovered, but it will take years to recovered almost fully (not 100%).
You can read more details from here [apu.edu].
NOT a real nerve transplant (Score:5)
The mother's nerves do not carry any of the electro-chemical signals that the infant could use to move or feel its arm.
______________
"Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?" --prosecuting lawyer, for the British government, arguing against permitting publication of D. H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover" (1960)
Nerves? (Score:5)