Six Months Old, Eight New Organs 319
AEton writes "According to the BBC, Dr. Andreas Tzakis has just successfully replaced six-month-old Alessia Di Matteo's liver, stomach, pancreas, small and large intestine, spleen, left kidney, and right kidney in a record-setting operation. The child is so far doing fine with a one-year-old baby's organs. Tzakis is no stranger to multiple-organ transplants; in 1997 he set the previous record of seven organs by replacing seven of a two-and-a-half-year-old's organs. It must be a little odd to know that a growing plurality of your tissue used to be someone else's."
Antirejection drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Antirejection drugs (Score:2, Interesting)
very old people need fewer drugs as well, as their immune systems are simply weaker.
old folks (Score:2)
Re:Antirejection drugs (Score:5, Informative)
What your stating is based on a flawed (but common) misconception that the immune system 'learns what is dangerous' or attacks what is dangerous, which hasn't been shown by any real facts/supporting research.
In addition, a childs immune system is only 'immature' based upon the fact that it hasn't been exposed to as many antigens as an adult - which allow for a rapid secondary response when re-exposed to those antigens. An example is chicken pox - once you get it, your exposed to the antigens and your body can rapidly respond if exposed to it again so you only get the chicken pox once (most of the time.
Lastly, for the first few months alive, babies also have passive immunity that is gained from their mother. So, this would add an entire other level of complexity if the 'maternal' antibodies were to attack the new organs as well - though I have no idea if they would still be present at 6 months after birth. (As a side note, it also sometimes occurs that a mother's immune system will reject the baby and have to be treated with certain drugs to reduce/stop the killing of the fetus via the mothers immune reaction).
So, IMHO, yes, the child has to take the drugs for their entire life.
One last comment - very old people need more drugs because their bodies are failing because they are...OLD. Organs and cells do not have infinite lifespans. They simply can't deal with being sick at all - whereas a younger person can deal with the flu. Given the same level of immune response, the frail old person would die while a young healthy person would live.
Bad example though (Score:4, Interesting)
Once you have the Chicken Pox virus, the Varicella Zoster virus, you have it for life. Your immune system will eventually beat it back and the Chicken Pox symptoms will disappear, but the virus will hide out in the nerve roots around your spine for the rest of your life. If your immune system is weakened by age, chemotherapy etc. the virus can break out again, burning is way up the nerves, usually on one side of your body, until it reaches the skin and causes rash and blistering. This is known as Shingles and is very painful. Not something you are usually told when you get Chicken Pox as a kid.
Re:Antirejection drugs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Antirejection drugs (Score:2, Informative)
the only exception that i'm aware of... (Score:3, Informative)
eric
Come on Tzakis (Score:2, Funny)
Ship of Theseus (Score:5, Interesting)
The same question could be asked about this baby :)
Of course we can't yet do brain transplants, so I guess one can say its the same person as long as its the same brain.
--
Wanna play some word games [ernet.in]?
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems kinda like replacing parts on cars. It dosen't matter what you replace the car will always have its mileage, until of course you change the engine.
Our brains are our engines. Damn, now I sound like a gear-head.
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:3, Insightful)
The gearbox is still the original, along with most of the drivetrain. But the wheels, engine and odometer have all been replaced. It's still the same Land Rover though, in terms of its registration number and VIN plates.
I don't think you can clearly draw the line in this kind of situation. Various authorities have guidelines to follow when trying to determine if something has changed significantly, b
Time Enough For Love (Score:3, Interesting)
When reading the book, I got the impression that the character still had the sense that he was the same Lazarus who was born. Probably because he had the same spirit and consciousness. Myself I wasn't so sure because he had been almost entirely modified.
Great book for a weekend's reading.
BTW, that's a generic link to Amazo
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. The law says that it is the same ship (err, baby); laws are a codification of social norms; and identity is nothing other than a social norm.
This becomes even more obvious when you consider that replacing elementary particles is a no-op.
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:2)
I'm not going to argue about that, but just point out that it is a very strong statement, and that most people would disagree with you. Anyone who believes in the non-triviality of human consciousness must also believe that there is a notion of identity of humans which is more fundamental than that of a ship. I am myself undecided on the issue, and tend to deemphasize human consciousness, "self-awareness" etc.
This becomes even more obvious when you consider
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:2)
The fallacy you are referencing is traditionally called the beard or continuum fallacy
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:2)
Lots of people use Microsoft Windows.
Nope. This is a logical fallacy called the Paradox of the heap.
I've always known it called the "'piece of string' fallacy", but terminology aside, this just illustrates my point: It is impossible to naively define a {heap, length of a p
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. This is a logical fallacy called the Paradox of the heap.
I think you misunderstood the earlier post. Grains of sand are not identical; replacing every grain of sand in a heap, one at a time, gives you a different heap (though it may "look" the same. Actually, it would probably be impossible to replace each grain with a new one in the exact same position, because of packing issues.) However, elemen
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:3, Insightful)
A significant proportion (I've heard estimates of 98%) of the matter that you consist of right now wasn't part of you this time last year.
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:2)
Possibly, but I'm not sure what that would mean. At the lowest level, if all of your hydrogen atoms are replaced over time by other hydrogen atoms, you still remain exactly what you were.
--
Wanna play some word games [ernet.in]?
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ship of Theseus (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea behind this sort of thing reminds me of the Holy Cross
splinters you find in churches and museums all over the world.
You see, a long time ago the cross where Christ was crucified was
chopped up into small splinters. Everyone wanted a piece, and the
splinters were spread out all over the place. Since a LOT of
people wanted to own a splinter, the Church came up with a wonderful
scheme to make more splinters: Take Holy Splinter and insert it into
new wooden cross, wait 25 years and Presto! The entire cross is now
holy and undistinguishable from the original. Chop into small splinters
and repeat the process exponentially.
The same way a club retains its identity, even though today's members
are not the same people who originally founded it, the Holy Splinters
and the Ship of Theseus propagate their identity to all of their
constituent parts.
Cheers,
Morel
However... (Score:4, Funny)
That was someone's child (Score:3, Insightful)
Psycological difficulties (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Psycological difficulties (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it is pretty disconcerting to know that someone has died, perhaps in a traumatic way. Especially a relatively young person who likely had a family that was grieving. Especially a person who died mere hours earlier.
But the donor didn't die because my mom was the recipient - my mom was the recipient because the donor died.
That's a pretty bi
Re:Psycological difficulties (Score:2)
Well, i don'tknow how to say this MrWim but you liver, pangreas, left kidney and heart are transplants from another person who is now dead.
10 years? (Score:2)
Did that patient only last 10 years, or are they currently alive after 10 years? Would be very sad if 10 years is all this baby Alessia has to hope for.
Hopefully she'll live a long and happy life.
Re:10 years? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10 years? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be pretty pissed if she died after 10 years. Think of how amazingly expensive this procedure probably was for their insurance company! That's money that you and I have to foot the bill for. At 6 months old, wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to let her die and start over? If your computer is SO fucked up that you need a new motherboard, CP
Re:10 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
But are we just talking about the cost, or is there another issue that we have to consider. Technology is getting to the point where just about everyone lives to breeding age. This means that the defective genes these children have are passed on. Are we de-evolving as a species because we improve the chances of living to breeding age?
The only way that I can think to balance this technological conundrum is via genetics. If we could identify and correct such issues in an embryo, or go to the level of the movie Gattaca and pre-select those embryos with the best genes, that would decrease the possiblity of such extreme surgeries. Of course, that then brings up a tremendous number of ethics issues, but none that cannot be worked through, or that some small country won't become a haven for.
Or, in a more cruel line, if you can't afford it, you can't have it. Is it really societies responsibility to make sure that every child has an equal chance at attaining adulthood? Or is it their parents.
The United States has been taking more and more of the responsibility of parenting away from the parent and to the state. Our children are currently taught moral values by state-run schools, sex ed for example. There are numerous examples of parents being brought up on charges for spanking(I'm not talking about beating, I'm talking about a swat on the rump that every American over the age of 40 has had at least two or three times in their lives) or denying health care due to personal or religeous beliefs. Where will it stop?
I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does. I am of the opinion that if you can't afford it, all you get is basic health care to treat colds, broken bones, etc., and the more expensive health care that is needed for 6 organ transplants are not guarantees. If a family can raise the money or a hospital wants to waive fees so they can try new procedures, those options should always be available.
Re:10 years? (Score:3, Insightful)
You think we should let her die ? Are you a parent ? How much would your childs life be worth ? To give her 10 more years of life ? This is why we have insurance, to pay for these things. How about surgery on co-joined twins ? Should we stop that because they might die ? Who should decide ? You ? Some HMO ? It's a little easy here to compare a child to your compu
Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this will sound harsh, but if your child is born with so many problems that they would die without eight organ replacements, one has to wonder what their long-term chances of survival realistically are.
I know we can work wonders with organ transplants these days, but how much is too much? What are this child's chances of having a reasonable quality of life after being born with so many potentially fatal problems?
It's sad to see your loved ones die, but I can't help wondering if the parents did the right thing under these circumstances.
No doubt my feelings on this would be much stronger if it was my own child in question, but it would seem we as a species very often let our emotions get in the way of rational thought, and I'm just not sure these parents made the right decision for their child.
This is most definitely a difficult issue - I could well be wrong, but I'm throwing my initial thoughts into the pot to see what others think.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is a person, a child, and you should let your emotions get in the way. Saving her life was not vain. But it does two things. And it does these two things well.
1) It gives this girl a second chance at life. There is a posibility that she will be fine, and live a normal life.
2) It gives surgeons, and scientist a base on which to look from. We can see how far we can go in order to become more acurate in treating this types of conditions. If we didn't who knows where we would be today. I mean hell, open heart surgery 50 years ago was considered barbaric, now it is an everyday procedure, and usually quite succesful.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2, Interesting)
I wasn't
good luck to the kid. O btw. the doctors said that I would turn out to be nothing more then a vegetable when I did survive, but last I checked vegetables don't score 127 on i.q test ( not that i think i.q test really measure intelligence).
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
I fear that because we can fix things, we're weakening our species as a whole. Survival of the fittest means that the weak die so they can't reproduce.
These new miracle cures, drugs for fixing all the ills of the body, etc. are wonderful money makers and boons to the afflicted, but nobody seems to be thinking long term on this issue.
All the parents will scream "but what if it was *your* baby?!?" That's exactly why I don't have children. I know my genetic code has some flaws in it. I will do what I can to make it through this life, and then die. The 'weird' and otherwise imperfect DNA will die with me instead of being perpetuated.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Whatever happened to Darwin's theory of Evolution? Have we reversed nature and decided that having the broadest genetic base is the best? Billions of years of life have proven that is not the case, so I hate to think what will happen for generations to come.
Personally I am a rather good example of a human being, although I doubt if it was 10,000 years ago I would have survived in the 'wild'. My reflexes matured too late and my speed was too low to start with. Both of those are fatal
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no all powerful nature to reverse. There is just what happens. Through evolution, some individuals have more offspring; others fewer. Some species grow; others diminish or disappear. Consequently, the characteristics of populations change through time.
Evolution is not a moral law; it is a fact of life. Best and worst are defined by what actually happens, not by ideas of diversity or quality. Fit is defined by living long and reproducing fruitfully. If intelligence allows someone to accomplish those two tasks, then fitness depends on intelligence. If people survive and reproduce without much regard to how intelligent they are, it does not matter. If less intelligent people have more offspring, which is a completely reasonble proposition based on empirical data instead of egocentrism, then intelligence is not a positive survival trait.
I have neglected social impacts of traits when I strictly should not have. Traits that do not allow someone to live long or reproduce themselves might somehow allow others around them to do so. If their genes get passed along through parallel lineages, those genes might be beneficial for survival.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2, Insightful)
-- Jason
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
I'd be more inclined to think this might not be "right" thing to do because organs are always in short supply, and those could've saved eight children instead of only one.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Organs aren't "one size fits all", nor "one tissue type fits all". If you have a 1 year old organ donor, those organs pretty much have to go into a small child. Now that the list is limited to "small children", you have to find one with a compatible tissue type, and then you assign priority by the condition of the recipient. I seriously
Humans contribute more than genes (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was young, I'm sure everyone thought I'd die young from such a terrible disease. Now I have a normal lifespan and a relatively normal lifespan.
I have to say that issues around what the "right" thing to do are very complex, and distorted by health care financing, organ shortages, religious values, etc.
I recognize that I survive based on the generosity and altruism of blood donors. On the other hand, the medicine that makes my blood clot normally comes from paid plasma donors, some of whom donate in spite of having HIV, and the manufacturer accepting these donations accepts this.
You also have to consider that the picture is always different when looked at from an individual standpoint, in contrast to looking at it from public policy. It's been said that the cure for hemophilia is to let the bleeders die before they breed more bleeders. I have to say that this logic would have been an injustice to me, since I'm not reproducing (yes, I'm sure about that).
Re:Humans contribute more than genes (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably uttered by someone who is completely ignorant of genetics. Since hemophilia is caused by a recessive gene, just "letting the bleeders die" isn't going to do much. Just because someone has some bad genes, doesn't mean they don't have any good ones. My grandfather has usher's syndrome [nih.gov] (which means I'm probably a carrier). He's also a genius (literally). Since genetics allows for the possibility that good genes will be passed on, while bad ones won't (at least in a portion of the offpsring) I don't see any reason to "selectively breed" people.
Re:Humans contribute more than genes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Humans contribute more than genes (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been giving blood ever since legally allowed. A+ blood isn't the most in demand, but because I feel there are people that may need it at any given time and I like to think it's not a matter of being paid for most people elsew
Re:Humans contribute more than genes (Score:2)
Why? Isn't hemophilia X-linked? So a doctor can put a sperm sample in a centrofuge and seperate out the X and Y sperm and your wife could be impregnated with only Y sperm meaning that your defective gene would not be passed on.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2, Interesting)
The use of medical technology to sustain those who might otherwise die and not pass on their genes isn't some kind of anti-evolution, where we make the population into a bunch of weak slobs who cannot survive, their bodies riddled with diseases. We're simply stopping, piece by piece, the natural selection that eliminates those with unfavorable combinations of genes. However, in many cases, th
Natural selection is asserting itself now. (Score:2)
I
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
we've been doing this for several thousand years. taking care of genetic cripples, allowing them to reach reproductive ages, etc. while in theory i can see your argument, it has yet to be proven in reality.
if anything, the research that helped this one genetically damaged baby will also be used to save thousands of organ donors with perfectly normal DNA (accident victims and the like).
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Well you are making the assumption that these were genetic flaws. Especially in fetal development environment has a major factor as well. It could range what the mother was taking (food, drugs (prescription or not) before or during her pregnancy, or before knowing she was pregnant. There are so many factors that happen during pregnancy that can cause problems.
In the nature v.s. nurture argument. I believe nurture is the major impact in people, and blaming any
Hmmm . . . I see things the COMPLETE opposite (Score:4, Informative)
Good genes, bad genes . . . in the current environment it is easy for you to pass judgement, However, when the environment changes, so must your definitions of good and bad. Since change is uncertain, there is no way you can really know which genes are good or bad. Would it not be better to hold on to as many different genes as possible, just in case we need them later?
Besides, if your genes are really detrimental to your daily function, you will already have a disadvantage that will limit the spread of your genes compared to other "good" gened people. There's additional medical costs, social prejudice, and simply a higher risk of death for people with inferior genetic material. You may live a quite normal and happy life, but individuals with similar genetic material as you will automatically be limitted, relative to other "healthier" genes. Plus, you have to take in account how large and diverse our population is now. Evolution will continue whether you decide to help it or not. It is simply the way the world works, not a policy one should live their life by.
Finally, it really can be argued that evolution is no longer relevant to human survival. Evolution takes thousands and thousands of years to mold species. Technology, on the other hand . .
And maybe the environment will change and your son will be the only one left to impregnate an entire generation of women . . . nomatter how slight the possibilty, how could you rob such a possibility like THAT from ANYONE!
Diversity (Score:3, Interesting)
The risk for death for each and every one of us is 100%.
I doubt that we can help or hurt evolution. Evolution is just what happens. It does not get bette
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:3, Interesting)
Within a few generations, we'll be able
Nope, we always will evolve. (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:3, Funny)
Alright, Data.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It isn't. If we as a society can not protect and do what is right for the weakest amongst us, then are we truely a civilized society?
It's all very well to come out with quotes like that, but the fact is that if this child had been born in a less affluent part of the world, she would have died, no question about it.
Worldwide we should be doing a lot more to help people less fortunate than ourselves. The money spent on saving the life of one baby who may just die in a few years anyway could have been used to help a much greater number of people.
I'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive (they aren't) but eight other babies could have been saved with the same number of organs, or with the same amount of money a starving village could have been fed for a month.
Is it fair that if you're born with a whole load of problems but your parents have the money, we can fix you up, whereas if you're born with nothing wrong with you but your parents can't even afford to feed you, you should die?
We should protect and do what is right for the weakest among us, but defying the laws of evolution is pretty far outside of that.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
In theory, sure, perhaps, but realistically, there probably weren't eight other individuals who each needed a different one of those eight infant-sized organs at the same exact time; at least some of the donor's organs would probably have been wasted otherwise. I also very much dou
Re:You stupid moron (Score:2)
The concern I raised in my original post was purely for the quality of life for the child, as in "perhaps they've saved her for now, but if this only serves to prolong her suffering, was it the right thing to do, for her?"
But what of the hundreds of thousands of people dying worldwide because of starvation? No medical science needed, just some food and water so that they don't starve to death. How many of them could potentially be brilliant scientists, leaders, who knows...? They're dead, just because th
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Bull. Hitler might have been able to play Russia to a stalemate had the western front not been opened up at Normandy.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
I agree.
However, the question in this case is: Is this what's right to do for the weakest among us? Where should we draw the line? How much suffering should we be allowed to force (yes, since these babies can't be asked) newborn children to have?
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:5, Interesting)
The points being raised is there is only X amount of dollars available in the government for health. Yet with the ever increasing sophistication of medical treatment, the cost of treatments is going up. People who before would have died rather rapidly are now hanging on with new treatments. Ailments that were not life threatening but affected quality of life are now curable or much more treatable. And of course everyone wants the best treatments available. Also people are living longer and of course elderly people require more treatments. Add to this the ever increasing imbalance between the elderly and working tax paying members of society and some people think that we could be heading to a budgetary catastrophe in the future.
This raises the question of whether every medical treatment should be available to everyone. Whether or not we should ration our public health dollars to give the best return ie. bumping up the queue those who have the best chance of survival, who require the least money to treat, treat working age citizens and reasonably healthy children before the elderly and those who are very sick etc.
This of course is a controversial topic. The idea of having a committee choose who will live or who will die or telling someone that they can't get treatment because they are too old and no longer working and therefore no longer useful to society or I guess in this case, telling parents their kid will die because those 7 organs could be used to treat and cure 7 kids rather than just one, is very emotive and raises a lot of uneasy feelings and questions about the criteria to be used not to mention the uncomfortable closeness to eugenics and euthanasia. However it might be possible that in the future, if the public health $$ starts running out, we may be forced into this type of system.
An excellent reason for private health care (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, your post is an extremely good argument for America's system of private health care. When we start deciding how our public health dollars are spent, it doesn't take long for the healthy to realize that they outnumber the sick. When people realize, for instance, the very large portion of medical expenditures targeted at the elderly--well, hey. They're not productive members any more. And let's not forget about the special ed kids in school: some kid drooling in a wheel chair is never going to hold down a job or pay taxes either. If we just stopped giving them medical services, they'd die--and stop costing us money. Right?
Years ago I attended an economics lecture given by Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning economist. He described a situation much like this, and went on at great length about the "tyranny of democracy." What happens, he asked, when 51% of Congress votes to shoot the other 49? In much the same way, the tyranny of democracy is expressed when the young, the healthy, the tax-paying, the well-educated discover that they could pay a lot less in taxes if they just killed off the lame, the halt, and the feeble.
This isn't an abstract argument: a population phenomenon in the United States called the Baby Boom means that an abnormally large population of people was born between 1948 and 1960. The oldest Boomers are nearing retirement age--and when 2025 rolls around (when the youngest Boomers turn 65) a disproportionately large portion of U.S. citizens will be expecting retirement benefits. As we get closer and closer to that point, I fully expect to hear more people claiming to be "courageous" and "willing to take a stand" by demanding that we kill old people.
For now at least, we (collectively) have no say in whether or not an Italian baby can have a lot of organs transplanted. And I think that's a good thing.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not difficult to me. Unless she could never have another child, its elementary.
Yes its sad to see your loved ones die, but life is not always better than death. Are they thinking of the child or themselves. I question.
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
Could say the same about anti-biotics . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone who draws the line of what is too far, like you just did, conveniently places that line to exclude any kind of technological help their survival has depended on.
There are plenty of people living in dirt, eating trash to survive for what will probably be a pretty short life. Maybe until such people decide that THEIR quality of life is so low that they start drowning themselves and their children in muddy puddles, we can implement a "quality of life" policy and put those poor souls out of their misery if they fall below the definition of "liveable". Until then . . . I say you are playing God with out any of the usual minimal requisites to play the part.
If you are going to argue against this, please, oh please, say that the same money could have been better spent to save many more lives in some developing country.
But making judgement on someone's quality of life is all fun and games until someone looks at YOUR marginal existence and says, "man, we should really put YOU out of your misery."
Is this why the U.S. can bomb people and say it is saving those same people at the same time? Under a dictatorship their quality of life is so low that it is well worth risking their death in an attempt to raise their quality of life to a level worth living? How noble . .
I sympathize that you were merely trying to discuss the issue, but your assumptions reveal a value that has been the root of all types of exploitations of other people. The quality of life argument has been used to inslave, to kill, and to exterminate entire civilizations. And now, I fear it has been used to turn the U.S. into a tool to allows poorly educated politicians play God.
I fear God's retribution for such blasphemy . .
Re:Could say the same about anti-biotics . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a moral question, it's a social question. Can society justify expending X resources to save the life of one individual? Can those resources be more efficiently spent in other applications which may benefit/extend the lives of a greater number of individuals? In this case, the answer appears obvious to me.
Withholding extreme medical care is not the same as killing someone, morally, ethi
Re:Hmm, this is a tough one (Score:2)
So, are you saying it would be better if the child were simply allowed to die? How? Her quality of life, however bad, is going to be a hell of a lot better now than if she were dead.
It reminds me of a joke... (Score:4, Funny)
Mother: Oh, doctor, I don't care, I'll still love him...
D: I'm afraid he doesn't have any legs either...
M: Never mind, he's still my son...
D: He doesn't have a trunk...
M: Ah...
D: And no head, either...
M: But, what does he has...
D: An ear...
(doctor brings the ear)
M: OH MY SON, MY BEAUTIFUL SON...
D: It's no use screaming, cause he's deaf...
"your tissue used to be someone else's" (Score:5, Interesting)
> It must be a little odd to know that a growing plurality of your tissue used to be someone else's.
In rare cases, the cells of non-identical twins in the very early stages of development can merge into a single embryo, and develop into a normal "patchwork" adult, called a chimera [wikipedia.org].
IIRC this phenomenon was only discovered recently, when modern DNA testing revealed that these people have different DNA in different parts of their body.
Mutli Organ stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mutli Organ stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mutli Organ stuff (Score:2)
The goal is probably to get publicity for the surgeon, so he can get more prestige and money from pharmaceutical and device companies. I'll bet anything that the doc has paid a PR firm.
As far as I can tell, you have somewhat less of that in Canada. I suspect it's because Canadian docs don't get into medicine for the money.
Re:Mutli Organ stuff (Score:2)
it was a large step for the medicine.
And, of course, we need to consider the possibility of
that advanced medicine would eradicate all remains of her medical proble
Miraculous. But... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the cost of doing things like this is astonishing, even in countries outside the US where medical treatment is priced more sanely. How many infants and other folks people could be saved by spending this money elsewhere? For example, from today's NY Times:
Terror of Childbirth [nytimes.com]
Re:Miraculous. But... (Score:2)
This line of reasoning is absurd. In order to redirect that money, you'd have to (among other things) fire the doctor, close the operating room, and lay off the nurses. The "cost" is usually calculated by taking the fractional load on the system this one patient incurs, then dividi
I feel I will be flamed as a heartless bastard.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Totally Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
So does this constatue a point release? (Score:2)
What is wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not one of them are in the field anymore. it turns out that real science doesn't pay. We could pull of great things but we keep running off the people who can help. How many great biochemsists are working filling perscriptions at the local drug store? Too many and we will all pay at some point.
transplant, ego and greed (Score:2, Insightful)
Who really knows what the future holds for her? (Score:2, Interesting)
She may only live another 6 months, 6 years, 30 years, whatever .. who knows ? Maybe she will fully recover in a few years time, and then get run over by a truck - who knows ? The world is an odd place indeed.
I met a girl not too long ago who by all rights should never have survived, and who's whole life could be seen as a drain of resources to the people aro
Natural Law (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it would be difficult for the parents to bear the sadness of watching their child die, but what if the organs are rejected in the future and they have to watch their child slowly wither away, while be connected to all sorts of tubes and wires? Could those 8 organs have been used to save 8 babies or young children? Could the money that was used to pay for this multiple transplant be used to save others' lives?
My wife is 8 month pregnant and I hope we never are in a situation similar to this. It would be difficult, but being faced with 8 organ transplants, I would think that some higher power might be telling me something about this baby.
Some people aren't getting itit (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about stem cell research. If in the future (as it looks like it will be), it woudl be possible to grow those organs from a slightly modified version of the child's stem cells (with the smooth muscle disorder corrected), then those would all have to be transplanted into the body. The same applies for adults who say may have stomach cancer. A new stomach and gastrointestinal tract, just to be safe, would be grown and then transplanted in.
I am not so jaded as to thing that this is a publicity stunt, especially considering they did not release the fact that it was taking place until well after the surgery.
To the "natural selection" people: why even bother with any sort of medicine then? Any influence that we have is not "natural." The same arguments can be made for such simple things as pacemakers, dialysis, and insulin therapy.
Wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me heartless, but crap like that BBC article breeds stupidity among general public and teaches them it's ok to ignore how things happen in our world. And hence some of the readers will say the obligatory "wow" (if at all) and go back to opposing stem-cell research, genetics, budget extension for medical schools, and after that will send their kid to some quack or a faith-healing program after consulting with a professionally made horoscope, of course...
Misconceptions (Score:5, Informative)
Her disorder is a single disease process that happens to affect most of her vital organs. All other things being equal, a baby born with several disorders, requiring fewer organs transplanted (even as little as 1 or 2), actually could be considered "sicker", have a much lesser chance of survival and be a greater "burden on society".
2. Of the eight organs transplanted, some might not have actually been "diseased" (more on this later).
3. The greater the number of organs transplanted is not proportional to the surgical difficulty.
Not to take away from Dr. Tzakis' great achievement, but technically the surgery might have been easier than transplanting a few non-contiguous organs. Here is why:
If you ask any transplant surgeon, the most difficult aspect of the surgery is doing the anastamoses (or "rejoinings"). Essentially taking the entire foregut and midgut en bloc significantly decreases the number of "rejoinings" one has to perform.
Tzakis likely only had to join this single unit of organs (the liver+stomach+pancreas+spleen+small bowel+large bowel) at two points (those being #1 the original esophagus-to-new stomach and #2 the new large bowel-to-original rectum) for complete continuity of the gastrointestinal tract and then probably about another 4 anastamoses for blood supply.
The entire blood supply for all the aforementioned organs (minus the kidneys) originate from only 2-3 arteries arising from the aorta. To leave the original pancreas and spleen (which are not significantly affected by her disorder) would have been several times more difficult than taking the "whole package" because the vascular supply for each organ would have to be dissected and reanastomed individually. This is more difficult because it's more vessels to join and the vessels are smaller i.e. more difficult to work with.
Transplanting even only 3 of these organs in non-continuity would have required 1-2 GI tract and 2+ vascular anastamoses for EACH organ. If you do the math you can quickly realize why it was probably easier to take all the organs, even if some were not diseased.
4. Transplanting both kidneys is NOT the transplant surgery standard of care. The baby would have done fine with one kidney and there has yet to be any studies proving that transplanting two kidneys vs. one improves a patient's post-op outcome. But if Tzakis did not take both kidneys he would be stuck at 7 and we wouldn't be talking about this whole topic right now (take it however you want).
So to make a long story short:
1. The baby was not as sick or doomed as one might think.
2. It's a great accomplishment but it wasn't "pushing the envelope".
3. The ethical issues raised are no different than those for any other medical procedure or treatment: should society help the inherently weak at the expense of the strong or should we fall into the Darwinian model of society were it's survival of the fittest? Or is there a middle-ground as to how much help we give the weak and who/what determines how much and what is too much help to give?
Organ Donors (Score:3, Interesting)
Jesus! (Score:4, Funny)
Disgusting and barbaric (Score:3, Funny)
More research and funding should be put towards developing more artificial organs. The thought of extracting eight organs from a recently dead [but goulishly kept living] infant is disgusting and barbaric. Not to mention the poor quality of this potato baby's extremely short expected life. (Anti-rejection drugs, etc.)
The sappy article does nothing but manipulatively stir emotion. It is mindless drivel for the mongoloid masses. It is completely devoid of any mention of the technology behind this process.
While the technology is there for artificial organs, a lot of the research and engineering has not caught up. (Thanks to the fact that people would rather ban medical research, and instead fund sports programs.) Besides, a new baby could be made for a lot less effort and cost. A six-month-old is ultimately replaceable, and it not much more tragic than the loss of a family pet. Yes, it's tragic, but people, get on with your meaningless lives!
Value of human life? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm seeing some people here saying that this baby should have merely been allowed to die, and the parents encouraged to just "have another one". Obviously I can't say for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that most of these people aren't parents. If they were, they'd realize that most parents become deeply emotionally attached to their children very quickly, usually at an early stage in pregnancy, in fact, so it's not as though a six-month-old girl can simply be scrapped and replaced as though she were a defective car.
Here's a more pertinent point: once you start saying that some people are too "physically defective" to live, where would you draw the line? I, for example, am among the most physically health people around -- my mother always said I was "disgustingly healthy". Even so, had I lived in Nazi Germany, I would have been exterminated due to my "physical imperfections" (and no, I'm not Jewish).
Then, on a more personal level, there's my wonderful girlfriend, who's beautiful, incredibly intelligent (IQ in the mid 170s), who graduated from Berkeley with honors, and who spends her time rescuing homeless cats and advocating for social services for autistics (not to mention the ways she's brought joy into my life, in more ways than I can count). She was also born with severe birth defects that required eight or nine major operations over a number of years at a total cost of several million dollars. Was it worth it? I don't even have to wonder about that.
The simple fact of the matter is, you can't tell which human lives are going to be valuable and which ones aren't when the baby is so young. As to the argument of "quantity" -- that you could have saved more babies with those eight organs -- well, let's use your own calculus. Why is it so important to save the maximum number of lives possible, especially considering, as you point out, that making babies isn't exactly a huge challenge? It's not as though human beings are in short supply these days -- far from it. And it's also not as though most people even want babies, considering (for example) that one-third of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion.
I realize this post is a bit meandering, but you'll have to excuse my lack of coherence. There are people responding to this article who are essentially saying that my girlfriend (a slashdotter whom I love with all my heart and plan to marry someday) should be dead because she's "too defective" and repairing those defects wasn't worth the cost or effort. It's hard to write clearly when your emotional response to such comments is interfering so much.
A time to be born, and a time to die (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking, though, of a recent storm in my own community about a baby who was born with only the brain stem intact (anencephaly) and with a defect of the digestive system that made absorption of nutrients impossible. The doctors recommended providing fluids and painkillers only and allowing the child to die naturally rather than putting him through the suffering of an operation to repair the digestive tract. This caused a storm of protest in the larger community--the baby's life must be prolonged at all costs because, after all, "life is sacred." Never mind that the life would be no longer than a few weeks--the suffering that this small being would be put through was considered by many people to be worthwhile.
I've also witnessed the same thing at the other end of life. Frail, elderly people are put through the ordeal of being resucitated even though their lives are drawing to a natural close. It's rough; it's the equivalent of taking quite a beating. Why do it to a fragile body whose time to die has come? This was done to my grandmother some years ago. It bought her three additional days during which her dying process was marred by bruises and strains and other discomforts.
While I can't argue for "mercy killing" and am on the fence about suicide, I feel I can argue against needless human suffering. I truly hope that the child who has received these transplants has some expectation of a happy life. But I do have to wonder where and how we draw the line and who gets to draw it.
Re:Question (Score:2, Funny)
Re:eh (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wasteful (Score:2)
Most likely those organs would have gone to waste anyway had Alessia not needed them.
ZIM (Score:4, Funny)
ZIM: You speak craziness, Earth boy. More organs means more human. It WILL work.
-- Invader ZIM, episode 7 [tvtome.com]