Xenotransplantation: the future is now
Xenotransplantation, the cross-species transplantation of organs, appears to be another step closer to becoming a reality. British doctors are hopeful that a ready supply of animal organs will soon ease the organ shortage. The premier issue of xenotransplantation for the animal rights community is, of course, the ethical one - the viewing of living animals as the equivalent of a warehouse for biological parts.
But cross-species transplantation of organs involves a set of concerns more numerous than the ethical. There are scientific and medical problems as well, including virus transfer and organ rejection. The Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) has posted at length on this issue and why it is so ill-advised, not just ethically, but medically. Even the mainstream medical community concedes that "...the potential risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission remains a major obstacle (Journal of Virology 2004 Dec;78(24):13880-90)."
Many see xenotransplantation as a step forward. But somehow, the idea of implanting organs from pigs and other animals into humans does not really seem like forward progress to me. Even without the ethical issues of purpose-bred animal destruction, the risk of virus transmission is very real. Perhaps rather than a step forward, it is just a step towards convenience. After all, if the issues of rejection and virus transfer can be adequately addressed (currently a big if), it will be a lot easier to just order up an organ on demand rather than do the long term lifestyle work of disease prevention and early intervention treatment.
There will always be a demand for organs, and there will always be a supply. The problem is in getting the numbers to match. The medical community's solution of creating more organs by factory farming animals appears contrary to the goals of medical science. Patients must be treated, of course, but why not try harder to prevent the diseases that necessitate the transplants? Instead of increasing supply, why not reduce demand?
For example, in 2003 there were 5600 liver transplants performed in the U.S. (source: American Liver Foundation). The primary reason for liver transplantation is cirrhosis (National Institutes of Health). Common causes of cirrhosis are Hepatitis B and C, alcoholism, autoimmune disease, and hereditary liver disease (NIH). Besides being preventable and treatable, the diseases behind the development of cirrhosis cause much more destruction than just the livers of the patients. They destroy lives, break apart families, cause reduced work productivity, and stress the already overloaded mental health and social services system. It would seem that addressing these health problems earlier would not only reduce the need for organs but would have a positive ripple effect beyond just the patients themselves.
The short-sighted and profit-driven medical establishment's answer, once again, is to just "make more." Rather than trying to find real cures or prevent disease in the first place, they will recommend the usual: pop another pill, order up another organ.
What happened to the idea of promoting health?
But cross-species transplantation of organs involves a set of concerns more numerous than the ethical. There are scientific and medical problems as well, including virus transfer and organ rejection. The Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) has posted at length on this issue and why it is so ill-advised, not just ethically, but medically. Even the mainstream medical community concedes that "...the potential risk of zoonotic pathogen transmission remains a major obstacle (Journal of Virology 2004 Dec;78(24):13880-90)."
Many see xenotransplantation as a step forward. But somehow, the idea of implanting organs from pigs and other animals into humans does not really seem like forward progress to me. Even without the ethical issues of purpose-bred animal destruction, the risk of virus transmission is very real. Perhaps rather than a step forward, it is just a step towards convenience. After all, if the issues of rejection and virus transfer can be adequately addressed (currently a big if), it will be a lot easier to just order up an organ on demand rather than do the long term lifestyle work of disease prevention and early intervention treatment.
There will always be a demand for organs, and there will always be a supply. The problem is in getting the numbers to match. The medical community's solution of creating more organs by factory farming animals appears contrary to the goals of medical science. Patients must be treated, of course, but why not try harder to prevent the diseases that necessitate the transplants? Instead of increasing supply, why not reduce demand?
For example, in 2003 there were 5600 liver transplants performed in the U.S. (source: American Liver Foundation). The primary reason for liver transplantation is cirrhosis (National Institutes of Health). Common causes of cirrhosis are Hepatitis B and C, alcoholism, autoimmune disease, and hereditary liver disease (NIH). Besides being preventable and treatable, the diseases behind the development of cirrhosis cause much more destruction than just the livers of the patients. They destroy lives, break apart families, cause reduced work productivity, and stress the already overloaded mental health and social services system. It would seem that addressing these health problems earlier would not only reduce the need for organs but would have a positive ripple effect beyond just the patients themselves.
The short-sighted and profit-driven medical establishment's answer, once again, is to just "make more." Rather than trying to find real cures or prevent disease in the first place, they will recommend the usual: pop another pill, order up another organ.
What happened to the idea of promoting health?
posted by LC at 10:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home