Man volunteers for world first head transplant operation - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lebofly;47511184]Would that make you gay if you touched your new penis?[/QUOTE] Nah you'd just be looking at someone else jerking off.

[QUOTE=Lebofly;47511184]Would that make you gay if you touched your new penis?[/QUOTE] not gay unless balls touch

[QUOTE=BlankShadow;47501897]I think the hardest part would really be the after math. With a new body comes a new physical identity for said person.. any criminal record or ID's would have to be changed or updated and just the fucking fact that the family has to deal with the fact their "dead" family members body is walking around as a entirely other person is just fucked up! imagine that, dad dies, brain transplant, you see your dad walking around yet its not your dad its someone else inside his skin.[/QUOTE] Except, it is your dad, and he's got another body.

As someone who has actually done neuroscience research (and written ethics proposals), this will never happen simply because he will not be able to obtain ethical approval.

[QUOTE=stone555;47511284]As someone who has actually done neuroscience research (and written ethics proposals), this will never happen simply because he will not be able to obtain ethical approval.[/QUOTE] Would it not be more unethical to leave a guy to die when we have the capability to actually help him?

[QUOTE=stone555;47511284]As someone who has actually done neuroscience research (and written ethics proposals), this will never happen simply because he will not be able to obtain ethical approval.[/QUOTE]Ethics is bullcrap. This is some new era medicine. We should not be hung up on outdated ethics to stop progress in medicine. What is ethical approval anyway? Do you need to visit some sort of ethics committee before performing a surgery?

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47511324]Ethics is bullcrap. This is some new era medicine. We should not be hung up on outdated ethics to stop progress in medicine. What is ethical approval anyway? Do you need to visit some sort of ethics committee before performing a surgery?[/QUOTE] When you want to perform any type of research or medical procedure, you need to write up a comprehensive report outlining any and all of the risks (psychological, physical, technical) which is then reviewed by a committee of your peers. Any procedure that is deemed too risky to proceed will be denied on the spot. I think the idea is noble: give someone with a poorly functioning body a new body. However, the procedure is more complicated than anyone can possibly describe in a short article. Ethics is extremely important to research and medicine. Ethics is not just a 'moral responsibility', but it requires the researcher to perform a rigorous analysis of what can go wrong and what the likelihood of that happening is. In this case, it's just too risky. [editline]12th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47511293]Would it not be more unethical to leave a guy to die when we have the capability to actually help him?[/QUOTE] Normally I would agree, but don't misunderstand how likely a procedure like this is to actually fail. If they try and he dies, is it still ethical? In medicine, the ends do not justify the means.

[QUOTE=stone555;47511357]Normally I would agree, but don't misunderstand how likely a procedure like this is to actually fail. If they try and he dies, is it still ethical? In medicine, the ends do not justify the means.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is this retarded way of thinking? No matter how likely it is to fail, it is always more ethical to try to save a person's life than just leave him to die. The only sensible argument you could oppose would be the costs.

this is why facepunch should never be part of an ethics committee

[QUOTE=stone555;47511357]When you want to perform any type of research or medical procedure, you need to write up a comprehensive report outlining any and all of the risks (psychological, physical, technical) which is then reviewed by a committee of your peers. Any procedure that is deemed too risky to proceed will be denied on the spot. I think the idea is noble: give someone with a poorly functioning body a new body. However, the procedure is more complicated than anyone can possibly describe in a short article. Ethics is extremely important to research and medicine. Ethics is not just a 'moral responsibility', but it requires the researcher to perform a rigorous analysis of what can go wrong and what the likelihood of that happening is. In this case, it's just too risky. [editline]12th April 2015[/editline] Normally I would agree, but don't misunderstand how likely a procedure like this is to actually fail. If they try and he dies, is it still ethical? In medicine, the ends do not justify the means.[/QUOTE] The guy said he's accepted that he's going to die, and that he would rather have a stab at this and risk dying when the alternative is to be trapped with his own body as it withers away. So yes, it is ethical to try for the guy considering he is aware of the risks.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47511388]What the fuck is this retarded way of thinking? No matter how likely it is to fail, it is always more ethical to try to save a person's life than just leave him to die. The only sensible argument you could oppose would be the costs.[/QUOTE] This isn't a procedure that we even know works on paper. You cannot justify attempting an extremely expensive procedure just because you think it might save someone's life. Typically in medical applications, years of extensive testing occurs prior to human trials. Most of this testing includes analog trial testing within animal models (typically rats). We haven't even been able to successfully transplant heads from rats onto other rats, which are the most common animal models used. After it can be determined that this is in fact possible, I can foresee this actually happening.

[QUOTE=DChapsfield;47511426]this is why facepunch should never be part of an ethics committee[/QUOTE] What because people would rather take a high risk of dying to get a new body rather than die in a few years thanks to muscular dystrophy? Oh god what awful people we are.

[QUOTE=stone555;47511438]This isn't a procedure that we even know works on paper. You cannot justify attempting an extremely expensive procedure just because you think it might save someone's life. Typically in medical applications, years of extensive testing occurs prior to human trials. Most of this testing includes analog trial testing within animal models (typically rats). We haven't even been able to successfully transplant heads from rats onto other rats, which are the most common animal models used. After it can be determined that this is in fact possible, I can foresee this actually happening.[/QUOTE] So this [B]is[/B] about money and trying to save up resources to use them elsewhere, that has nothing to do with ethics.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47511432]The guy said he's accepted that he's going to die, and that he would rather have a stab at this and risk dying when the alternative is to be trapped with his own body as it withers away. So yes, it is ethical to try for the guy considering he is aware of the risks.[/QUOTE] Ethics isn't simply 'how likely is it that this guy is going to die'. Ethics includes whether or not the potential knowledge gained is worth the investment. In this case, it's unlikely to even be successful and thus very hard to justify funding such a dangerous procedure. [editline]12th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;47511453]So this [B]is[/B] about money and trying to save up resources to use them elsewhere, that has nothing to do with ethics.[/QUOTE] Read above.

[QUOTE=stone555;47511462]Ethics isn't simply 'how likely is it that this guy is going to die'. Ethics includes whether or not the potential knowledge gained is worth the investment. In this case, it's unlikely to even be successful and thus very hard to justify funding such a dangerous procedure.[/QUOTE] So basically you're saying, ethics stands in the way of advancement because of monetary concerns? Basically that because the chances of getting something useful out of it aren't good enough for you and most surgeons involved so i's not gonna happen, despite a dude putting his reputation on the line and a guy willingly putting himself on the table? Tell me again why I should care about ethics in this case? It's not like we're pulling a Mengele and subjecting unwilling victims to awful medical experiments.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47511472]So basically you're saying, ethics stands in the way of advancement because of monetary concerns? Basically that because the chances of getting something useful out of it aren't good enough for you and most surgeons involved so i's not gonna happen, despite a dude putting his reputation on the line and a guy willingly putting himself on the table? Tell me again why I should care about ethics in this case? It's not like we're pulling a Mengele and subjecting unwilling victims to awful medical experiments.[/QUOTE] I think the idea is that using the money to fund more promising projects would prove more efficient.

[QUOTE=_Axel;47511483]I think the idea is that using the money to fund more promising projects would prove more efficient.[/QUOTE] Yeah but thankfully we live in a world where most avenues of medical research are already being pursued.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47511472]So basically you're saying, ethics stands in the way of advancement because of monetary concerns? Basically that because the chances of getting something useful out of it aren't good enough for you and most surgeons involved so i's not gonna happen, despite a dude putting his reputation on the line and a guy willingly putting himself on the table? Tell me again why I should care about ethics in this case? It's not like we're pulling a Mengele and subjecting unwilling victims to awful medical experiments.[/QUOTE] There isn't some infinite money pit when it comes to science. You write up a grant application, if you're lucky you get some sort of 5-10 year grant which you can use on carefully constructed experiments. Science is just like any business, you have to carefully fund projects that you hypothesize will give you data you can later use. The problems here are that a) there is not enough data to determine whether or not it will work (which usually means it won't) and b) it's an extremely expensive procedure, of which the money has to come from somewhere. Just because something is sensational sounding doesn't mean it's worth funding.

[QUOTE=stone555;47511508]There isn't some infinite money pit when it comes to science. You write up a grant application, if you're lucky you get some sort of 5-10 year grant which you can use on carefully constructed experiments. Science is just like any business, you have to carefully fund projects that you hypothesize will give you data you can later use. The problems here are that a) there is not enough data to determine whether or not it will work (which usually means it won't) and b) it's an extremely expensive procedure, of which the money has to come from somewhere. Just because something is sensational sounding doesn't mean it's worth funding.[/QUOTE] No but the fact that someone is actually gonna give it a bash makes it worth funding. We should start a kickstarter.

you silly billies the point is that this experiment is widely agreed by peers, analysts, and medical professionals to be unsoundly supported. it is extremely unlikely to succeed OR yield any useful discoveries. the surgeon is looking across the Grand Canyon, planning on crossing it with the support of his model of an RC car jumping over a pothole. even if as much funding as he could ask for was given to him, the evidence available is NOT plausible enough to warrant this procedure. [QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47511519]No but the fact that someone is actually gonna give it a bash makes it worth funding. We should start a kickstarter.[/QUOTE] this is terrible logic. If every researcher applied for a grant to conduct experiments on the basis of, "well, nobody's TRIED to create human-hamster clones yet, so why not?" there would be no room for the carefully researched and rigorously regulated peer-reviewed trials that actually give us useful data.

Selling your body will have a whole different meaning in the future

ITT: a lot of people think they know more than a medic team of 160 people.

[QUOTE=Mr.Brown;47504669]Man, imagine you look down your body and the penis isn't yours, even the pubic hair.[/QUOTE] [I]It is now.[/I]

[QUOTE=autodesknoob;47512844]ITT: a lot of people think they know more than a medic team of 160 people.[/QUOTE]By that logic most science related threads should be instantly locked since most people here are not qualified enough to discuss such topics.

As much as I'd like to, I don't think this operation is going to work. If they pulled his head off wouldn't he die?

[QUOTE=smurfy;47504518]Yeah, apparently we have no idea how his brain will react to all the new shit and he could suffer a "fate worse than death" [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/man-undergoing-head-transplant-could-experience-something-a-lot-worse-than-death-says-neurological-expert-10164423.html[/url][/QUOTE] complete opinion article citing a single statement by a doctor and not any actual evidence or papers suggesting that it would even be likely to happen, this doesn't really mean much of anything. The brain produces its own neurotransmitters anyway, not to mention it adapts very quickly to ambient levels of the chemicals, which is why drugs form resistances. This is the very bottom of the list of the problems involved in this surgery.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;47497935]What if decides that in the future he wants to have children? They wont be his biologically. He will essentially be "wearing" the children's dead fathers body.[/QUOTE] What color would the child's eyes be?

[QUOTE=reywilnc;47517337]As much as I'd like to, I don't think this operation is going to work. If they pulled his head off wouldn't he die?[/QUOTE] If they can keep his brain alive, why would he die?