About 5 years ago in 2013, it was first announced by Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero that he would be performing the world’s first complete human head transplant, moving a person’s head to a new body.
Last year it was announced that by the end of 2017 the feat would be performed, and now the deadline has been pushed back further to some unknown time while silence surrounds the issue, although the man insists it will still happen.
Everyone can agree upon the disturbing, unethical idea of transplanting a human head, but some people don’t seem to understand the concept of morality very well at all. People in the medical field often have an unconditional acceptance for an involuntary treatment, if they believe it works. This is a completely voluntary thing where a person chooses to subject themselves to such a risky operation.
Now here’s where it gets really immoral: Sergio and his Chinese counterpart, surgeon Xiaoping Ren are now planning the human head transplant, after already experimenting on several animals with transplanting their heads.
Back in May, the mainstream reported that the two surgeons performed a trial human head transplant on two cadavers in China, which was “prompting outrage from the medical community,” according to CNBC.
There’s no question that these people are engaging in immoral acts, but the “medical community” has it twisted, by considering the animals that were experimented on as not really as big a deal as experimenting with human cadavers.
The “medical community” has it twisted by their general support of involuntary treatment in prisons and psych wards, and involuntary treatment with vaccinations, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. So when an article alludes to some fictional notion of the “medical community’s outrage,” using it as some point of reference to illustrate how bad something is, understand that’s a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.
Take a look at the way this was broken down in a cringey, “appeal to authority” type of way by CNBC:
“Without more animal testing, performing such a surgery on humans would be highly unethical, and Canavero’s reputation as a sensationalist among medical professionals is well earned. But as transplant surgery reaches new heights — last month a wounded veteran received the first successful penis transplant — combined with advances in biology and computer science, human head transplantation may not be as far-fetched as once thought.
Still, surgical, immunological, psychological and ethical hurdles remain.”
The volunteer who was originally going to get the human head transplant in 2017 backed out. Originally he was willing to take such a risk, to treat his Werdnig-Hoffman disease, a horrific degenerative condition that causes a person’s muscles to waste away.
So instead, this Italian neurosurgeon and the Chinese one decided to experiment on mice, rats, and even a dog with head transplantation.
They claim all of the animals survived and regained “some” motor function. That’s the most immoral thing about this in my opinion.
We can all agree that this is creepy and animal experimentation is horrific and immoral. But why is it that most people don’t know how to respond, except by citing some authority in the medical field, saying they are outraged about it? The medical professionals do not define morality, we do. We’re fully capable of recognizing what is moral and immoral without referring to some “experts.”
Typos, corrections and/or news tips? Email us at [email protected]