Xenotransplantation: the greater good or the greater risk?
Attack of the pig-men!
Matt Abra, Staff
Modern medicine has always found itself intertwined with ethics, not to mention the controversies that ethics draw out. Advancements of any sort set the groundwork for what our society chooses to adopt as controversial, and medicine never seems to catch a break. It is, and always will be, one of our leading sources for moral debate.
In the past decade, another matter has surfaced to add to this onslaught — the practice of transplanting cells, organs, and tissues from one species to another — medically known as xenotransplantation. This experimental procedure aims to greatly increase our eligibility for providing human patients adequate access to organs given their need for transplant. The amount of available organs for allotransplantation — the passing of organs from genetically different individuals of the same species (such as humans) — is far outnumbered by the amount of people in need of those organs, a fact that has sent scientists rummaging for further solutions. Xenotransplantation thus has untold potential, but at what cost?
The pros in favour of xenotransplantation are pretty straightforward. It could greatly shorten wait lists for new organs, lessening the amount of people who die before they ever get near the top of the list. Judy Anderson, the head of the department of biological sciences at U of M, says, “Given the growing shortage of transplant-available organs such as kidneys and the high personal burden of illness in renal failure that requires dialysis, I would anticipate that modern medical immune suppression drugs might make xenotransplantation from other species quite attractive to individuals, and to society.”
It was attractive to a woman by the name of Meribeth Cook, who in 1999 received a transplant of cells taken from the fetuses of pigs. Cook was a stroke patient who had volunteered for the experimental treatment in which 30 million fetal pig cells were injected into the damaged portion of her brain. She has since done very well, indicating that there certainly are some possible happy endings to be
It all begs a question sure to be brought forth by any animal rights activist – why is a human life worth so much more than that of an animal?
had in regards to the procedure.
The cons, however, are also self-evident. In medicine, controversial practices that raise ethical questions are often touted as being “for the greater good,” thus justifying their application. Xenotransplantation fits with this idea nicely. It could provide great benefit to humanity, yet it comes with a variety of ethical questions attached to it, such as the suffering undergone by animals in the process.
Taylor Carey, a student of zoology at the University of Manitoba, makes mention of the harsh animal treatment involved in xenotransplantation. Carey argues that not only are we taking organs and cells from animals for the procedure to begin with, but also that the testing phase is performed on animals through giving them the initial transplants. The pigs become the guinea pigs.
“The reality is that testing will always be done on animals first, but with xenotransplantation, the mortality rate is often doubled,” says Carey, making reference to both the removal and the transplant.
It all begs a question sure to be brought forth by any animal rights activist — why is a human life worth so much more than that of an animal? And, in this case, it is not a simple matter of choosing to save a human life over an animal’s, but rather the decision to kill an animal for the sake of saving a human. This controversy is warranted, though believe it or not, animal rights are not the real issue in this case.
The largest ethical debate surrounding xenotransplantation actually lies in its possible threat to humans. The transference of cells and organs across the species barrier comes with many inherent risks, namely the possibility of a new animal-virus epidemic spreading throughout the human population.
Professor Arthur Schafer, director of the U of M’s Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, wrote an article for The Globe entitled “Health Warning: that pig cell may be a Trojan horse.” The title speaks to the idea of xenotransplantation acting as ground zero for a new epidemic, while the article details the dispute on whether it is a moral risk worth taking. In it he asks, “When is it morally justifiable for individuals, in pursuing their own benefit, to impose risks on society?” Through a successful xenotransplant we could be saving a single human life yet risking the lives of countless others. In this instance, the greater good actually becomes the greater risk.
The theory of ethics is grounded in the greater good. The precise mathematical comparison of goodness verses wrongdoing sets a framework for our choices. Xenotransplantation, however, is a choice that is not worth the risk. It is in the math. Best case scenario — millions of people are saved while millions of animals suffer. Worst case scenario — millions of people are saved while millions of animals and humans suffer.
The bigger the numbers the bigger the controversy. Fortunately, in this case, numbers do not lie.
