A few days ago two doctors in France performed the first face transplant. The woman who received the newly transplanted face had been mauled and disfigured by her dog. The donor was brain dead, and brain dead people in France are considered to be organ donors unless they indicated that they didn't want to be. That was not the case in this situation.

Now the doctors have been accused of performing an immoral operation. The issue of identity theft has been brought up and the doctors have been accused of doing this for the glory.

What do you think. Is this type of surgery o.k. or is it immoral? Should this type of surgery be permitted? Should the doctors be thanked or reprimanded?

What's your opinion?

 

I'm thinking I like this French law. Why let organs go to waste? If the integrity of your body is important, take a moment to memorialize your wishes. If not, it is fair game... Yup, I like it.

As for the face thing, it seems fine to me. How did it turn out? It should not look just like the donor after it heals. The injured person's bone structure should be different and should provide different contours.

 

I agree with you on both points. Why should the organs go to waste? And why should the woman in question go through life disfigured? I don't have a moral problem in using organs from a donor to help a living person.

I read that when she woke up she wrote the word "Merci" on a sheet of paper and gave it to the doctor.

As far as the bone structure and the face looking exactly the same, I'm not really very sophisticated about this and haven't got a clue. Maybe some of our science/medical people can comment.

 

I'm all for it. After the healing it will be interesting to see the 2 before faces and the finished product.

 

In this particular case, she had been mauled and would have been disfigured without this operation. I think every case has to be judged on its own merit. I am not sure if we will in the future have a face transplant on demand to go simply because we do not like our own faces but in this particular case, I can see why the surgical team decided to go for it.

 

I read this was an incredibly difficult operation, since it is very hard to transplant noses and lips in particular. But I give the doctors credit for trying. People are so quick to judge. If I had been in her position, I think I would have done it.

 

What the surgery amounts to in essence is a very complex skin graft. Skin taken from other areas of the body are not suitable for facial skin grafts, as they don't have the suitable nerve endings and blood vessels. The recipient won't look a thing like the donor, nor exactly as she did originally. All the musculature, bone structure, fatty deposits, and all the other factors that contribute to facial appearance are those of the recipient.
If other skin grafts aren't immoral why should this type be considered an exception? Instead of getting their panties in a wad, folks (who have probably seen the ridiculous and abysmally bad movie, "Face to Face" too many times) should be marvelling at the fact that we now have the ability to perform this type of reconstructive surgery.

 

I can't see the immorality, particularly in this case. Unless you object to transplants of any form (and, yeah, I can understand that while not agreeing), I can't see why a facial transplant is any different than any other type.

John brings up an interesting point, though, about the possibility of something like this becoming more along the lines of elective surgery. I mean, no one gets a heart transplant unless it's necessary, but a face transplant does open up a troubling option for cosmetic surgeons.

Dwelling a bit on that last point, I guess I will admit some concern that this could become a morality situation in the future.

 

I got dibs on Robert Redford, ca. age 50. Except I suppose that's not possible, so I'll just take Brad Pitt. HPH

 

^ Oh my!!!! Imagine the black market on this.

Reminds me of Monty Python: "We're here for your liver... I'm not dead yet!"