Remove ads

First human head transplant could happen in two years

Would you like to benefit from a head transplant?

  • I'd like a new head.

    Votes: 5 9.3%

  • I'd like a new body.

    Votes: 32 59.3%

  • Both. (successively or simultaneously)

    Votes: 16 29.6%

  • No, even if it could save my life/me from atrocious pain.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Total voters
    54
xa na xa

xa na xa

A.E.I.O.U. - Antarticae est imperare orbi universo
Location
σ Octantis
First human head transplant could happen in two years

IT'S heady stuff. The world's first attempt to transplant a human head will be launched this year at a surgical conference in the US. The move is a call to arms to get interested parties together to work towards the surgery.

The idea was first proposed in 2013 by Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group in Italy. He wants to use the surgery to extend the lives of people whose muscles and nerves have degenerated or whose organs are riddled with cancer. Now he claims the major hurdles, such as fusing the spinal cord and preventing the body's immune system from rejecting the head, are surmountable, and the surgery could be ready as early as 2017.

Canavero plans to announce the project at the annual conference of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgeons (AANOS) in Annapolis, Maryland, in June. Is society ready for such momentous surgery? And does the science even stand up?

The first attempt at a head transplant was carried out on a dog by Soviet surgeon Vladimir Demikhov in 1954. A puppy's head and forelegs were transplanted onto the back of a larger dog. Demikhov conducted several further attempts but the dogs only survived between two and six days.



The first successful head transplant, in which one head was replaced by another, was carried out in 1970. A team led by Robert White at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, transplanted the head of one monkey onto the body of another. They didn't attempt to join the spinal cords, though, so the monkey couldn't move its body, but it was able to breathe with artificial assistance. The monkey lived for nine days until its immune system rejected the head. Although few head transplants have been carried out since, many of the surgical procedures involved have progressed. "I think we are now at a point when the technical aspects are all feasible," says Canavero.

[...]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Read the rest: http://www.newscientist.com/article...ppen-in-two-years.html?full=true#.VPDdpS5qC00
 
I don't see a problem with the procedure - people had all kinds of qualms when the first heart was transplanted, because there were so many unscientific believes about that muscle, but today, it happens a lot and most people accept it.

The same might very well happen with live-saving head transplants - I would prefer such a state, even without a functioning head to body connection, to being dead for the rest of eternity, at least if the pain levels were managable.

Uploading is preferable, of course.
 
Only problem is, healthy bodies with no inherent issues sort of have this tendency to not randomly fall over dead. This is different from organ systems- A body who's heart has failed can still have a perfectly healthy liver, for example. For every successful body transplant, you're sacrificing multiple potential organ transplants.

That said, even if this isn't viable as a medical technique, it's good for science as a whole- And that's before the potential of recreational body-swapping comes up, should this sort of procedure be repeatable and reversible.
 
Vindictus said:
Only problem is, healthy bodies with no inherent issues sort of have this tendency to not randomly fall over dead. This is different from organ systems- A body who's heart has failed can still have a perfectly healthy liver, for example. For every successful body transplant, you're sacrificing multiple potential organ transplants.

That said, even if this isn't viable as a medical technique, it's good for science as a whole- And that's before the potential of recreational body-swapping comes up, should this sort of procedure be repeatable and reversible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Braindead people could probably be a source for this. The legality might be dicey though.

Personally I think we should at least try to use information theoretic death as the official definition of death. In which case braindead people are just warm corpses.
 
Erik Tiber said:
Braindead people could probably be a source for this. The legality might be dicey though.

Personally I think we should at least try to use information theoretic death as the official definition of death. In which case braindead people are just warm corpses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Potentially, but again- If we're going to harvest the bodies of brain-dead individuals, would it make more sense to use them for a single life saving operation, or multiple life saving operations?

I'm really not even going into the ethical or legal issues here. Just, if we're going to be re-distributing bodies, does it make more sense to give the whole body to one person who needs it, or a bunch of little pieces to the various people who need those specific bits?
 
As noted, unless you can grow replacement bodies, or you have no regards for ethics, this is mostly gonna be pairing up the mentally vegetative with the physically disabled.
 
Last edited:
firefossil said:
As noted, unless you can grow replacement bodies, or you have no regards for ethics, this is mostly gonna be pairing up the mentally vegetative with the physically disabled.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, I'm an organ donor according to my license; I wouldn't mind signing off for my body to be used in the case of brain death to give someone else another shot at life, so I'm fine with that.
 
Agreed. Unfortunately, body-replacement-growing is still fairly far out, and there isn't much in the way of an ethical supply outside of that, even using vegetative bodies this way is going to stir up trouble, and god only knows what will happen in the more dark corners of the world.

Personally I think the head-on-a-machine route is more broadly viable. We've got proof of concept prototypes or more for things like "brain controls robot limb", "brain gets feedback from robot limb", and even stuff like "brain gets perceptual information from robot sensor".
 
firefossil said:
Agreed. Unfortunately, body-replacement-growing is still fairly far out, and there isn't much in the way of an ethical supply outside of that, even using vegetative bodies this way is going to stir up trouble, and god only knows what will happen in the more dark corners of the world.

Personally I think the head-on-a-machine route is more broadly viable. We've got proof of concept prototypes or more for things like "brain controls robot limb", "brain gets feedback from robot limb", and even stuff like "brain gets perceptual information from robot sensor".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Full or partial-conversion cyborg bodies are probably more useful, here, and we do already have the first steps down... But as with all future-tech, we've got multiple hurdles to cover before we can get there. For one, any biological components are going to need nutrition to be supplied, which means you've got to basically replace every single biological organ with a mechanical version that synchs with not only any biological components, but also with any other synthetic components. You've also got to program in homeostatic controls, etc, and that's not going to be a picnic by any stretch of the mind.
 
Actually, probably bullshit. As far as I'm aware, they don't have a reliable enough way of getting around the rather glaringly obvious issues with the spinal cord as of this time. I could see it in 15 or so years once the stuff they're trying to work with now matures, but even by the standards of hopelessly naive optimism it's way too fucking early to even think about it yet.
 
Vindictus said:
Only problem is, healthy bodies with no inherent issues sort of have this tendency to not randomly fall over dead. This is different from organ systems- A body who's heart has failed can still have a perfectly healthy liver, for example. For every successful body transplant, you're sacrificing multiple potential organ transplants.

That said, even if this isn't viable as a medical technique, it's good for science as a whole- And that's before the potential of recreational body-swapping comes up, should this sort of procedure be repeatable and reversible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well there's brain hemorrhage and such.
 
Last edited:
Richardson said:
Actually, probably bullshit. As far as I'm aware, they don't have a reliable enough way of getting around the rather glaringly obvious issues with the spinal cord as of this time. I could see it in 15 or so years once the stuff they're trying to work with now matures, but even by the standards of hopelessly naive optimism it's way too fucking early to even think about it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regardless of the progress state of spinal cord regeneration, (which has been a tough nut to crack for a very long time, I'll grant you), this is a useful procedure from the perspective of giving people an entire working set of internal organs (okay, okay, minus vagus nerve regulation, but you could route around that with two or three pacemakers).
 
Private Lee O'Malley said:
I guess you can say it's coming to a head.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Let's keep our heads screwed on, we don't know if the coin will fall heads or tails; but there's no hiding heads in the sand, it's happening sooner or later. On top off my head within the decade, but don't quote me on that. And while it's a truly a head-turning and spectacular medical procedure, the surgeons shouldn't get a swelled head from their skills. They're putting their heads in the lion's mouth in terms of challenging the boundaries of the possible, but a failure is on their heads, and if they're responsible for that then their heads should be put on the block.

Some say it's a head in the clouds project, but even if the science goes over my head, I think having a valid volunteer* gives a head start to the proponents of this operation. Opponents should keep their heads down until matters are brought to a head and practical steps are actually taken towards performing the operation. Both sides are butting heads over philosophical points, but it's all Dr. Moreau moot until then.

Instead, we should put our heads into developing sensible ethics for this. Nevertheless, expect the "don't meddle with Nature" mantra to drummed into our heads. Though perhaps some should think twice and not fall heels over head with the idea that it is a step towards their own personal AI Singularity Salvation. A head to head between the thoroughly cliché and false dichotomy of rational "Science!" vs spiritual "Nature!" will make heads spin without good answers, and the ethics of when, how and why we perform head transplants should stay head and shoulders above that moral morass.



*On a practical side, the headhunt for a subject must have had a great deal of specific parameters, like not being a headcase, and this volunteer seems ideal in many ways. Still, it will be an ordeal hanging over his head until it's done, and he will need a lot of support not least from head shrinks. Let's hope it all goes smoothly and no complication raises its ugly head; If it does and it was avoidable, heads will roll.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top