dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/29/84)
> The Loma Linda Univercity (San Bernadino CA.) > Has succesfully transplanted the heart of a baboon into a 14 day old human > infant. > ... But who is going to represent > and protect the animals? In fact, the animal rights protesters have already started, protesting vigorously that a baboon was killed to (it is hoped) save this baby girl's life. Provided the killing of the baboon was not done in a way which caused much suffering, I can't understand these people. Don't they eat meat? Thousand of animals - cows, sheep, pigs - are killed every day to provide food for humans. Killing an animal to save a human's life through a transplant doesn't seem to me to be any worse than this. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave
mlh@abnjh.UUCP (M. L. Holt) (10/29/84)
Why is lab testing using animals bad (I presume you mean "evil")?? Mike Holt abnjh!mlh
west@sdcsla.UUCP (Larry West) (10/30/84)
In article <909@abnjh.UUCP> mlh@abnjh.UUCP (M. L. Holt) writes: > >Why is lab testing using animals bad (I presume you mean "evil")?? > >Mike Holt >abnjh!mlh There was a documentary film on the transplant of a chimp's brain into a human, and vice versa. The film dates from the 1950's, I believe, and was titled "Bonzo goes to College". (Does this answer your question? ;-) -- -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science -- UUCP: {decvax!ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west -- ARPA: west@NPRDC {{ NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }}
halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE) (11/01/84)
The movie "Bonzo Goes to College" did NOT star the same human as the first Bonzo movie, so no political statement should apply. However, the director was the same: Frederick DeCordova. Obviously the transplant was into who he is now directing: Johnnie.
gary@rochester.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) (11/01/84)
> There was a documentary film on the transplant of a chimp's brain > into a human, and vice versa. The film dates from the 1950's, > I believe, and was titled "Bonzo goes to College". (Does this > answer your question? ;-) > -- > -- Larry West, UC San Diego, Institute for Cognitive Science > -- UUCP: {decvax!ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west > -- ARPA: west@NPRDC {{ NOT: <sdcsla!west@NPRDC> }} I think that was "Bonzo goes to the White House". gary cottrell (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary (UUCP) gary@rochester (ARPA)
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (11/02/84)
In the news coverage of this item, I haven't heard the answer to the following question: Assuming the subject lives, is this baboon heart supposed to last a full normal lifetime, as the child grows to adulthood, or is it planned to subsequently replace this heart with another (either human or artificial) at some future point? If so, when? Would the baboon heart have the capacity to support an adult human body? What about its normal lifespan, which I believe is some fraction of the average human lifetime? Wouldn't it simply wear out if not replaced after some number of years? In other words, is this an explicitly temporary or stopgap measure? Will
jimm@pecosdg.UUCP (Jim Millard) (11/03/84)
Just this morning I heard on my local radio station: The Loma Linda Univercity (San Bernadino CA.) Has succesfully transplanted the heart of a baboon into a 14 day old human infant. The baby girl is listed as critical but doing fine. Sounds good and also a bit scarry at the same time. Now we may not have to wait for people to die. But who is going to represent and protect the animals? Lab testing is bad enough if people die because you couldn't kill an animal well that will be a subject for another newsgroup and another day. Jim Millard @ Perkin Elmer, San Diego CA.
drp@ptsfb.UUCP (Dale Pederson) (11/05/84)
> Assuming the subject lives, is this baboon heart supposed to last a full > normal lifetime, as the child grows to adulthood, or is it planned to > subsequently replace this heart with another (either human or artificial) > at some future point? > > In other words, is this an explicitly temporary or stopgap measure? The articles that I have read stated that *if* the child survives the baboon heart will suffice for several years (as much as seven ?) and further surgery would be required at that time. It seems that it may be a moot point as no other receipient of an animal heart survived more than three days.
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (11/06/84)
The answers to most of the questions raised on the baboon heart are basically, "We just don't know what will happen." There is so little experience in this area, that the aging effects of the baboon heart are impossible to predict. Baboon life expectancy is shorter (I can't remember if I read 30, 40, or 50 years for this type), but it is not known if the heart's growth rate and aging will track that of the donor baboon, or that of the recipient. Theories expounding both points of view have been proposed. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/07/84)
Where is this going to lead?
I have no problem with the recent transplant of the baboon's heart
into Baby Fae. Obviously, Baby Fae is still a human being, just as
if she had been given a plastic heart.
But now that medical science has crossed this barrier, where
will it stop? Where should it stop?
Consider: X is severely injured in a car accident, and is completely
paralysed from the neck down. He is offered the choice of life in
a wheelchair, with only his facial muscles to control things, or
the transplant of a baboon's body. He chooses the baboon, and we
have a human head on a baboon's body. Is it human? Does the brain
alone make it human? Should a doctor perform this kind of operation,
if it's what X wants?
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!davessimpson@trwrba.UUCP (Scott W. Simpson) (11/10/84)
<enter the irrational zone> I can't believe the antivivisectionists reacting to killing a baboon to save a human life. Don't they place a higher priority on human life than a baboon? I do. We kill cows every day for food and no fuss is made. Sure cows are a sort of assembly line animal food source but they still are living animals. Why not protest against killing cows? There is the argument that replacing the heart just prolongs baby Fae's and her parents' suffering. I disagree. Besides, isn't it baby Fae's parents' right to make that decision since baby Fae cannot make it herself. Baby Fae's parents pondered the decision to have the operation for 20 hours before deciding to go with the heart transplant. I was a brave decision. Maybe the should have transplanted a vivisectionists heart to baby Fae. They sure don't seem to be needing theirs. Flame me. I know how to use the "rmm" command. -- Scott P.S. Sorry about posting to net.med. This probably should have been posted to net.flame. It certainly qualifies.
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (11/13/84)
References: <290@pecosdg.UUCP> <5579@brl-tgr.ARPA> <420@utcsrgv.UUCP> >But now that medical science has crossed this barrier, where >will it stop? Where should it stop? >Consider: X is severely injured in a car accident, and is completely >paralysed from the neck down. He is offered the choice of life in >a wheelchair, with only his facial muscles to control things, or >the transplant of a baboon's body. He chooses the baboon, and we >have a human head on a baboon's body. Is it human? Does the brain >alone make it human? Should a doctor perform this kind of operation, >if it's what X wants? >utcsrgv!dave The example chosen may not really answer the question. The problem with neurological injuries is that they don't "heal". If it was possible to get a FUNCTIONAL cross-species "body transplant", then the person could also be effectively treated, and recover function after spinal cord transection. However, there is a great deal of (animal) research into how to stimulate functional recovery after neurological injury. The most promising method could be crudely termed a "brain transplant", and involves implantation of a clump of embryonic brain cells, which induce neuronal growth in the adult nervous system which never occurs normally. It is a bit more complicated, with issues of transmitter specificity in induction, and the lack of spatial mapping in regenerated connections, but some functional recovery is possible. The ethical issue here is the source of fetal brain tissue needed for treatment (until the specific factors are identified and purified). There are lots of aborted fetuses getting thrown away, but my guess is that they are out of bounds for most researchers in this country. The first attempts at using some variation of this method in humans have taken place in Sweden, but involve using cells from the patients own adrenal gland for Parkinson's treatment. Look for the first transplant using brain tissue from either human or animal fetuses to occur there too. Rich Goldschmidt {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax,allegra} ! cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@berkeley.arpa