A pig’s heartbeat raises ethical questions
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, or even science fiction. A pig’s heart pumping in a man’s chest is a case in point. It didn’t happen on Dr. Moreau’s fabled island, where human-animal hybrids run amok, but in a hospital in Maryland.
The man, David Bennett Sr., had a terminal disease and was ineligible for a conventional heart transplant or pump.
On Jan. 7, the medical team and Mr. Bennett made history. Just as the moon landing signaled a great step forward for mankind, this transplant could lead to ending the world’s organ shortage. Tens of thousands of Americans require organ transplants each year. Thousands of them die.
University of Maryland Medical Center surgeons successfully “xenotransplanted” a genetically modified pig’s heart into Mr. Bennett, who had bravely agreed to the experimental operation. (“Well, will I oink?” he quipped to his doctor before the procedure, the New York Times reported.)
Mr. Bennett was doing well following the operation, though that could change if his body rejects the organ or complications develop.
Amid the excitement, the public should remain wary and watchful.
Pig organs tend to be most like those of humans; they’ve long been studied as potential organ replacements. Pig heart valves are already routinely transplanted into patients, and pig skin has been used as a temporary graft for burn victims.
A full heart may not seem such a great leap, but it is. In the 1990s, scientists largely gave up the idea of organ donor pigs after discovering they harbored retroviruses, or viruses that can change the DNA of a host cell.
In other words, retroviruses in pig organs could tamper with human cells or create new viruses, giving rise to all sorts of medical and ethical concerns. The likelihood is low, but the world is now understandably wary of new viruses.
Aside from viral concerns, animal rights groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, have condemned the genetic modification as well as the transplant, arguing against the casual use of animal tissue.
But a man’s life has been saved, it appears. If the procedure becomes more commonplace, it could save thousands of more human lives. Many will find that an acceptable tradeoff for potential complications or concerns over the manipulation of animal genetics.
Still, tampering with nature brings to mind “Jurassic Park.” It should provoke serious thought and debate. Just because this procedure can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. It could take years of clinical trials and research, leading to a more measured calculation of the medical and ethical risks and benefits, to fully answer that question.
Meantime, however, the world has reason to revel in a medical milestone fit for fiction.