Is xeno-transplantation morally acceptable?
609095
Why wouldn't it be?\nUsing contemporary moral standards:\nSeems that most people have no moral qualms about eating animals.  Vegans and vegetarians are a very, very small minority.\nSaving a human life is generally agreed to be a high moral good.\nTherefore, killing a pig to take its heart valve and transplant it into a human being who otherwise would die, appears to have a higher moral good than killing a pig so that people can eat cheeseburgers with bacon.\n\nOf course, if one wants to use other assumptions the results would be different.  If one assumes that all life is equally precious, whether human or a pig, one would find killing the pig for either reason to be wrong.\n\nIn short, like most questions of morality, it depends on your starting assumptions.
823252
Wow, this opens up a can of worms.  Be prepared to duck; you may get some very sharpish answers!\n\nFor what it's worth (FWIW), I've heard that some very conservative Christians are not very happy with the idea of organ donation because they want to be resurrected with all their parts.  \n\n(Personally, things are going to decay anyway, I figure, and I cannot see how an omnipotent Deity is going to be slowed up significantly if someone's minus a few tissues....But I'll leave it for such believers to believe as they choose, and if I've misunderstood their doctrine, hope they'll accept it as an honest goof and not malicious.)   \n\nI understand that some of the more conservative Jewish groups feel that autopsies and such are disrespectful to the dead, and THINK that some Muslim groups have similar beliefs.  However, do NOT know whether the potential "good" and charity that can come from saving life overrides such "disrespect". \n\nI've found, again FWIW, that people in the more "liberal"  denominations (examples:  Quaker/Friends, United Church of Christ), Unitarians, and Pagans/Wiccans tend to be very vigorously IN FAVOR of donating organs and tissues, on the basis of "hey, let's not waste them, and we can do some wonderful good for a number of people".  \n\nHowever, individual people may vary.  You may need to check for "policy papers" on organ donation for each separate spiritual denomination/belief, if you want better data....but this is going to be almost impossible for the atheists/agnostics, and also for the Pagans/Wiccans (because we're independent-minded and ornery as cats, and HAVE no centralized religious governing body to set policy).\n\nI signed the "organ donor" designation on my license right when turning legal age....and before that, told my parents to donate anything and everything as my last wish.  Was raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod---one of the more conservative L.), but now am a very happy Goddess-worshipping Pagan.
729517
my uncle received a heart and kidney transplant that gave him life for an additional 13 years...someone elses loss gave us more time to enjoy our family member...am i selfish, yes? am i grateful to those who lost a beautiful woman, yes! yes, because they in their time of sorrow were able to give the gift to us--total strangers....so, my answer is of course my organs are being donated....
957884
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.
440206
If it is in the best interest of the person the euthanasia is meant for, then its good. Go for it. If the person can be saved, it's considered murder. Not by the medical party, but by the deciders.
1073987
like die?  Transplants can only be done between creatures with similar dna.
656095
For cloning organs/tissue but against cloning human beings
441900
The transplantation of animal organs/cells into humans is called xenotransplantation. I wrote a paper on it for my medical ethics class in undergrad. Here's a link from a reputable website with a bit of information about it: http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2903.htm
1163027
It depends on the purpose the cloning is fulfilling. If we clone racehorses, we could have a bunch of Secretariats running against other Secretariats and their may be the demise of a great industry.\n\nHowever, if cloning, genetic engineering and selective reproduction have a well defined intent and the end result can benefit humankind, then let's do it. Not being a moralist, I would like to see science continue researching the distinct benefits all forms of reproduction have upon all of the species on the planet.\n\nThe protests that are being offered against artificial or any other form of selective reproduction, must be taken into consideration on a scientific basis and not offer up the old adage, "if God intended man to fly, He would have given him wings" in regards to reproduction.\n\nIn a day and age when it would be very wise to keep our religion and morals to ourselves, we should allow science to progress within reason and justification. In a nation that prides itself in a government 'of the people, by the people and for the people', I say, lets all be a part of the decision making process regarding sin and science and...\n\nGod help us toward that decision.
1173070
It is indeed called a Xenograft. In the case of a pig tissue being used in an artifical valve the pig tissue has been processed so that there can be no rejection. This is not a transplant. There have been animal to human actual transplants done in the past. Get this, it has been tried several years ago to transplant a baboon heart in a human. The baboon died quickly because they took his heart, the human died a short time later after getting the baboon heart because it simply did not work. That example was a true transplant.
247265
It's not an urban legend, there is a black market for human organs, mostly in 3rd world countries.  I think that we should be able to sell them under certain conditions, such as psychoanalysis that proves that the person understands what they are doing.
871453
To one of the posters before me, I can only say that some people need to get educated before telling others to check their facts!  Most embryonic stem cell research is done on the stem cells of embryos that would have been discarded anyway; fertility clinics routinely thrash embryos that aren't showing satisfactory growth rates suitable for In vitro.  So the embryo dies no matter what!  Might as well put the tissue to use so that the death isn't in vain--who knows how many lives the research on one embryo could save?  And as far as grouping OTHER stem cell research into this whole "morality" issue... I'd hope these soapbox preachers realize that blood cells come from stem cells that are produced by bone marrow--and we all have 'em.  No lives (other than cellular) are lost for research--and many bone marrow transplant patients owe their lives to what's been done so far.  Blood stem cells aren't capable of forming anything other than blood cells, while embryonic stem cells have the potential of becoming any of the body's tissues.  Honest to goodness, do a little research!\n\nNOW, to answer the question asked... yeah, I think he'll veto it.  He'll kick himself if he or someone he loves becomes ill with a disease that might have been curable if he'd have actually helped the research.  But for now, I'd see him standing on the Biblewagon and doing whatever he can to make sure nothing useful happens.  (Kind of like he's been doing from day one, eh?)
1185905
I traveled to Israel in January to take a course on this subject.  Although I don't personally think it would be unethical, the arguments against such a system would sound something like this.  \n\nUtilitarian:  The demand for organs far outweighs the supply - even in those countries with a unified organ donation system (UNOS in the U.S.).  Thus, there is a growing concern that providing financial incentives may create a black market in organ sharing.  Such a small monetary incentive may induce impoverished persons to donate non-vital organs in order to make ends meet; however, the people who can afford the organs are often well-off.  Thus, there's is a huge inequity in terms of "balancing the bargain."  In this situation, many contend that those who can afford to buy the organs would be exploiting those who donate the organs.  \n\nAdditionally, there is an autonomy argument:  if one is so induced by financial incentives to donate an organ (vital or non-vital), are they really acting of their own free will?  Some would argue that they're not.  Organ donation requires a tremendous amount of informed consent, and one is expected to fully understand the consequences of their donation.  If one were motivated by financial incentives, rather than pure altruism, his or her decision may not be entirely autonomous.  \n\nAlthough much more could be written about the topic (I drafted a 20 page paper on organ donation among death row inmates), those are the primary arguments.
1020019
Working in the health care field I personally have mixed emotions. On a religious level it's just not natural to do.  However, if it were my children that needed a heart, kidney, etc. I'm certain I would consider medical professionals cloning them as a method of an exact match for replacement organs.
542376
In the medical sense, a chimera is an animal or a human with body parts from another, either the same or a different species. The name comes from the mythical creature chimera, which is said to have the head of a lion, body of a goat, tail of a serpent and (sometimes) wings of an eagle. The practice of transplanting a body part from another species is more commonly called xenograft.\nFor same species transplant, we have been doing this for a long time, in organ transplant. For different species, it is mainly still in experiment, but xenograft is used in skin transplant for seriously burnt patients. (Pig skin is commonly used)\nRegarding your question, the answer is NO, because we can't post pictures in the answer box =)
682615
Ethical issues in cloning include the following:\n\nFirst, there were many issues with Dolly the sheep.  Dolly aged much quicker than a normal sheep.  Some scientists think this was due to the shortening telomeres from Dolly's cloned DNA.  The telomere theory is complicated, so I won't go into it here.  Suffice to say that there MIGHT be health consequences if we clone humans.  Most ethicicsts think we should resolve all those issues rather than let some unfortunate cloned people be the guiniea pigs.\n\nSecond, there are many moral implications.  Would the cloned child have psychological or emotional problems knowing that he/she was not conceived in the traditional way?  Who would be the child's father?  Mother?  Other objections to cloning are of a categorical variety.  In other words, we shouldn't clone simply because it's weird.  Some people think we should not screw around with human nature.  We shouldn't be engineering people's genetics, and we shouldn't be copying people genetically for research or mere curiosity.\n\nBecause there are so many questions involving the effects of cloning I think we should not do it.  The biggest reason we should stay away is because there really is no compelling reason TO do it.  Why would you want to clone someone?  The only logical reason I have heard is that you can create a human that is genetically identical (or close to it) to someone with a serious or fatal medical condition.  Then you can be absolutely sure the the clone could share blood or organs or with the sick person.  I think it's a bit cruel to create a person solely for the intention of curing someone else.  It's just not fair to the unfortunate clone who not only has to give up his organ or blood or whatever, but he also has to deal with the stigma of being a clone.\n\nThe issues are much more complex than I have stated.  This was a cursory examination of a very, very complex topic.  It is really fascinating, though, and I encourage you to keep researching.  There are great books on the subject, and tons of opinions on the web.\n\nOne final issue is what effect would this have on our society?  Would we reduce our genetic variation if we started cloning on a large-scale basis?  Would that leave us more susceptible to genetic diseases because we have decreased the variability?  Would cloning alter our perception of humanity and the sanctity of life?  Would we devalue the individual since we could theoretically just copy a new one?
363168
http://www.mrc.ac.za/ethics/human.htm\n\nhttp://www.iucnrosa.org.zw/elisa/Environmental%20Law/south_africa/human_tissue_act.html\n\nThe first one is a summary.  The second is all the techinical wording.