Decision sparks dissent on donor debate
Half a century ago, the very idea of transplanting an organ from one person into another was considered by many as somewhat ghastly. Whispers of head transplants and Frankenstein-style monsters could be heard as people feared what might possibly come from such new technology. Today, countless people owe their lives to this relatively common form of surgery.
But are we prepared to use animals for their body parts instead? That is the question being asked as we look for new ways to meet the need for organ transplants.
The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has recently announced it would permit trials on ‘xenotransplantation’ – the process of replacing a person’s organs with those from another species. Given animals such as pigs have organs that are rather similar to our own, it could provide a way of saving the lives of those who would otherwise never find a compatible donor.
Yet according to Professor Peter Sainsbury from the University of Sydney’s school of public health, the dangers poses by the process are yet to be fully understood. For instance, xenotransplants could create the perfect breeding ground for new types of virus, allowing them to cross easily into the human population.
Since our bodies are quite good at spotting tissue that doesn’t belong to us, transplants need to be selected for the right match. The recipient must have the efficiency of their immune system decreased so it does not reject their new organ. Yet with genetic engineering, it should be possible to create animals with tissues that won’t easily be recognised, lowering the risk of rejection.
While the NHMRC is confident the research shows any risk to the community is low, Professor Sainsbury believes the public should have been consulted before the decision was made.
Debate on this topic in the past has been rather heated, with many conflicting opinions on animal welfare, public risk from disease and the potential benefits to terminally ill patients. Risk versus benefit is always a tough question when it comes to applying science to solving problems. What do you think people will be saying about this in the next fifty years?
