|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 11:29:12 GMT
Today, I read a news article about a US gentleman receiving a heart in a transplant operation from a genetically-modified pig. You can read the article here. This is known as xenotransplantation, i.e. a human receiving an organ, tissue or live cells from an animal. Does the Church have any position on xenotransplantation? Would it be acceptable or wrong for a Catholic to receive an organ, tissues or live cells from an animal? |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jan 11, 2022 12:52:11 GMT
“One issue concerns the use of animal organs for transplantation to human beings, such as using the heart valve of a pig to replace a human heart valve. This kind of transplantation is called a xenotransplant. First addressed by Pope Pius XII in 1956, the Church maintains that such transplants are morally acceptable on three conditions: (1) the transplanted organ does not impair the integrity of the genetic or psychological identity of the recipient, (2) the transplant has a proven biological record of possible success, and (3) the transplant does not involve inordinate risk for the recipient. (Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Italian Association of Cornea Donors and to Clinical Oculists and Legal Medical Practitioners, May 14, 1956.)“ catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-organ-transplants/See also: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20010926_xenotrapianti_en.htmlOf course, such a procedure would almost certainly be regarded as “extraordinary” and a Catholic who did not want to have an animal organ transplanted into themself would be under no moral obligation to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 13:48:43 GMT
“One issue concerns the use of animal organs for transplantation to human beings, such as using the heart valve of a pig to replace a human heart valve. This kind of transplantation is called a xenotransplant. First addressed by Pope Pius XII in 1956, the Church maintains that such transplants are morally acceptable on three conditions: (1) the transplanted organ does not impair the integrity of the genetic or psychological identity of the recipient, (2) the transplant has a proven biological record of possible success, and (3) the transplant does not involve inordinate risk for the recipient. (Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Italian Association of Cornea Donors and to Clinical Oculists and Legal Medical Practitioners, May 14, 1956.)“ catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-churchs-teaching-on-organ-transplants/See also: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20010926_xenotrapianti_en.htmlOf course, such a procedure would almost certainly be regarded as “extraordinary” and a Catholic who did not want to have an animal organ transplanted into themself would be under no moral obligation to do so. Thank you very much for answering my query and for providing the two links. I have read the first one, which I found very interesting and from which you quote. The second one seems very interesting. However, due to its length I have not had the opportunity to read it but I most definitely will.
I shall infer at this stage that the Church, in general, accepts xenotransplantation. However, the Venerable Pius XII's second and third criteria are difficult to meet without such transplants taking place. The only way to achieve a biological record of success and to reduce risk to the recipient is going to be xenotransplants.
The first patients to receive transplants did not survive long. It has been through continuing to transplant organs and refining of the process that recipients live longer. Therefore, I do not see how the two mentioned criteria can be met without there first being some human "guinea pigs", a process of experimentation that I feel runs contrary to these criteria. I can only think that the Venerable Pius XII meant there had been sufficient research done with results demonstrating that the stage of human trials could take place.
Unless my understanding is incorrect, in the penultimate paragraph of the first article you link, St John Paul II says transplants must not been done if the donor receives any financial reward, including when donating blood. I know in some parts of the world blood donors are paid. I wonder how many Catholics realise such payment is considered immoral.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jan 11, 2022 14:15:19 GMT
The people I know who at times have sold their blood in US were in desperate financial straits. Some of them were also stealing to get food or food money. I think they were just trying to eat, so their culpability would likely be reduced. They went on to eventually have decent jobs and careers so they didn’t have to sell blood or steal any more. With respect to what Pope JPII said, I’m not sure if that’s an official Church position as it’s my understanding that sometimes Popes give guidance that’s a harder line than what the official Church position is. There are at least two Catholics conversant with bioethics on SIL so if you don’t get a good answer here you could try starting a thread there. Edited to add, I see that nowadays they won’t pay for blood in US and the WHO discourages any country paying for blood because that encourages donors to lie about risky behaviors. I presume this policy went into effect some time after HIV/ AIDS became an issue due to the number of people with HIV who were selling their blood back in the bad old days of the 80s (which is also when the folks I knew were selling their blood). Perhaps the Vatican was likewise concerned about this health risk. www.statnews.com/2016/01/22/paid-plasma-not-blood/ |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 11, 2022 14:44:43 GMT
The people I know who at times have sold their blood in US were in desperate financial straits. Some of them were also stealing to get food or food money. I think they were just trying to eat, so their culpability would likely be reduced. They went on to eventually have decent jobs and careers so they didn’t have to sell blood or steal any more. With respect to what Pope JPII said, I’m not sure if that’s an official Church position as it’s my understanding that sometimes Popes give guidance that’s a harder line than what the official Church position is. There are at least two Catholics conversant with bioethics on SIL so if you don’t get a good answer here you could try starting a thread there. Edited to add, I see that nowadays they won’t pay for blood in US and the WHO discourages any country paying for blood because that encourages donors to lie about risky behaviors. I presume this policy went into effect some time after HIV/ AIDS became an issue due to the number of people with HIV who were selling their blood back in the bad old days of the 80s (which is also when the folks I knew were selling their blood). Perhaps the Vatican was likewise concerned about this health risk. www.statnews.com/2016/01/22/paid-plasma-not-blood/I have never heard that one may not receive payment for donating blood. I would be interested in seeing if there is an actual magisterial teaching on this, or whether it is just John Paul II teaching as a private theologian. It may be hair-splitting (or just good old-fashioned Jesuitical casuistry!), but could one speak of being compensated for the act of donation, rather than actually selling the blood? And does it make a difference that, in our time, blood is actually broken down into fractions, different sorts of plasmas, and so on? And if someone had long hair, could they have it cut short, and sell it? Learn something new every day. And if you want to think of it, when you do any sort of bodily labor, aren't you "selling your body" in some sense? (That should not be seen as a reference to prostitution.) |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 15:53:22 GMT
The people I know who at times have sold their blood in US were in desperate financial straits. Some of them were also stealing to get food or food money. I think they were just trying to eat, so their culpability would likely be reduced. They went on to eventually have decent jobs and careers so they didn’t have to sell blood or steal any more. With respect to what Pope JPII said, I’m not sure if that’s an official Church position as it’s my understanding that sometimes Popes give guidance that’s a harder line than what the official Church position is. There are at least two Catholics conversant with bioethics on SIL so if you don’t get a good answer here you could try starting a thread there. Edited to add, I see that nowadays they won’t pay for blood in US and the WHO discourages any country paying for blood because that encourages donors to lie about risky behaviors. I presume this policy went into effect some time after HIV/ AIDS became an issue due to the number of people with HIV who were selling their blood back in the bad old days of the 80s (which is also when the folks I knew were selling their blood). Perhaps the Vatican was likewise concerned about this health risk. www.statnews.com/2016/01/22/paid-plasma-not-blood/I did not know that blood donors could no longer be paid for their donated blood. It has certainly caused problems.
In the UK the Government has had to pay out a lot of compensation to haemophiliacs. The medicnes used to treat them were manufactured from blood. A lot of this was purchased from the USA. Because donors there could be paid people would sometimes donate blood in return for payment. I don't say they all knew they had an infection which meant they shouldn't donate but I suspect some of them did know.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 15:54:38 GMT
I am not sure what the "official" teaching of the Church is on this matter. However, one would expect St John Paul II to get it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 15:57:41 GMT
There are at least two Catholics conversant with bioethics on SIL so if you don’t get a good answer here you could try starting a thread there. I do occasionally feel overwhelmed by the large number of categories on SIL. Please you could recommend a category in which to post my question so those conversant with bioethics are likely to see the post. |
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Jan 11, 2022 16:02:40 GMT
It’s not that he would be wrong if he went farther than what the Church position is or was. Popes are allowed to express their opinions on such matters. I note that CA, a pretty conservative site, has an apologists stating that the Church permits you to sell your plasma, which is a blood product. www.catholic.com/qa/is-selling-ones-blood-plasma-moral |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 16:12:48 GMT
It’s not that he would be wrong if he went farther than what the Church position is or was. Popes are allowed to express their opinions on such matters. I note that CA, a pretty conservative site, has an apologists stating that the Church permits you to sell your plasma, which is a blood product. www.catholic.com/qa/is-selling-ones-blood-plasma-moralThank you for posting the link, which I've read. I'd have liked him (or St John Paul II) to have cited some source for their opinion.
It leaves with with the choice of Tom Nash's opinion or that of a saint. I'm going with the saint for now.
Mr Nash is certainly in accord with St John Paul II in saying that one mustn't donate organs, tissues or cells to the detriment of one's own health. In this case pointing out one shouldn't donate plasma too often and become dependent on the income from doing so. I would also note that the process of donating plasma is (or was last time I checked) somewhat risky compared with donating a unit (ca. 450 ml) of whole blood.
I believe St. John Paul II was saying we shouldn't aceept payment for any donation of an organ, tissue or cells. We should donate them as an act of charity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2022 16:15:10 GMT
I have a pig valve. I had endocarditis caused by a blood infection which hit my bicuspid aortic valve.
They had to replace the aortic valve with either a mechanical value or a biological valve, which is
usually a pig heart valve. My surgeon preferred a biological valve because it only required that I
take an aspirin daily, where as the mechanical valve requires a blood thinner like coumadin. She
advised me to go with the biological valve. Had I not had the valve replaced I would've died.
Transplants should generally be for saving the life of the person, but there are now cosmetically
sound reasons for doing transplants, such as face transplants on people who were disfigured for
whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 16:35:46 GMT
To broaden the scope of this topic a little, if I may. I know pigs are used for a biological reason. It also seems that the science is going in that direction: of genetically modifying pigs so that organs from them are safer for humans. However, that takes no account of the needs of Jews or Muslims. I'm sure Jews and Muslims would rather die of their disease than have part of a pig transplanted into their bodies. I'm making this assumption based on their religions' tenets on eating anything from a pig. I don't know but these two religions may have other more general issues with xenotransplantation. After finishing writing this post I'm going to endeavour to find out. If they do not I think the medical profession should be looking at other animal sources. One wonders what research, if any, may be happening in Israel.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 11, 2022 16:41:59 GMT
Well I should have learnt not to assume things. We all know the saying don't we.
It appears that whilst Islam and Judaism prohibit the consumption of parts of a pig there is no such prohibition when it comes to using parts of them for organ transplantation. I discovered Orthodox Jews would prefer it to human-to-human transplantation because of their beliefs concerning touching the bodies of the dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2022 16:42:19 GMT
To broaden the scope of this topic a little, if I may. I know pigs are used for a biological reason. It also seems that the science is going in that direction: of genetically modifying pigs so that organs from them are safer for humans. However, that takes no account of the needs of Jews or Muslims. I'm sure Jews and Muslims would rather die of their disease than have part of a pig transplanted into their bodies. I'm making this assumption based on their religions' tenets on eating anything from a pig. I don't know but these two religions may have other more general issues with xenotransplantation. After finishing writing this post I'm going to endeavour to find out. If they do not I think the medical profession should be looking at other animal sources. One wonders what research, if any, may be happening in Israel. Jews and Muslims are prohibited from eating pork, not using the organs of a pig to save their lives. However, they'll have to answer the question. The surgeon who put a pig valve in my heart is Jewish and she has dual citizenship in the US and Israel.  |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 11, 2022 20:02:19 GMT
I have a pig valve. I had endocarditis caused by a blood infection which hit my bicuspid aortic valve. They had to replace the aortic valve with either a mechanical value or a biological valve, which is usually a pig heart valve. My surgeon preferred a biological valve because it only required that I take an aspirin daily, where as the mechanical valve requires a blood thinner like coumadin. She advised me to go with the biological valve. Had I not had the valve replaced I would've died. Transplants should generally be for saving the life of the person, but there are now cosmetically sound reasons for doing transplants, such as face transplants on people who were disfigured for whatever reason. Just out of curiosity, are anti-rejection drugs needed for something like a pig heart valve?
I wouldn't want to die for want of something like that, but I'd never feel right about bacon or sausage again, and having to give it up would be possibly the kind of lifelong penance I need to save my soul  |
|
