HEAVEN in the Making: Between the Rock (the Academe) and a Hard Case (a Head Transplant)

Abstract

A sound ethical debate in biomedicine calls for (1) equipoise and (2) knowledge. The debate surrounding HEAVEN, the head transplant initiative, has been based on the exact opposite. Here we show that (1) HEAVEN is technically feasible and (2) HEAVEN can help patients with no other course of curative treatment available. At the same time we highlight the true contentious points: (1) life extension, (2) gender reassignment, and (3) cosmetic body swap. Simultaneously, we show how the academic debate on head transplants has been hampered by the failure of "peer review."

First cephalosomatic anastomosis in a human model

“…We will not comment on the ethics of the procedure, as this is exhaustively treated elsewhere. [ 18 ]…”

Ethics Transplants? Addressing the Risks and Benefits of Guiding International Biomedicine

“…Ren and Canavero (2017) argue that the extraordinary opportunity presented by this avant-garde experiment is more compelling than any moralistic orthodoxy. They also claim that ethical conservatism can be discounted due to medical ignorance, media malpractice, and cultural prejudice.…”

Is There a Place for Humility in HEAVEN?

“…The shortage of suitable organs for donation is not a new problem; more than two decades ago Rupert Jarvis (1995) noted that the shortage of organs was the greatest problem facing transplant programs and more lives could be saved or significantly improved if more organs were available. One possible solution to this problem would be the cloning of human organs and human bodies for transplantation; Ren and Canavero (2017) discuss the possibility of using biologically engineered anencephalic human clones as stock for human head transplantation. Although this fantastic technology could conceivably help to supplement the shortage of human organs for donation in the future, at present it is not a viable option.…”