Slashdot Mirror


First Face Transplant

mriya3 writes to tell us the BBC is reporting that surgeons in France have performed the first ever face transplant. The medical team, led by Jean-Michel Dubernard, transplanted live tissue to a 36-year old woman whose face had been destroyed by a dog. From the article: "It has been technically possible to carry out such a transplant for some years, with teams in the US, the UK and France researching the procedure. [...] But the ethical concerns of a face transplant, and the psychological impact to the patient of looking different has held teams back."

89 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. Well, whose face did she get? by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was it John Travolta's or Nicholas Cage's?

    I wouldn't want either.

    1. Re:Well, whose face did she get? by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, at least John Travolta's thetans would be pre-cleansed...

      --
      John
    2. Re:Well, whose face did she get? by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, I'm always amazed by the technology they used in that movie. How did they get John Travolta to look just like Nick Cage and vice-versa!?!?! Amazing. *sigh*

      --
      No Sigs!
  2. Ethical concerns? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What ethical concerns?

    A live person is missing a face. A dead person doesn't need theirs any more. Where's the problem?

    And how could the "psychological impact" be worse than not havin a face? The patient is going to "look different" no matter what is done.

    1. Re:Ethical concerns? by supra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Where's the problem?
      What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification and/or conviction.

      --
      On a computer or under a hood.
    2. Re:Ethical concerns? by Chmarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I thought that was kind-of daft too.

      "Oh, I can live with having a mauled/disfigured/destroyed face, but I CANT live with having someone ELSE's face".

      Yeah... right.... :)

      However, doing the ID thing would be interesting from then on.

    3. Re:Ethical concerns? by Darkon · · Score: 5, Informative



      A live person is missing a face. A dead person doesn't need theirs any more. Where's the problem?

      From the article:

      "Where donors would come from is one issue that would have to be considered. "The transplant would have to come from a beating heart donor. So, say your sister was in intensive care, you would have to agree to allow their face to be removed before the ventilator was switched off. "And there is the possibility that the donor would then carry on breathing."

    4. Re:Ethical concerns? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA (I know, I must be new her), the face has to come from someone with a beating heart. The issue is that it has to be taken from someone on life support, who might then continue breathing on their own (without a face!) when the system is shut down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Ethical concerns? by Pudusplat · · Score: 5, Informative

      You obviously did not RTFA. The donor cannot be dead for this transplant to be successful. The donor would supposedly be someone close to death on life support. The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it. This could presumably lead to problems if a miraculous recovery of the donor happened or could adversly affect the donor's family if they see the face of their relative on someoene else's head. Those are the ethical concerns.

      --
      "If you put butter and salt on it, it tastes like salty butter." -Terry Pratchet, on Popcorn.
    6. Re:Ethical concerns? by op12 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And then an undercover agent changes his face to that guy's face to learn about him and catch him!

    7. Re:Ethical concerns? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification
      There's all sorts of cosmetic surgery they can already use to do that, without resorting to a face transplant. A face transplant is very risky, and there aren't that many surgeons in the world qualified to do it, so it's unlikely that someone can get this done without a lot of publicity.
      and/or conviction.
      If they are identified, I don't see how a face transplant will help them avoid conviction.
    8. Re:Ethical concerns? by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A live person is missing a face. A dead person doesn't need theirs any more. Where's the problem?

      According to the article, that you apparently didn't read: "In the controversial operation, tissues, muscles, arteries and veins were taken from a brain-dead donor and attached to the patient's lower face."

      "Brain-dead" doesn't mean the donor wasn't alive.

      It added that the woman - who wishes to remain anonymous - was in "excellent general health" and said the graft looked normal.

      This was nothing more than a skin graft. If it weren't for the "ethical implications" of taking someone else's healthy tissue from their *face* this would have been a non-issue.

      Move along.

    9. Re:Ethical concerns? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article failed to explain why it couldn't be someone that died very recently (within minutes). In a hospital, there are people dying all the time, so finding a donor that isn't on life support doesn't seem completely impossible. Just somewhat difficult.

    10. Re:Ethical concerns? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 2, Informative

      What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification and/or conviction.

      The muscle and bone structure underneath the skin make up most of the identifying features of a person's face. While it won't be exact, with replacement skin you should look more like your "old self" than like the person who's donating the skin (save for color and blemishes).

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    11. Re:Ethical concerns? by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the wonderful aspect of the free market when it comes to ethics: you are completely free to live your life believing in the ethical angles you believe in, and allow others to do the same without affecting your ethics or theirs.

      If a doctor wants to perform this surgery for a patient that wants it, awesome!

      I do believe we need to see a change in how parts are donated, though. Honestly, I would love to say "If my family can get $x,000 for this part and $xx,000 for that part when I am brain dead, then transplant." I hate the fact that hospitals can make hundreds of thousands of dollars over a transplant's life (anti-rejection drugs, therapies, surgery, actual sale of the organ) and the person it was taken from is left with jack for their family.

      Yeah, yeah, only the rich blah blah blah. Don't ridicule the idea until you get government out of insurance which is the reason why the poor can't afford it.

    12. Re:Ethical concerns? by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Technically, face transplants are not medically necessary. The surgery would definitely make the person feel better, but it is not life-saving such as heart, liver, lung, or kidney transplants. The side effects of immunosuppresants are still quite severe and perhaps life-threatening, since the immune system is getting shut down for the life of the patient. The question is whether a doctor can allow someone to take these risks for a non-life-saving procedure.

      Living donors are not a problem because they're brain dead. So cutting off someone's face is scary; do so while they're still breathing (via ventilator) is really creepy. Yet, we pull hearts out of living people already so what's the face?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    13. Re:Ethical concerns? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny
      Couldn't we use Japanese for donors? Don't they lose face all the time?

      /ducks

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    14. Re:Ethical concerns? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for seeing "the face of their relative on someone else's head" wouldn't be any different than seeing someone else that looks like their relative. After all, aren't organ donations anonymous in the general case? So how would they know this is "the one"?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:Ethical concerns? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like hell I would have anything from a dead person put on or in me.
      I had surgery last year and they wanted to put bone marrow and bone fragments in me from an UNKNOWN DEAD donor.. Like hell. I opted for a different type of surgery that where they used my own bone fragments for the fusion.

      I also donated blood to my ownself in advance so that I would have it if I needed it. With all the fonky diseases they keep coming up with there is no way in hell I will accept body parts or fluids from another person, especially mystery donors. Screw that!

      I would rather just take the stitches and and plastic surgery. Besides, I saw where they can grow new skin for you from your own skin cells in a culture so there is zero chance of rejection or DISEASE........

      No thanks, this is a disgusting idea.

    16. Re:Ethical concerns? by SilverspurG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The ethical problem is with the doctor. Existing technologies are sufficient to reconstruct the face without the need for immunosuppressants for the rest of the recipient's life.

      Transplanting a face is a PR stunt and MAYBE an academic exercise. It should not be standard treatment procedure. The article, by citing "10,000 burn patients in the UK", is trying to trump this sort of thing up to standard procedure.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    17. Re:Ethical concerns? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      and the psychological impact to the patient of looking different

      It doesn't take much brains to realize that someone's going to look different after having their face chewed off by a dog. I should think having a strangers' face is less traumatic than seeing your own looking like a barfed-up big mac.

      Better a stranger's face than a strange face.

    18. Re:Ethical concerns? by pdamoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically, face transplants are not medically necessary. From a physiological point of view you are right BUT we are both physiologic and psychological beings. When healing the healer tries to improve one, the other or both. A patient without a face might be at a very low psychological level even if from a physiological point of view she is ok so... healing is needed.

    19. Re:Ethical concerns? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Technically, face transplants are not medically necessary.

      Well according to the article, she couldn't speak or eat properly. (Okay, I don't eat properly, but that is by "choice", sort of.)

      That would be pretty close to medically necessary. It's not strictly "cosmetic".

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    20. Re:Ethical concerns? by Scoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some people consider their identity to be extremely personal, including their appearance. I know a few people who would likely prefer "Disfigured, but it's me!" over "some other guy". I personally would probably go with the transplant if the situation ever came up, but it's definitely not a universal assumption to be made.

    21. Re:Ethical concerns? by shotfeel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly, From TFA:

      Doctors stress the woman will not look like her donor, but nor will she look like she did before the attack - instead she will have a "hybrid" face.

    22. Re:Ethical concerns? by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 3, Funny

      The article failed to explain why it couldn't be someone that died very recently (within minutes). In a hospital, there are people dying all the time, so finding a donor that isn't on life support doesn't seem completely impossible. Just somewhat difficult.

      "Hey, little Timmy, we've got good news and bad news. The good news is someone just died a few minutes ago so you're getting a new face. The bad news is the person who's recently died is a 96 year old {insert optional racial type of your choice} woman..."

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    23. Re:Ethical concerns? by flyinwhitey · · Score: 2

      "The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it."

      Jesus Christ, use inflammatory language much?

      This would only happen if a person had agreed to be an organ donor in the first place, so please stop trying to make it appear that such a procedure would be done without the donor's consent.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    24. Re:Ethical concerns? by xlr8ed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really a vaild argument.

      Organ donors are generally set to give multiple organs when they donate. My Uncle died about 15 years ago and gave both Kidney's, part of his liver and muscle from his leg. If he would have "then carried on breathing" , he would have been screwed. They only take donation from people they are 99.99% sure are not going to wake up.

      Along with taking a face, they may end up taking a lung or other organs. ALL donors HAVE to be alive before donating, it's a requirement.

      IAMAD, however my wife is a Tramua Nurse who has assisted in preparing organs for donation.

    25. Re:Ethical concerns? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wull, mghuh-hmm-srtch-hmmm.

      Sorry, I couldn't quite get that out - I was finishing a hamburger. You know, putting some foreign tissue into my body. I think it's pretty obvious why... wait... [smack!]. Sorry, I had to swat a mosquito. It was busy getting some of its fluids into my body. In fact, that reminds me of how I was in an elevator this morning respirating the same damp air as the other ten people in there. Other people's exhalations, microbes, viruses and all!

      Look, you stand way more of a chance of getting a disease from sitting on a public toilet than you do from a highly scrutinized tissue transplant. In fact, you could just as easily die from an anti-biotic-resistant lung infection picked up environmentally while you're in the hospital having your own blood transfused back into you.

      I think you doth protest too much, and that your issue is strictly a superstitious one, similar to those that prevent people from donating their loved ones' perfectly good organs after an accidental death. I'm always amazed that people would rather bury a good liver in the ground (or burn it) than let some poor kid get a new lease on life. But I'm even more amazed by someone who would rather die than take in an organ from a screened donor. That's OK though - helps us evolve more rational people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    26. Re:Ethical concerns? by teknopagan · · Score: 5, Funny

      A "hybrid" face?

      What kind of gas mileage will she get on it?

      --
      The Russian Mafia will mod you down just to see if the Moderate button works.
    27. Re:Ethical concerns? by ArcticCelt · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification and/or conviction.

      I far more easy and less expensive to use a set of Groucho glasses, nose and moustache to do that.

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    28. Re:Ethical concerns? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget to insert an idiotic ten minute boat chase that makes you wonder "Why won't God kill both these fucking bastards?"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Ethical concerns? by mgv · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Where donors would come from is one issue that would have to be considered. "The transplant would have to come from a beating heart donor. So, say your sister was in intensive care, you would have to agree to allow their face to be removed before the ventilator was switched off. "And there is the possibility that the donor would then carry on breathing."

      This doesn't happen if the brain death testing is done properly. In Austraila one of the tests for brain death is that the person is disconnected from the ventilator for 20 minutes. If they breathe, they aren't truly brain dead. If you have proper criteria for brain death - A known cause of brain injury, meet several inclusion criteria (such as the aponea test mentioned above) and don't have any exclusion criteria that can look similar (eg recent anaesthesia/ low body temperature) then you can be considered as an organ donor.

      In reality, people without brainstem function are very hard to keep alive on a ventilator, because the brain regulates alot of things. For example, the brain constantly releases a constant stream of anti diuretic hormone from the pituitary gland to regulate the total amount of water in your body. With brain death this stops and the kidneys will produce the maximal amount of urine (20+ litres/day), so fluid balance fails drastically.

      I have seen less experienced people not understand the proper definition of brain death - I think that this is where you get the stories about turning off ventilators and people surviving. Brain death is a rapidly termainal condition. That is why so many heart transplants are done in the middle of the night - its hard to keep the donor alive until even the next morning.

      Just FYI

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    30. Re:Ethical concerns? by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we should get the "business" out of the healthcare business before we worry about whether or not the government should be involved. :)

    31. Re:Ethical concerns? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification and/or conviction.

      Never heard of it happening for faces, but bone marrow transplants can, and do, mess up forensic DNA analysis.

      Yikes!

      ...laura

  3. In other news... by Penguinoflight · · Score: 3, Funny

    The team of surgeons deny that The Silence of the Lambs played any influence in their technique.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  4. I'm confused.. by RapmasterT · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No seriously, what exactly are the "ethical considerations" of a face transplant? What makes it more ethically significan't than a skin transplant anywhere else?

    And the "psychological impact" to the patient of looking different?? Looking different from a hideously scarred accident victim? Isn't that why they want surgery in the first place?

    This seems to me like a story desperately in search of sensationalism.

    1. Re:I'm confused.. by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The face isn't just an organ, it's a large part of your personal identity and how you distinguish yourself from the rest of the world. It's the only part of the body that is almost universally exposed to general scrutiny, and it's how you are known by others. I'm no psychologist, but I can imagine there's a difference between looking in a mirror and saying "that used to be me", no matter how mangled you are now, and looking in a mirror and saying "that is someone else".

      The ethical implications would come from the process of removing the identity from someone who may or may not be dead and effectively erasing the identity of the recipient when the transplant is complete and he looks like someone different.

    2. Re:I'm confused.. by RapmasterT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that forensic anthropologists and pathologists recreate facial structures from bare skulls all the time, I think it's safe to say that the overlying skin plays far less of a part than the bone structure. Pigmentation and texture may be different, and some fatty deposits may change, but overall the person should look pretty much the same. Or at least as "same" as a person who gains/loses a lot of weight.

    3. Re:I'm confused.. by RapmasterT · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ever seen the faces on the post office wall? Or on the side of a milk carton? Or mug shots or headshots used in a pictorial line up or even a real line up?
      Ok, I gotta ask.

      What the hell are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with face transplants?

      Are you suggesting criminals would use this to hide from prosecution? Not only is the appearance change likely to be minimal (since the bone structure is the same), but nothing stops them from having plastic surgery RIGHT NOW.

      You sound like one of those nuts who thinks cloning should be illegal because they won't have souls and will be evil.

    4. Re:I'm confused.. by BarryNorton · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No seriously, what exactly are the "ethical considerations" of a face transplant?

      And the "psychological impact" to the patient of looking different?

      It's about having, to some degree, someone else's face.

      This is also why they're at pains to point out that the recipient does not look exactly like their donor.

      Just as people look back and can't understand why people were uncomfortable with the idea of someone else's blood running around their veins, or someone else's heart beating in their chest, so people might get over this idea - you apparently have.

      Have some imagination, though, and see why people have (it's true, and well-documented, not just sensationalism) been creeped out by this idea for decades...

    5. Re:I'm confused.. by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      >> Or mug shots or headshots used in a pictorial line up or even a real line up? There is little ethical consideration for getting your bobbies bigger.

      Of course I'm sure officer! I'd recognize those breasts anywhere!

    6. Re:I'm confused.. by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

      The face was taken from a LIVE donor.

    7. Re:I'm confused.. by truesaer · · Score: 2, Informative
      The ethical implications would come from the process of removing the identity from someone who may or may not be dead and effectively erasing the identity of the recipient when the transplant is complete and he looks like someone different.


      Actually, I read about them considering doing this a few months back. Apparently your face looks like your face mostly due to the particular's of your underlying bones...so if you get a face transplant you actually look pretty much like you did before. Obviously some details are different...lips, etc. But its just skin, your face is still your face regardless of whose skin is on top of it.

    8. Re:I'm confused.. by Bastian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm no psychologist, but I can imagine there's a difference between looking in a mirror and saying "that used to be me", no matter how mangled you are now, and looking in a mirror and saying "that is someone else".

      Luckily, a lot of your appearance comes not from the soft tissue of the face, but from the underlying bone structure. A person who gets a face transplant wouldn't have the same visage as they used to have, but they wouldn't have the visage of the donor, either.

      I would assume that the "looking in the mirror" problem would be no greater for a face transplant recipient than it would be for a person who experiences some other massive change to their face, such as whatever damaged it so much in the first place or reconstructive surgery.

  5. Re:nigger transplant by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Funny

    But when will they be able to tranplant a working brain into a Slashdot Troll?

  6. Best of both worlds by konaforever · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I can be good looking and smart!

    1. Re:Best of both worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No you can't. They don't have brain transplants yet.

    2. Re:Best of both worlds by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now I can be good looking and smart!

      Settle down, champ. They didn't say anything about a brain transplant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. In other news by ankarbass · · Score: 4, Funny

    Michael Jackson is in france this week for an undisclosed medical procedure.

    --
    Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
    1. Re:In other news by fyoder · · Score: 2, Funny
      Michael Jackson is in france this week for an undisclosed medical procedure.

      In an unrelated story, a young white woman who lived near the hospital is still missing.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    2. Re:In other news by jbuilder · · Score: 2, Funny

      This takes the idea of ladies "putting on their face" to a whole level if you ask me...

      --
      Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
  8. Face Jacking? by KrackHouse · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've heard the rumors of organ snatchers where you wake up in a bathtub with stitches and one kidney. Should we incredibly good looking people fear knife weilding hoardes of uglypeople hell bent on revenge?

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  9. yuck by machine+of+god · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they can't reconnect the nerves can they? Wouldn't it feel like having a thick layer of dead skin on your face all the time, I mean I'd want to pull it off continually.

    1. Re:yuck by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Funny

      With comments like these, could you please add "Warning: spoiler!!!" to the title? Thanks a lot for giving away the ending! Sheesh!

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:yuck by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they can't reconnect the nerves can they?

      Not sure, but nerves have been reconnected in plenty of other procedures over the years.

      Wouldn't it feel like having a thick layer of dead skin on your face all the time, I mean I'd want to pull it off continually.

      People get sensitized to constant stimulation. Ever forgot that you had a hat on and had to use your hand to figure it out? Ever want to pull your hair off your head because there is a bunch of dead protein laying there?

      I'm not saying it might be weird or possibly creepy, but having no face has got to be worse.

  10. So that's how by hypergreatthing · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bin laden got away from afghanistan with no problems. Now he's mascarading as Dick Cheney.

    1. Re:So that's how by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      What better way to undermine democracy in the West?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  11. Not technically a complete face transplant by gasmonso · · Score: 2, Funny

    The doctors said they replaced the lips, nose, and chin. Sounds like half the people in Hollywood if you ask me.

    gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/
  12. Ethical concerns.... by stunt_penguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The ethical concerns of a face transplant...."

    Someone's already supposedly cloned a human embryo. I wouldn't worry about facial transplants too much.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  13. you dont look the same by jmazzi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if you got a face transplant, you wouldn't look like the face of the donor. Your bone structure etc is what makes up most of your appearance. Although, you wouldn't like you use to. So I don't see how ethics would really take a roll in this matter.

  14. Re:Wow by blamanj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While everyone makes a big deal about Face/Off, because they took the idea of a face transplant literally, the idea of surgery making you look like someone else has been around for quite a while.

    For example, in Arsenic and Old Lace, one of the plot points involved a criminal whose looks have been altered to resemble Boris Karloff. In the stage play, this part was actually performed by Karloff.

  15. Thus come all of the stupid "Face/Off" replies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here we go. Time for all of the inane "Face/Off" replies as though no one else would have possibly thought of it. I guess that we should all just laugh hysterically and use the idiotic TripMaster Monkey anime smiles to make the Face/Off posters feel complete.

    [holding sides laughing] Oh, GOD! "Face/Off"! I would never have thought of that! Oh, that is SO-O-O-O funny! I'm laughing too hard! Oh, look! Another reference! Please! Stop![/holding sides laughing]

    There. I hope the "Face/Off" people feel better now.

    Go ahead. Mod me down. The really sad part what I've said is 100% true. Then again, Slashdot replies often don't care about truth.

  16. We can regrow ears ! by zymano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is so difficult about a face but we can grow other parts.

    http://www.pbs.org/saf/1107/features/body.htm

  17. Mexican drug lord died a few years back - ??? by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    This could be urban legend, but a few years back some Mexican drug lord tried to get a face transplant and didn't survive long.

    Anyone else remember this?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  18. Ethical Concerns Have Validity by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think (at least from my cultural background) that there is a concern with transplanting a face--it is just like any other donated organ. However, in many cultures the face has great significance that is deeply meshed into the sociological values and even linguistics of their lives. Many Native American languages, for example use the concept of the face to identify everything. For example the phrase --ru li che'--in the native American language of K'ekchi' literally translates as 'face of the tree', but what it is really talking about is 'fruit'. If you are familiar with someone, you would say --ninau ru-- meaning "I know his face". In such cultures the removal of a face removes identity. In this case you destroy the identity of one, and replace the other--which would have deep psychology implications to these types of cultures.

    So I think the problem here is not whether it is right or wrong, legal or illegal, but what is morally reprehensible to society. And since this is an issue that really hasn't been traversed before, I think it only predictable that there be hesitation to undergo such a procedure.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  19. Is there a doctor in the house? by DG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given that skin cells are constantly being shedded and regenerating, wouldn't this (slowly) transform back into the recipiant's original face?

    Or would a skin sample from the transplant area show different DNA for all time?

    I'm genuinely curious. Is there a doctor in the house?

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Is there a doctor in the house? by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Informative

      The graft is living tissue that divides. The exterior layers are replaced by the basal layers, therefore I'm pretty sure it will show the same DNA for all time.

    2. Re:Is there a doctor in the house? by DorkusMasterus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, what an excellent question... I would imagine that you would be correct. I mean, it's living tissue, but one would think that the majority of the skin on the rest of the head and the body would have DNA that would eventually, over time, trump the DNA that would be in the face itself. I second the request for a doctor or scientist to speak up and give their professional opinion!

  20. Re:pain in the.... by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny
    but what sucks more, that or waiting in line at dmv and then explaining that yes, this is your real face while trying to get a new picture.
    Nah, the only risk is that, with the right donor, she may now be the only person in the world to have a face that actually matches her drivers' license pic.

    Now THAT would be suspicious!

  21. Re:Government and Health Care by pnewhook · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The same Canada that just voted their Congress out of office?
    Congress was not voted out of office. The opposition got together and forced the government to resign (a vote of non-confidence). This is extremely democratic - moreso than in the US where you are essentially stuck with the guy for four years, unless you actually manage to impeach the guy for something criminal.
    The same Canada that almost killed a friend of mine whose plane was grounded on 9/11, got a stomach flu and almost died in a Canadian hospital while he waited THREE DAYS for a doctor to see him?
    If it was just a stomach flu why didn't he just go to a walk-in clinic? He would have been assessed (for free) and had a prescripion in under an hour. If it was more serious, he would have been referred to a hospital that would then have been notified that he would be arriving and be ready for him.
    The same Canada where people are on waiting lists for years for a basic MRI that I can drive down the street here in the States and get in a mere hours?
    Years? Give me a break. I do agree that the wait time is long, and a huge issue, but it is on the order of weeks not years. Also if it is high priority, then there is no wait time - the scan gets done immediately.
    The Canadian health care system is a mess. I pray I am never doing business in Canada when I get ill.
    Funny, most people I know pray they don't live in the US when they get ill, as a major illness effectively means bankruptcy.
    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  22. Psychological impact? by idommp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I grew up with one-quarter of my face missing in action. When I was two, doctors removed the upper left quadrant of my face including the eyelids and the skin down to the bottom of my nose. Twenty operations and fifteen years later I finally got working (but not very pretty) eyelids again. The person undergoing the face transplant has already suffered the psychological impact of loosing their original face and the impact of being treated like some kind of monster. The trauma of getting a different face can't possibly be any worse.

    1. Re:Psychological impact? by Ullric · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say otherwise. Reason is that, in the case of a person who has lost his face to an accident, since childhood they have developed an identity of what they look like. They have lost something in the accident, yet in their memories they were something they remember. In your case, what your face looks like now is what you have accepted as your identity. They on the other hand, remember themselves as something different than what they look like after the operation, thereby the change of face would make them feel that they have lost some of their identity. This, I feel is applicable to most people. There will always be exceptions though.

    2. Re:Psychological impact? by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The person undergoing the face transplant has already suffered the psychological impact of loosing their original face and the impact of being treated like some kind of monster.

      That really depends on the circumstances. I imagine that a lot of these operations would be performed immediately or very soon after the injuries were sustained (eg burns victims, etc). They may well still be adjusting to the idea of being disfigured, and - if the operation was performed soon enough - may not have had any contact with anyone other than medical staff, friends and family.

  23. Rejection.. by scheming+daemons · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm used to having my face rejected by others...

    How bad would it suck to reject your own face?

    --
    "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
    don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

  24. Re:Wow by arootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You say this as if you think it is

    a) easy to kidnap someone worth swapping faces with, including someone who has other similar physical characteristics (some are easier, e.g. body style, hair color; some are difficult, e.g. extreme height or weight differences, skin color)
    b) an easy and painless procedure that doesn't require months of healing
    c) easy to find a doctor who has the necessary skills who doesn't already have more money than you could possibly offer to perform the procedure for an illicit reason
    d) easy to reprogram your personality and habits to blend in in the places where the person whose face you "swapped" with yours would be known or well-known (what's the point of stealing someone's physical identity if not to gain access to the places that person would normally have access to, but which you do not?)

  25. Whoa, whoa, whoa by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Informative

    What about maintenance? Supposing a poor person could afford a procedure, how on earth would they pay for prescriptions? Prices have skyrocketed in the past few decades, meanwhile, Merck spends over 60% of their budget on Marketing, mostly in telling the middle and upper classes what designer drugs they should ask their doctor about, as well as random kickbacks for doctors to prescribe their brand exclusively.

    What about malpractice insurance? This is probably the #1 cause of inflated health care prices, our overly-litigious society is effectively killing services, private and governmental, while trial lawyers are cleaning up.

    It's not all the government's fault, Captain Industry.

    --
    --- What
    1. Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about maintenance?

      I think you CAN blame an overreaching Congress, here. The insurance companies are, of course, pushing Congress to mandate buying insurance. Any mandate causes the price to go up. Yet many laws on the books that criminalize cocaine, heroine/opiates, and even marijuana cause the prices of drugs to go up as well (legal ones).

      Here is a decent article regarding the health care problem and how over-regulation and over-mandation (is that a word, editors?) is causing the nightmare.

      My doctor is 80. He remembers the day that he could prescribe drugs for $5 and he could make housecalls for $5 (free to his poorest patients). He admits it is government that has destroyed his love for helping the sick. He is no anarchist, like me.

      Socialized health care is the rot of the world, second only to the legal profession that has created the mess of laws we live under today.

    2. Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks. In offense of myself, I hae to admit that I am unreasonable. My views of anarchocapitalism are hard to understand, but I have spent years testing them.

      I _would_ abe willing to try a government of anyone if we were guaranteed a few things:

      1. A 100% gold-backed currency. Wars are fought and corporations are built on counterfeit money.

      2. No politician serving more than 15,000 citizens. I think I'd rather have one representative who knows me rather than 35 who don't.

      3. No law can pass without 73% of the vote.

      4. No law can be more than 150 words.

      5. All laws must sunset after 4 years.

    3. Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Socialized health care is the rot of the world

      I would argue it's capitalistic health care.

      My insurance hasn't turned to shit over the last two years because of socialism. It's because the "not for profit" insurance companies have decided they need hundreds of millions of dollars in profit every year, and have found any number of ways to achieve it, including:

      - Raising co-payment fees
      - Covering fewer prescription drugs
      - Limiting prescription drug coverage to a certain number of doses per month
      - Adding asinine requirements to prescription coverage, e.g. if my doctor prescribes me certain drugs, they have to fax in a form to prove they really want me to take it... you know, the same thing the prescription slip says.
      - Limiting payments to specialists

      The last one is the worst. Because insurance companies limit their payments, specialists seem to be raising their fees so that they end up making what they should from insured patients. If you're not insured, you pay the ludicrous full fee. In addition, because the specialist fee goes up, the co-payment amount does too if (like me) you're responsible for a percentage of it.

      Hospitals and drug companies have jacked prices up into the stratosphere, also because they are capitalists trying to make as much money as possible. I went in to have my tonsils out a year ago, and some of the highlights of the bill were:

      - Hundreds of dollars for the per-minute "recovery room" fee. Did I ask to be anaesthetised enough that I'd sleep in there for an extra hour?
      - Five hundred dollars for a probe that was a piece of plastic with a tiny steel rod embedded in one end.
      - Three hundred dollars for the disposable bits that attached me to the oxygen sensor.
      - Hundreds more dollars for the generic painkillers. Morphine costs pennies to make, and so does everything else they used.

      In the end, even though I have insurance, I ended up paying about $200 EACH to the hospital, anaesthesiologist, and surgeon. And I *still* had to buy the pre- and post-op medication at my local pharmacy.

      I fail to see how anyone would think it would be better in a free market. Where is the incentive to lower prices, instead of (like now) conspiring to jack them up?

      Canada's health system has its problems, but it's better than ours. At least up there little girls who have tumors on their face the size of a grapefruit don't get denied care because they can't afford it.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  26. Re:Government and Health Care by 0xA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The population of Gander Newfoundland is about 10k people, on 9/11 there was about 10k people stranded there for a few days. Was that where your friend got stuck? Things were, naturally, a little messed up with trying to feed and shelter that many people. Sorry about that but do you really think some remote outpost in Alaska caould handle taking care of that many people much better? Next time feel free to have all those planes circle over the ocean until they run out of fuel. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/gander.htm

  27. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually nip/tuck stole the idea straight from a Discovery channel documentary about face transplants that aired several months ago that I happened to Tivo. They stole all the elements of the girl who lost her face, including how the girl got her face ripped off.

    In the documentary, this girl from India got too close to a machine and her hair got tangled up and literally ripped off her face. The showed the face and it looked gory... you could see the eye sockets, etc. The uncle or something put the girl's face in plastic bag and motorscootered for like 3 hrs to get to the closest hospital where they managed to reattach it. They showed her like years later, and considering the fact that she had her face ripped off, it wasn't so bad. She didn't look regular, but at least that poor girl didn't look horrendous.

    The also showed some people in the documentary that looked like monsters. Literally like monsters, I can't describe it more. Like something you would see out of Doom 3, it was horrifying, and if you see these people, you will understand why face transplants are necessary. You can't live the way this person lives, with the completed destroyed face, because no one, and I mean no one, can stand to look at them. We're not talking about ugly people, we're talking about they look like walking, talking monsters. I'm a grown man, but when I saw this lady, I wanted to cry because that is no way to live a life. I would rather be on immunosuppresants for 15 years and die of kidney failure and be able to walk around in public rather than live the way this poor woman has been living.

    I had to stop watching the show halfway because it was too much to bear, just too shocking, and I used to frequent alt.binaries.pictures.tasteless during the golden era where they had pictures of murder victims, people sawing dead bodies in half, etc. It was too horrifying for me, and I thank God to have never undergone something like that and hope that I never will have to, and to those people that require a face transplant, I wish them the best of luck in getting this face transplant thing working.

  28. Not at all true. by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did you know that in the US in 2006, more children will grow up in homes that have declared bankruptcy than will grow up with divorced parents?

    Did you also know that as of 2004, over 50% of all bankruptcies in the US are directly related to a major medical illness somewhere in the family?

    50% Medical Bankruptcy article (2005)
    Article stating number of bankruptcies in 1999 (~ 500,000 families)
    Article stating number of bankruptcies in 2001 (~ 1.5 million families)

    --
    --- What
  29. Re:Government and Health Care by mr_matticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm with you 100% on personal responsibility, but I think you'll have to agree that other major Western democracies with healthcare systems do not produce these results. Canadians are much slimmer than Americans, as are the people in all of the EU states. The United States is one of the only (or maybe THE only) Western democracy without funded healthcare programs for its citizens. 65% of Americans are overweight or obese now. There's not really a causal relationship there, though.

    Fat and wasteful are becoming almost objectives in and of themselves for the "average" American. I don't think a functioning health care system in the US would lead to fatter people. I do think that people would continue getting heavier and lazier, but not having to pay out of pocket isn't the cause. Being American is the cause, with the mentality that has come to be dominant in our country.

  30. You get used to it by Atario · · Score: 3, Informative

    Having had a big swath of my forehead flesh disconnected from its nerves in a car accident, I can tell you that you get used to it. And, no, you don't want to pull it off. When it first happens, it's an injury and you do all you can to avoid touching it altogether. After it heals, you're used to not messing with it. By that point, you're accustomed to the way it feels anyway.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  31. Wrong media by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Science takes its cues from Nip/Tuck. How frightening!

    no, from Tony Hawk, after all, they just did a faceplant...

    Karma, karma burning bright...

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  32. Re:Government and Health Care by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have an anecdote that may yellow that rosy picture of the Canadian medical system you are trying to paint.

    Someone I know was living in Canada when they injured their back. The injury was declared to be "not life threatening." Because of this the wait time for the MRI was quite long. More than four months (16 weeks in your time.) During the time between the MRI and the injury this woman was in extreme pain and unable to move from a laying position.

    She eventually found a way to get into a private MRI (at considerable cost). Once that was done her case proceeded quickly and with treatment she was back on her feet in less than 3 weeks.

    So, in Canada "extreme pain and immobility" is not "life threatening" and therefore not worthy of a MRI in what I would call a "reasonable" time. Reasonable in the US is something like 3 hours. We are talking almost 3 orders of magnitude different. That's all, just a thousand times longer, no biggie.

    Hey, I'm not saying that America is perfect, just that your picture of Canada has been discredited by Canadians that I know. It's kind of hard to take what you say as veritas when I have seen differnt first hand.

    And as for the bankrupcy, maybe you haven't been close to someone who has experienced bankrupcy from medical expenses, but it can be liberating for them. Having those medical bills off of your credit profile and out of your economic portfolio of obligations allows many people who survive severe illness to purchase new cars and homes within less than a year of the bankrupcy. Individual bankrupcy in the US is very different from what you probably think it is.

    "...pray they don't live in the US when they get ill"

    I live in Houston. I meet people all the time from all over the world. Many of them are here in Houston to visit (or stay at) the Houston Medical Center. The reason? They want to live and we just happen to have one of the world's best cancer treatment centers here, Md. Anderson. As for me, (and many others from all ove the world apparently) I would rather go where I can get the best medical service available, regardless of price, when I have a serious illness. If I live through it I will happily file bankrupcy. You can't spend all that money you saved on medical expenses from the grave, you know.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  33. Re:Government and Health Care by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Funny

    You remind me of a fellow who was convinced that he was superior to everyone else due to hard work, dedication, and skill. His eyes were so tightly shut that, one day, when he reached around to pat himself on the back for his own superiority he ended up grabbing his pecker and masturbating until he shot himself in the eye. Can you believe it? He was so completely oblivious to the way things work that, when he thought he was congratulating himself, he was really just masturbating. I guess it worked for him, though, because he felt better for it and continued to walk around feeling superior to everyone else. He never noticed the big wad dripping from his face, though, because he was, as I've said, so completely oblivious to the entire world.

    Come back when you have something real to say.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  34. I Call Bullsh*t by dbcad7 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Reasonable in the US is something like 3 hours.

    I am not Canadian, and this is not to defend their healthcare system, but come on.

    MRI machines are not "THAT" plentyful, it takes over an hour to do a scan, and generaly they are well booked for this expensive scan.

    In a critical or life threatening situation, sure an ER or physician may find a way to get you scanned more quickly. My girlfreind freaked out and moved (ashthma cough) during the last few minutes of the hour long scan.. This equals worthles scan.. next opening for rescan was 2 weeks.

    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net