TED Conversations

Christopher An

Student ,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Xenotransplantation and its ethics

Nowadays there are a lot of sensitive issues surrounding the animals. Whether humans have rights to experiment with animals, whether humans have rights to kill and abuse them for scientific purposes. Xenotransplantation is a way of organ transplant which uses animal organs instead of human organs. Xenotransplantation can potentially save a lot of people if it is developed to a higher extent.
However the issue of human ethics emerge again. In order to develop the skill of xenotransplantation, humans have to test, kill, and use animals. Some people say that humans should not do that since animals are alive too. If we do not develop xenotransplantation, then is it right to let sick people die due to the lack of donated organs?
What do you guys think?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 26 2013: What is more important the life of an animal or a human?
    • Mar 26 2013: If we are honest, the answer depends on the specific animal and the specific human, and the person who decides.

      I suspect the animal would say that it is more important, but the animal never gets to say.
    • Mar 26 2013: Definitely I would say human life is more important than life of an animal. Frankly speaking, does humans have right to test and kill animals for medical purposes?
      • thumb
        Mar 27 2013: Rights are irrelevant.

        Is it better to have a bunny run free and see the coyote starve to death or to see what might be objectionable to some?
        • Mar 27 2013: Hahaha I love your comments, they are really interesting!
        • Mar 27 2013: None of both yes the bunny may run in freedom yes a coyote can starve but most of all see if there are objectionable ones..

          This proces of the coyote and the bunny is mostly natural selection.. But if we humans use the animals we should sustain the populations and a respectable way anddeal with it humane to keep mother nature most of all happy and to satisfy our needs

          Most of all we must not forget we are dealing with unique lives just like you and me

          And should be respected and do it as humane as possible
    • Apr 3 2013: Important to whom?
      I think that what is most important is the purpose that those lives served. If that was my pet cow Oreo, then I would say that you could go to hell, respectfully. However, if it was a cow born for the very purpose of xenotransplantation, which would be the case here, it hardly seems we should rob the creature of its purpose. And yet, who gets to decide what purpose an animal is born for. I could see it argued that a scientist who produces a clone may decide what the purpose of his creature's life is. This still begs the question of whether or not he was right in doing it, as well as the question as to whether or not other humans have the right to rob him of his cow or its purpose. This matter is extremely complex and I would not want anyone to mistake these remarks as my entire position in this argument, simply a thought.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2013: The Planet
        • Apr 3 2013: So would you argue that it is more important for the planet that humans perform cruel acts of mutilation, on a continual basis, on animals completely under our control? Even if they later prove to be emotional, intelligent creatures whom we, in our ignorance and with complete lack of compassion, harvested for organs outside of the natural law for the necessity of food? Not saying I'm am whole-heartedly against you, but it seems too simplistic for my taste, it seems theres more to it that should be considered.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2013: No I don't think I would.

        I'm just saying people eat other animals. I have heard that plants also are sentient, where do you draw the line?

        "too simplistic for my taste" (8^(l)
        • Apr 3 2013: There is a difference between the justifiable predation of animals and cloning an animal while genetically tweaking it to grow human organs for the purpose of transplanting the desired organ and killing the animal in question. It is extremely oversimplifying the real issue to relate it to the food chain, which no one could deny is natural.
      • thumb
        Apr 4 2013: Duly noted, I will try and be more sophisticated in the future
        • Apr 4 2013: I truly hope that I have not offended you sir, I never intended to. I value your opinion and would agree it is an important take to consider. I did, however, want to express my position that this wasn't the real substance of the debate. It seemed it was necessary to separate this issue from the food chain issue, as not only yourself but many posters presented this argument. Thank you for understanding.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.