Paste your essay in here…In 1984, Derek Parfit published Reasons and Persons as a utilitarian, his central argument was that personhood is defined as psychological continuity. People do not separately exist above their brain and bodies. Parfit also suggests that being the same person is not important, but it is psychological connectedness that is a major factor in personal identity. In a thought experiment Parfit has been seriously injured at the same time his brother has succumbed to a fatal brain disease. The physician’s main objective is to save what can be saved this is achieved by transplanting Parfit’s brain into his brother’s body. In this scenario the brain transplant allows Parfit to survive albeit paralyzed. Who truly survived? The brother’s body or Parfit? At the time this was written the feasibility of head transplants was being considered. In 1970, Dr. White performed a transplant of one monkey head onto another monkey body by severing the spine at the neck, although the cranial nerves and circulatory system were still intact. As a result the subject was paralyzed from the neck down, but could still use their senses eventually immune rejection caused the monkey to die after nine days. Earlier Dr. Vladimir Demikhov whose work was influential for organ transplantation experimented with dog head transplants and similarly his subjects died due to immune reactions. Dr. White’s controversial head transplantation had created a stir in the philosophical and neuroethical community. Discussions have principally centered on personal identity of the individual after surgery, new social status of the individual, medical innovation, human experimentation, and “rescuing lives.” These questions have resurfaced in 2015 after Italian neurosurgeon Sergio Canavero had renewed public interest in head transplants after announcing his plan to perform a head transplant before the end of 2017.
The head anastomosis venture (HEAVEN) and the GEMINI technique has been devised by Canavero as a way to successfully complete the procedure. By pooling information from previous research attempts this technique requires cooling and cutting the spinal cord with a sharp knife in a way that will with minimize tissue damage and an axonal fusion will occur through the passage of fluid through the circulatory system using tissue inorganic polymers to reduce glial proliferation and to establish connectivity. Fusogen/sealants will be used for the restorative action of myelination of axons. Canavero states that grey matter networks will remain intact and functional, especially after transplanted tissue is treated with low level electrical stimulation. Canavero’s ideal operating suite that would need to have the ability to simultaneously conduct surgery on both the donor and recipient. The patient’s head and the donor’s body will be cooled during the operation so that their cells do not die. After decapitation the blood vessels would be lined up and the patient would be kept in a coma wearing a cervical collar for several weeks. Following the surgery there will be intense physiotherapy and post-surgical pain is to be expected. Similarly to Dr. White’s experiments opinions on Sergio Canavero’s announcement has been largely negative. Other than ethical protests most center on the technological challenges involved with human head transplants. Previous experiments have used monkeys or more typically mice. Last November, a team of Chinese researchers were able to exchange the heads of eighteen mice. After the operation the mice had normal brain function, but were paralyzed from the neck down. Although, the human head transplant could be technologically possible it isn’t likely that the recipient will have a positive operation and recovery. One of the biggest barriers to this operation seems to be the expected cost of operation of beyond $10 million with the tools required and time commitment the cost of medical innovation must be considered.
Medical innovation in the United States has gone through serious changes since the 1990s. Efforts by the government and corporations have been conducted to limit the burdening health care costs. In a decade pharmaceutical companies increased their investments and Congress enacted a fee-based system for the FDA to accelerate the review and approval of new drugs. There have been conferences and discussions of quality problems such as the overuse and misuse of certain drugs and technologies especially interventions that could lead to preventable deaths. As expressed earlier there are many concerns about health care costs and medical innovations/technology increases health care costs. As prices keep increasing it is important to examine the value of new medical innovations in bringing value to a population. Dr. Canavero has expressed that head transplants will mostly be provided to those with muscular atrophy and other diseases that riddle the body. This is also the first operation and the cons far outweigh the pros. In medical technology major returns on investment is usually examined to determine the value the innovation brings to the population. Compared to other transplant surgeries, head transplant surgeries have a higher morbidity rate and the expected cost of operation does not account for long term post-therapy costs. New scientific innovations also account for new understanding of a disease process and the best treatments to combat it. There has been progress in understanding transplants, but this does not include this science. Most physicians believe that head transplants are a pseudoscience and believe that Dr. Canavero is putting his volunteer at great risk. The mortality risk involved in this risky operation and is not likely to bring about significant returns in medical research. But, what would happen if the surgery does work?
How is someone’s brain related to their mind, body, and identity? Returning to Parfit’s thought problem, who truly survives the donor or the recipient? Who or what is a person? The possibility of a head transplant more importantly a successful operation brings about many of these philosophical and metaphysical debates. Personally, I believe that the person who survives after the head transplant is the person that survives the transplant. Especially in Dr. Canavero’s operation the donor will be a brain dead individual. But, it is more complicated because it is shaky on who is receiving and who is dying. Compared to other transplants where someone is receiving an organ in a head transplant the entire body of the brain dead individual is surviving with another head. This also begs the question, what would be the individual’s new social status? Many of the targets for head to body transplants are those that have serious disabilities, will they be able to walk again? Or, will they become even more paralyzed than they were before? Personal identity is a philosophical debate that I do not believe will ever be fully answered there are many competing theories on personal identity such as the previously mentioned Parfit, John Locke, and Martha J Farah.
In Neuroethics: an introduction with readings the most difficult bioethical issues is who or what is a person? What if an individual in a long term vegetative state is being considered as a body donor. But, if we regard this individual as a person, wouldn’t it be horrible to use their body as a new “part” for someone else? What is the special moral status of this new person? How will severely brain damaged individuals that have a miniscule chance of recovery be viewed? Will they be considered as potential body donors? It is difficult to ponder these questions because there is no set criteria for personhood. In Martha J. Farah’s attempt to define personhood lead her to question the physical basis of the human mind. If mental states and all forms of consciousness are essential in the definition of personhood then the survivor after the operation would be the recipient of the body. The concept of brain death is also integral in this discussion as well since this first operation and subsequent operations would use brain dead individuals. Brain death defined by legal and medical definitions means loss of clinically detectable function of the brain or a loss of function in some brain-stem structures, but this is not equivalent to the death of the person. Is this donor truly brain dead legally and medically or cortically brain dead? If the definition of death is brain centered then once the body donor is decapitated despite the fact that they may not be completely dead at first once this is done would we be killing to save another patient’s life?
John Locke and Derek Parfit on the other hand both offer a definition that personhood is related to continuity of one’s mental events and psychological experiences over time. This seemingly answers the question of who survived after the experiment, the person whose head is transplanted onto the donor’s body would be using their brain. John Locke proposed that consciousness could be transferred from one soul to another and that personal identity goes with consciousness. As long as the person’s consciousness remains the same then the recipient of the body remains the same person. In Locke’s thought experiment the thoughts of a prince are transferred to the body of a cobbler. The prince still considered himself the same person as he was before, but just in a different body. But can we guarantee that someone who undergoes this operation would have the same consciousness afterwards? We cannot, but if the recipient still has the same consciousness and had personhood before the event they’re still the same person especially if they consider themselves the same person. Since vegetative patients do not fulfill this criteria, would they no longer have personhood? Or, should we protect the personhood that they used to have? Unlike Parfit, John Locke was also pondering personhood through a religious lens. John Locke held that man is an animal and an individual like other living things. But, he differentiated between ‘man’ and a ‘person.’ He posited that ‘man’ refers to a living body of a particular shape. In a religious thought experiment he stated that if we differentiate between ‘man’ and ‘persons’ in terms of possession of a soul it becomes a problem if a person’s religious doctrine accepts reincarnation. Reincarnation involves the same soul being in a different body in other lifetimes. If the soul of a man was reborn in a hog, it would require us to call the hog a man. To fully define the distinction between ‘man’ and ‘persons’ from the bible would also be problematic in relation to head transplants because resurrection asserts that we will have the same body as we did in this life.
In contrast, philosophers that propose animalism might have a different view on head transplant survivors. Animalism suggest that human persons are animals and as such their lives are defined biologically continuously, but we are also narrative animals that can narrate our own biological existence. Consciousness is an important quality in an organism and many animalists have a similar view with John Locke separating humanity from personal identity one philosopher DeGrazia believes that there is a difference in being human and being an individual. If one enters a vegetative state or becomes brain dead then the person would still be the same individual. Compared to other organ donations a head transplant preserves parts of two completely different beings. Animalists refer to the body as a biological unit, but there is not a whole biological unit that completely survives the surgery. Most would say that the survivor of the head transplant would be the recipient. But who is receiving? Is the body receiving a new head or is the head receiving a new body? Some animalists could argue that the donor is the survivor because their body is attached to the head. Another could propose that the survivor would be the head because the brain is one of the most important organs in defining death for a being. But, this would mean that the head is the most important part of the body because the brain provides its owners with memories and critical thinking processes. This goes against many animalist arguments that do not identify organisms and personhood with the brain. Animalists do recognize the importance of consciousness, but its philosophers do not try to place a hierarchy on the human body. The head receiving a body creates a whole new biological unit, both the donor and the recipient die because they no longer exist in their past forms.
In John Locke’s thought experiment it is interesting to discuss religion in relation to this issue it is important to reflect on how science changes religion doctrines and vice versa. Many people place great emphasis on religious doctrines and this can affect how people view certain treatments. Science and religion have often been at odds with each other, but this can be constructive. Religion is important to the human experience and advances in neuroscience can create conversations about human enhancements and genetics. John Locke does discuss consciousness but in some form he relates personhood to the soul.
The idea of a separation between the body and the soul can be traced back to Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. In Plato’s definition of the soul which is consistent in most religious practices it is a spiritual existence separate from the body. Presently the soul is often equated with consciousness since the mind is considered the seat of rational thoughts and regulates body functions. Despite animalist protests the brain is still considered the most important organ in Western philosophy. This belief has been incorporated with religion since many believe that when brain function is lost the soul does not exist in the body anymore. Many religions, define personhood through brain-oriented abilities except some Orthodox Jews who believe that the soul resides in the heart. Depending on the branch of the religion there will be a wide variance in the views of head transplants. Another reason as to why religious doctrines should be considered is because every country has its own rule on testing and medications that are allowed. Dr. Canavero is planning to perform the operation in either the United States, China, or Russia. Originally from Italy he was hoping to do the head transplant there, but because of Italy’s strong religious beliefs he will not be able to. China may be more accepting of this operation because Eastern philosophies do not have a clear body-mind separation. Shintoism relates human life to nature and Taoism advocates accepting the chaotic laws of nature. In Taoism death is a gradual process of both physical and spiritual decay. Whereas Westerners would accept brain death as a diagnosis, Eastern philosophers believe that the brain does not have a special position in the body. The brain is considered a mediator integrating important bodily functions. When the brain has lost function, but other parts of the body are still functioning then it is not truly considered death, but more ambiguous. Buddhism holds that one’s personal identity, is distributed throughout the body and not just in the brain. Even if brain activity is not measurable consciousness may still be in the body. Individuals that survive a head transplant aren’t likely to face many judgements in Eastern philosophy.
There are limits in psychological continuity, animalism, and religious doctrines. It is not very likely that philosophers will solve the personhood or personal identity problem. If the personhood and personal identity dilemma is pushed aside I believe defining who survives after this operation is simpler because I don’t believe anyone has the same personal identity over time. People are dynamic and psychological continuity makes sense to me. How the person views their identity should be considered the most important factor. As a person with their own agency as long as they’re informed of the risks of the operation they have their own autonomy and are able to make their own choices. If one’s identity is disrupted or even lost it will create a new narrative for them, but it is the patient’s narrative. It is likely that the individual’s social status will change because Dr. Canavero is initially planning to only operate on those with serious degenerative diseases and disabilities. Someone that was once disabled and is now able to walk in a new body does have a different narrative identity. But it can be thought of as a new chapter, a metamorphosis of someone’s old life into something else.
As long as the resulting individual has a functional brain then there would be a continuity in one’s narrative identity. I agree with Parfit in relation to head transplants he argued that personal identity is not very crucial to the survival of the self. In his brain transplant thought experiment Parfit rejected animalism disagreeing that personal identity is dependent on a physical body. This head transplant is likely to occur in 2017 there are many detractors saying that it will not work. This is understandable head-body transplants seem to be the work of science fiction, but we’re developing A.I’s and other technology that we only dreamed of in the past. What if it does work? We can’t just assume the identity of a person, or their mental state. Psychological continuity involves the connectedness of memories, beliefs, and other mental states. As long as the resulting individual has overlapping memories of their life they’re still the same person.
Parfit is a reductionist he reduced the person to connected psychological experiences. In his view: “We are not separately existing entities, apart from our brains and bodies, and various interrelated physical and mental events.” This idea is similar to Merleau-Ponty because our body is important because it is the way we learn about our environment. We are embodied beings that should place equal importance to our bodies and minds. “Our identity over time just involves (a) Relation R-psychological connectedness and/or psychological continuity-with the right kind of cause, (b) that this relation does not take a 'branching' form holding between one person and two different future people [19, p. 217].”
From this quote it seems like a easy answer that the individual branches into another type of individual. Of course, they’re also the original individual, as long as there are enough memories then the original person is now merged with another individual. Human beings are mental creatures Parfit’s synopsis is that psychological continuity is what should be considered when deciding “who survives” and I agree. Since we are not able to infer that someone will have the same mental state that they had before if there is severe memory loss then neither person truly survives.
Other than philosophical thought experiments there doesn’t seem to be much discussion on the fact that this is essentially human experimentation. The volunteer is not receiving a treatment that focuses on their individual health care need. Research on head transplants have been conducted on animals, but there is a difference between animals and humans. This is a very invasive procedure that will either change their entire identity or lead to a horrible death. There aren’t a lot of people discussing the volunteer except one article that mentions him and I think it is important to have his view on this procedure and Canavero’s reasons.
Dr. Canavero seems to care a lot about wellness and health after practicing meditation for thirty years he came to the conclusion that individuals that are a part of a universal consciousness which is an Eastern philosophical. In his book Immortal: Consciousness Does Not Live In The Brain, “consciousness is merely “filtered” through the brain.” He points to people that have died to the seemingly inexplicable cases of patients whose hearts have stopped completely from cardiac arrest, but were able to recount everything that occurred during that period after they were revived. Interestingly Canavero believes that head-transplant patients will have a similar experiences in that he or she will remember when his or her head is completely disconnected from their body. “There will be a few minutes where the head will be detached, no blood. They will be clinically dead, as dead as it gets,” he explains. When the patient wakes up and tells of the experiences he or she had in that moment: “We will prove no death. We are immortal. Absolutely.”
The volunteer, Valery Spirodonov of Russia loves science when he first heard Canavero speak about the head-transplant procedure he contacted the surgeon. Spirodonov, has severe spinal muscular atrophy and is part of the 10% of people with this disease that have survived to adulthood. Spirodonov’s wants to receive the world’s first head transplant and many articles have been written that state that he will definitely be the first volunteer. Dr. Canavero did admit that since the Chinese government is aiding in research progress they will want him to choose a citizen of their country. The Chinese government will decide who that person is and will ask the family of a brain dead donor for approval to use the body.
Although it isn’t certain Valery has stated that “If I have this [body] removed, I believe my personality will just feel better and everything else will stay the same” Valery is very supportive of this operation and is speaking to audiences and journalists to alleviate fears about this operation. Spirodonov also explains that “I believe that after the surgery we will have all the answers about the soul, about the personality and where it lives. We just have to do this and see what happens,” Canavero and Spirodonov have high hopes for this operation in solving major philosophical issues. Every quote from Spirodonov is inspiring “I have lots of stuff to do everyday,” he says. “That’s why I completely enjoy my life and I’m not some sick guy that’s like, ‘Please help me in any way; I have a terrible life.’” He doesn’t define himself by his disability he works full time designing computer education programs for schools in Russia. He likes to eat sushi or pizza and hang out with his friends and he loves Star Wars. He’s a human being that has hopes and desires unfortunately individuals with disabilities often face this discrimination.
Truthfully the possibility of a head transplant is exciting to me it seems similar to a Twilight Zone scenario. It is understandable to be fearful of this operation because someone’s life is at risk and there is a chance of dying horribly. It’s likely that something will go wrong in this operation, but what if it actually works? How will this change the way people view bodies? Although, Dr. Canavero would like this operation to be for people that are suffering with disorders that cannot be treated, how long will it take for this to become a commodity? It is likely that if this were to work people may view this as another human enhancement a way to fight the aging process by switching to another body. Cost and the amount of risk may deter people from making this a popular surgery elective.
Other than animalism and psychological continuity there is another hypothesis that was not discussed. The philosopher Eric Steinhart agrees that the survivor would be an entirely new person but he has an entirely different view of the individual. Steinhart proposes that personal identity/personhood is “the functional persistence of cellular and molecular systems” [27, pp. 1, 6]. Similar to animalism he decides that merging two cellular systems will mean neither person survives. This is an interesting concept because if this works most of the body is still intact and so is the head. In this scenario it is possible to say that both people survive.
It seems like pseudoscience but it is good to ponder the new possibilities that technology has opened up for us no matter far fetched it seemed. Philosophers need to discuss more dynamic views on personhood and not hold one part of the body as more important than the other. I’m glad this surgery was announced because Canavero has allowed us ponder deeply about personhood and identity. Ultimately, it is best to leave it to the individual to decide their identity on their own terms.