MGMT 2200 : Critical Thinking And Writing

Xenotransplantation:

Despite the numerous benefits of xenotransplantation, this scientific technique is associated with a lot of shortcomings. Xenotransplantation can be defined as the transplantation, implantation or rather infusion of live cells, tissues and organs from another source except humans. The source of this tissues in most cases is animals .Xenotransplantation also involves the introduction of the same tissues, organs, cells that are not from animal sources but they may be have had contact with the external environment(ex vivo)of nonhuman animal cells, tissues and organs. Studies argue that this technique has been on the rise in the recent years. The surge in xenotransplantation has been attributed to increased demand for human organs but the supply remains relatively low. As at 2017 for example, 34,770 transplants were available as compared to 115,759 patients who were on the waiting lists (Loike and Kadish e46337). This therefore means there is a need for a solution which probably lies in xenotransplantation.

Despite the ethical issues surrounding xenotransplantation, this process has made it possible for doctors to treat certain conditions such as neurodegenerative disorders as well as diabetes. This therefore means that the use of animal organs will bridge the gap of length of time to receive transplants. Scientists have also established that individuals who receive transplants are healthy and they are better off in tolerating surgery as well. Progress in this field has been phenomenal since according to statistics, more than 50% of xenotransplantation have been successful (Scobie, et al. 113). This means that the field is quite promising.

Xenotransplantation is not an ethical process. Since this technique involves the transfer of organs, cells or tissues from animals to humans, it means that the animal is sacrificed at the expense of the human being who is the recipient of the organs. According to the animal rights advocates, this is totally wrong and it is not morally acceptable.

Human rights activists also argue that xenotransplantation is a risky exercise to the recipient. This is due to the fact that some latent animal virus subject are very harmful. Opponents of the said technique fear that these viruses if introduced in the human body, they can lead to adverse epidemics since humans don’t have any immunity and they also lack readily available cure (Olver 212). A good example of animals used in xenotransplantation is pigs. However, scientists have established that pigs are the carriers of the porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV).Children of all the recipients of the xerographic materials are likely to carry this group of viruses especially if they land into the germline cells. The end result is that the children will suffer from different types of cancer such as leukemia (Shaw, et al. 127). Besides cancer, these retroviruses can result to AIDS. This therefore means that xenotransplantation is a risky technique and scientists should therefore seek an alternative form of therapy.

In conclusion, xenotransplantation is an arsenal when it comes to treating neurodegenerative disorders and this will bridge the gap between the demand and supply of certain organs. Despite the ethical considerations such as the effects of PERV, research should be done in that line to come up with solutions for such shortcomings and make this technique as effective as possible.

Reference: 

Loike, John D., and Alan Kadish. "Ethical rejections of xenotransplantation?" EMBO reports, vol. 19, no. 8, 2018, p. e46337.

Olver, Ian N. "Ethical issues with xenotransplantation clinical trials." The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 204, no. 6, 2016, p. 212.

Scobie, L., et al. "Cellular xenotransplantation of animal cells into people: benefits and risk." Revue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE, vol. 37, no. 1, 2018, pp. 113-122.

Shaw, D., et al. "Ethical issues surrounding the transplantation of organs from animals into humans." Revue Scientifique et Technique de l'OIE, vol. 37, no. 1, 2018, pp. 123-129.