Xenotransplantation Implementation as a Mainstream Health Procedure: Pillow Method

The issue of not having enough organs available for transplant has always been and is
still a major concern for the tens of thousands of individuals around the world in dire need of
healthy organs. With longer waiting times and decreasing transplantation rates, the supply of
human organs for transplantation still falls far short of the demand (Sim, Marinov & Levy,
1999). To combat this issue, we have turned towards the notion of xenotransplantation, the
transplant of cells, tissues, and organs between members of different species. Although it is still
at an experimental stage (Rubaltelli et al, 2008) and undergoing much research and trials, we
have seen both success and failures with xenotransplantation and due to this and the nature of the
method itself, there are two distinct opposing views on the topic. Ethics, health risks, the need to
save lives, etc.; these all play a role in the decision on whether or not xenotransplantation should
be implemented in our healthcare. To fully understand the points of each outlook, the pillow
method will be used to explore and illustrate each point of view in more detail.

The first stance taken in the pillow method is the My view is right, the other view is
wrong position. Using xenotransplantation as a therapeutic option to rid the problem of poor
organ donor numbers and low rate of organ transplants is a poor solution. Still at an experimental
level, xenotransplantation poses many health risks on both individuals receiving the transplants
and the human population (Rubaltelli et al, 2008). A major issue is rejection of the transplanted
material by the recipients body. The recipient can either experience hyperacute rejection, where
the donated tissue is immediately destroyed by the bodys immune system, or a delayed rejection
where the transplanted material is attacked over time (Nature America Inc., 2000). If an
individual undergoes invasive surgery for transplantation and the animal tissue is immediately or
later rejected, this poses great danger upon the individual as no other organs may be available to
save them. With the great risk of rejection existing, it is safer to keep a damaged or weak organ
than to risk experiencing rejection. In addition, xenotransplantation may allow certain infections
and viruses only contained in the animals genome with unknown pathological potential, such as
the Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus in pigs, to infect the recipient and be introduced in the
human population (Blusch, Patience & Martin, 2002). Furthermore, due to the differences in
species, we cannot be sure of the longevity and functionality of transplanted organs. If humans
are receiving animal tissue, the transplanted material may not last as long as the recipient does
due to a difference in average lifespans between species, putting them at a health risk and in line
for transplantation again. These points clearly describe that xenotransplantation is a negative idea
and should not be implemented amongst humans.

The second stance taken in the pillow method is the The other view is right, my view is
wrong position. Xenotransplantation being used as a healthcare mechanism will have a great
positive impact on the imbalanced ratio between organ need and organ availability.
Xenotransplantation research is currently ongoing, but it is advancing and improving as time
goes by and there have been many instances of successful animal tissue transplants. There have
been a great number of pig and cow heart valves successfully transplanted in human patients as
well as insulin extracted from animal pancreases to aid those with diabetes; these are now
accepted medical treatments (Flaman, 1994). In addition, the immunological barriers to
xenotransplantation are being studied and through genetic engineering and the development of
drug therapies, the risk of rejection has decreased (Sim et al, 1999). For example, scientists in
China have created pig stem cells that can be genetically altered so not to be rejected by the
human body and reproduced to provide a steady supply of organs (Alleyne, 2009). Furthermore,
even with the risk of a delayed rejection, the transplanted animal tissue can be used to prolong
the survival of the recipient by temporarily keeping the recipient alive and in a stable state until a
human organ becomes available. The implementation of xenotransplantation in healthcare is a
great solution for human organ shortage and has the potential to save thousands of lives.

The third stance taken in the pillow method is the Both views are right, and both views
are wrong position. Both of the above viewpoints have one ultimate concern, the concern over
the health of individuals in need of organ transplants. Xenotransplantation does pose certain
health risks for recipients (rejection, infection) but at the same time, research is progressing and
solutions to these risks have started to be found with many instances of success. This success,
however, has been limited and we are still far from allowing xenotransplantation to be a primary
transplantation mechanism; there are still many obstacles to overcome. As a solution to the
current stand-off between viewpoints, we should gear towards the areas in xenotransplantation
with the most success. Taking proper safety measures and assuring a low risk of danger, we
should utilize available resources to transplant tissues to those in need.

The fourth stance taken in the pillow method is the Issue is not important position.
Xenotransplantation being implemented in healthcare is not much of an issue. The one method of
organ transplantation, that of animals, does not have to be focused on, but we can also focus on
other problems such as why there has been an increase in organ donor needs and how to avoid
preventable causes. In the United States, there are nearly 3, 000 new patients being added to the
waiting list every month (Science and Society, n.d). People are dying daily while waiting for
organ transplants, so we should work on decreasing the number of people being added to the list.
Organ transplant does not have to be the only option; we should research and look for ways to
repair and save damaged organs as well as working on preventative measures. Smoking, chronic
alcohol intake, unhealthy food consumption and leading a sedentary lifestyle are all factors that
contribute to tissue damage in the lungs, arteries, liver, kidneys, heart, etc. and if we focus on
altering these factors, we can prevent many potential patients. This resolution will in no way
solve the issue of the imbalanced organ/patient ratio as many other factors play a role in this, but
it can prevent this problem from increasing even further.

Introducing xenotransplantation as a mainstream procedure for organ transplant would
definitely be crossing the line considering it is still elementary as a practice, but because it is
surely evolving with ongoing research, the threats to human health are being minimized though
we have not found solutions to all the problems. At its current position, xenotransplantation
should only be used in occurrences where chances of success are high; otherwise, we should be
looking at other methods such as additional treatment options for impaired organs and taking
preventative measures to reduce the number of individuals in need of organ donors. The last
stance, There is truth in all perspectives, truly provides a well-rounded viewpoint to the debate
about xenotransplantation.





References
Alleyne, R. (2009). Animal to Human Organ Transplants Come Closer After GM Pig
Breakthrough. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/5429707/Animal-to-human-organ-transplants-come-closer-after-GM-pig-
breakthrough.html.
Blusch, J.H., Patience, C., Martin, U. (2002). Pig Endogenous Retroviruses and
Xenotransplantation. Official Journal of the International Xenotransplantation
Association, 9(4), 242-251. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-3089.2002.01110.x
Flaman, P. (1994). Organ and Tissue Transplants: Some Ethical Issues. Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm.
Nature America Inc. (2000) Xenotransplantation. Nature Biotechnology, 18, IT53-IT55. doi:
10.1038/80100
Rubaltelli, E., Burra, P., Sartorato, V., Canova, D., Germani, G., Tomat, S., Ancona, E., et al.
(2008). Strengthening Acceptance for Xenotransplantation: The Case of Attraction
Effect. Official Journal of the International Xenotransplantation Association, 15(3),
159-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2008.00474.x
Science and Society. (n.d). Xenotransplantation: Can an animal organ save your life? Retrieved
from http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Xenotransplantation.htm.
Sim, K.H., Marinov, A., Levy, G.A. (1999). Xenotransplantation: A Potential Solution to the
Critical Organ Donor Shortage. Can J Gastroenterol, 13(4), 311-318.
Xenotransplantation: Can an animal organ save your life? (n.d.). Science and Society. Retrieved
from http://www.scienceandsociety.emory.edu/GMO/Xenotransplantation.htm.