Pig Hearts

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 29 Jan 2022 17:51:46 GMT

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235483#235483"]

Evelyn Barbour-Hill said:
You consider that religious beliefs are of little or no importance in the matter. Your own belief system will not allow you to think otherwise.

Is it really not being religious a belief system in itself? I would argue that not always.

[/quote]

Indeed, no, not always. My comment was a direct reply and "you" meant Gillian.

To have no interest whatever in religion, no, one can hardly call that a belief system, although even such a person probably believes in something – the rule of law. perhaps, or liberty, or the fundamentality of morality, or the infalibility of science,or something. But to regard religion as "the God delusion", for instance, or to dismiss any religious considerations in parental consent as worthless and to be discounted, that's part of a belief system.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235483#235483"] In some religions it is fine for girls to have their genitals mutilated. Their parents are consenting to it and they think it's for the child's best interest. The law, for good reason, says different. How is this any different than a pig's heart in a dying child? [/quote]

Good point. (And, indeed, there's a well-known religion that requires adulterers to be stoned to death) Now, there are differences although they may not be crucial to the argument. Firstly, the genital mutilation of the girl is a positive act – it's a matter of the parents encouraging the act. Whereas the pig heart transplantation question is a matter of the parents refusing consent to the act. Absolutely no-one in the situation I outlined has any desire or inclination or proposal to deliberately kill the child.

Secondly, and I'm not sure about this, are there any religions that require the mutilation of girls' genitals? Yes, I think there are some cultures where it is almost universal, and religions that do not disapprove, but are there religions that require it? This is not a rhetorical question, I would really like to hear from anyone who actually knows.

I note that the surgeon who developed the pig heart transplant is himself a Muslim; had considerable doubts about whether he was doing the right thing; consulted religious leaders before he went ahead . "The final consensus was that there is nothing greater in the eyes of God than saving the life of another human".

But I also note that the recipient of the pig heart was not a Muslim so he had no objection.

I think that the parents of a two-year-old child would have a special problem on consideration, and it's this. Consumption of pig meat is absolutely forbidden to a Muslim. But pig meat does not stay in the body forever. There are purifications that can be done and the spiritual harm can be reversed. But a heart transplant, obviously, means pig permanently implanted and carefully maintained in the body. Now If I've got that wrong, I'd really like to hear from anyone who actually knows.

Now then. I think in the hypothetical situation I outlined, the parents would be encouraged to seek advice from their imam and senior religious leaders and probably the whole thing would eventually be settled without too many misgiving for anyone involved. My original proposal of this situation was to try to get a straight answer.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235483#235483"]There is no point, it's a farce.[/quote]

That's what it seems to me.

[quote userid="9239" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235483#235483"]We don't have consent because it's better for the patient, we have it because our society decided that it's morally right for the patient to have one. [/quote]

Belief system...

RE: Pig Hearts

Dinu Catilina — Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:27:25 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235444#235444"]You consider that religious beliefs are of little or no importance in the matter. Your own belief system will not allow you to think otherwise.[/quote]

Is it really not being religious a belief system in itself? I would argue that not always.

And imaginary/esoteric/unseen friends should not be above the law. In some religions it is fine for girls to have their genitals mutilated. Their parents are consenting to it and they think it's for the child's best interest. The law, for good reason, says different. How is this any different than a pig's heart in a dying child?

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235444#235444"]So, to come back to the origin of this discussion. What's the point of requiring parental consent if refusal can be ignored if "it seems wrong to most of us"?[/quote]

There is no point, it's a farce. True informed consent does not exists in so many cases. Some do understand their condition, treatments, risks but some don't. We don't have consent because it's better for the patient, we have it because our society decided that it's morally right for the patient to have one.

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 21:04:28 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235466#235466"]Should anyone, parent or otherwise, have had a right to deny him his (legal and moral)) right to a normal life? [/quote]

In my opinion, no. Where there is life there is usually hope. But wow, it sounds like a rough journey he and his family went through. So happy to hear it ended so well.

RE: Pig Hearts

Julian Earl — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:44:38 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235464#235464"]olutely. It's all good. Just a difference of opinion, nothing more. [/quote]

Thanks Gillkan I know that!! But I had to post my approval didn't I?? All for the fun of it!! I'm geld it has proved such a stimulating thread though really! xx

RE: Pig Hearts

Clive Ansell — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:47:50 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235464#235464"]Absolutely. It's all good. Just a difference of opinion, nothing more.[/quote]

Agree entirely

Actually, I have had some personal involvement in a similar situation. One of my sisters step children had a very premature baby, on the verge of not being viable, 8 years ago that had numerous health problems and required 3 major surgeries, including open heart surgery and a temporary colostomy, and weeks/months in intensive care. The odds of survival were very low we were told, and there were lots of emotional and difficult conversations to have, but all ended well. He is now a healthy and happy, normal well developed little boy enjoying life, with no ongoing health issues.

Should anyone, parent or otherwise, have had a right to deny him his (legal and moral)) right to a normal life?

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:27:04 GMT

[quote userid="3094" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235463#235463"]Thanks for taking deep breaths and agreeing to disagree!! In the nicest possible way I hope? [/quote]

Absolutely. It's all good. Just a difference of opinion, nothing more.

RE: Pig Hearts

Julian Earl — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:33:02 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235422#235422"]hich is exactly what I've been saying. We agree.[/quote]

Aha, there are the magic words!" You agree! Jolly good! As official Moderator on this site I nolonger feekl the need to worry about any of you coming to blows!! But I think I shall have a stern word with the person who started this obviously controversial thread, and/or see if Arlo can give them a warning!! I mean, it was obviously going to lead to bacon/ham/ religious-based arguments surely?? Not what this site needs?? Thanks for taking deep breaths and agreeing to disagree!! In the nicest possible way I hope?

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:22:46 GMT

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235457#235457"]In the case of heart transplants, would it be right for a 2 year old child to be denied a life saving procedure based on their parents beliefs?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote userid="5012" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235457#235457"]the child, who cannot understand or reach a decision, and cannot accept or reject those beliefs [/quote]

Precisely. The child is too young to understand or reach a decision. The parents – in the sort of case I outlined above – have to do their very best for their child, and that might mean a heartbreaking decision. The parents are acting in the child's best interests, but they see there is more to the child's best interests than his or her temporal health.

RE: Pig Hearts

Clive Ansell — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 22:07:20 GMT

Parental consent is not absolute in law.

There is much international law that protects the interests of children. They have a right to be heard and listened too, for someone to speak on their behalf, and they have rights independent of their parents or carers. They are not the possesion of property of their parents, as a pet would be. Children have a legal right to life and survivability, irrespective and independent of their parents wishes.

In these very sad and difficult cases, where parents maynot be acting in the childs best interests, a court has to appoint legal representation for the child, and adjudicate.

In the case of heart transplants, would it be right for a 2 year old child to be denied a life saving procedure based on their parents beliefs? - should the parents be able to impose their beliefs on the child, who cannot understand or reach a decision, and cannot accept or reject those beliefs themselves. The law says not.

In contrast, a 12 year old child could be intelligent and mature enough to consider the facts and reach an informed decision about their own healthcare, and whether or not to follow their parents wishes or beliefs.

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 16:34:42 GMT

We've gone full circle. I have explained my own opinion, as have you. They are both equally valid.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235444#235444"]But my question was, would you? In other words, would you support the doctors? Would you be disappointed if the High Court said "No, parental consent means parental consent, there is no good reason to override it"?[/quote]

I would have no opinion whatsoever about the specifics of a case I was neither involved in as a parent nor as a clinician. I'm just happy the system is there in order for an objective decision to be reached. I'm talking about the rights of a child being protected by having that system in place - not my personal opinion of the rights and wrongs of individual decisions.

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235442#235442"]Sometimes there is no agreement for whatever reasons and here the courts can step in to try to protect the welfare of the child. [/quote]

This, really.

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:41:33 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235422#235422"]

Pretty well, yes, unless someone with a real understanding – so, not the medical establishment – can show very very very good reason not to.

Which is exactly what I've been saying. We agree.

[/quote]

I think not.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235422#235422"]if it gets to the stage where pig heart transplants are becoming routine and are likely to lead to a long healthy life, then yes, I would expect the doctors to go to the high court to argue their case. [/quote]

Yes we can expect doctors to go to to the High Court. But my question was, would you? In other words, would you support the doctors? Would you be disappointed if the High Court said "No, parental consent means parental consent, there is no good reason to override it"?

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235422#235422"] Now it seems wrong to most of us that a parent would prefer to let their child die where a blood transfusion could save them, simply due to a Christian belief.[/quote]

There you are, you see. You consider that religious beliefs are of little or no importance in the matter. Your own belief system will not allow you to think otherwise.

So, to come back to the origin of this discussion. What's the point of requiring parental consent if refusal can be ignored if "it seems wrong to most of us"?

RE: Pig Hearts

Bob Russell — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:22:56 GMT

This discussion is taking a fairly personal turn. These are important and emotive issues.

There is a balance of rights that has to be weighed up in all these cases. Generally with good communication everyone ends up in roughly the same place.

Parents do not usually have medical knowledge therefore it is the duty of clinicians and staff to make sure parents understand to the best of their abilities.

Children have fundamental rights as do parents. Parents also have responsibilities. Other family members may also have rights and responsibilities to compound the complexities.

Sometimes there is no agreement for whatever reasons and here the courts can step in to try to protect the welfare of the child. This might be the way that the child gets a blood transfusion.

With all these layers sometimes things will go wrong.

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 08:09:20 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235421#235421"]Yeah, OK. It's still irrelevant to what we were discussing.[/quote]

No it isn't. It's exactly what my original comment said, but I can see that it is hard to argue with.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235421#235421"]Pretty well, yes, unless someone with a real understanding – so, not the medical establishment – can show very very very good reason not to.[/quote]

Which is exactly what I've been saying. We agree.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235421#235421"]The parents are kind, reasonable people, devoted to their children, who wish to do the very best they can for this child. They are devout Muslims – not of the Wahabi discipline, they don't believe that adulterers must be stoned to death or homosexuals beaten with cables then thrown off a high building; the mother dresses in long clothes with a headscarf but doesn't think that English ladies in miniskirts are whores; you get the picture. [/quote]

Yes, although you could have stopped at devout Muslims. I didn't need the rest of the explanation.

I would say, though, that your explanation does illustrate a point - that in some people there is an overlap between belief and mental illness. Who decides where beliefs end and 'insanity' starts? I've no doubt that we would disagree on this.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235421#235421"]Would you accept their decision or would you go to the High Court for permission to ignore it?[/quote]

IMO any medical decision should be based on the best welfare of the child, with the parental opinions and beliefs taken into account but not absolute. In this case, at this time, it is likely the child will die and be put through too many invasive procedures to ensure their welfare, so I would let them die. However, if it gets to the stage where pig heart transplants are becoming routine and are likely to lead to a long healthy life, then yes, I would expect the doctors to go to the high court to argue their case.

In the same way that if it were a child of a Jehovah's Witness who had simply cut an artery in an accident and had every chance of a long life if they had a blood transfusion then the parental beliefs should be overridden. There was once a time, before blood typing, where a blood transfusion was seen as a high risk procedure. Now it seems wrong to most of us that a parent would prefer to let their child die where a blood transfusion could save them, simply due to a Christian belief.

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 27 Jan 2022 01:39:14 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235417#235417"]But there are mental illnesses that may affect your decision making that don't define you as 'insane'. It's very outdated to think of people in terms of 'well' and 'insane'. There are illnesses and personality disorders that can affect your ability to think objectively or empathise with another human being.[/quote]

Yeah, OK. It's still irrelevant to what we were discussing.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235417#235417"]So you are saying that a parent's wishes should be followed to the letter, even if the doctors treating that child think it is the wrong course to follow? [/quote]

Pretty well, yes, unless someone with a real understanding – so, not the medical establishment – can show very very very good reason not to.

Or else, if you prefer, change the law so that parental consent isn't required to do anything medical to a child.

Let's cut to the chase. Consider this situation (and let us hope that nobody ever has to in real life).

A child has a heart defect of a nature such that the doctors recommend – as the only good course if the child is to live to adulthood – that he or she have a pig's heart transplant. The parents are kind, reasonable people, devoted to their children, who wish to do the very best they can for this child. They are devout Muslims – not of the Wahabi discipline, they don't believe that adulterers must be stoned to death or homosexuals beaten with cables then thrown off a high building; the mother dresses in long clothes with a headscarf but doesn't think that English ladies in miniskirts are whores; you get the picture. As devout Muslims they cannot countenance the taking of pig into the body; and since they are responsible for their child's wellbeing, in the widest sense not just the narrower medical sense, they cannot consent to the implantation of pig into their child's body.

Would you accept their decision or would you go to the High Court for permission to ignore it?

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:37:56 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235416#235416"]Do you mean that (genuinely, certified)insane parents can reasonably be approached for parental consent?[/quote]

No.

But there are mental illnesses that may affect your decision making that don't define you as 'insane'. It's very outdated to think of people in terms of 'well' and 'insane'. There are illnesses and personality disorders that can affect your ability to think objectively or empathise with another human being.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235416#235416"]Nor should the medical establishment, nor the State.[/quote]

Of course not.

So you are saying that a parent's wishes should be followed to the letter, even if the doctors treating that child think it is the wrong course to follow?

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 20:34:47 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235413#235413"]

Evelyn Barbour-Hill said:
Leave out mental illnesses. Of course if both parents are insane, they cannot give or refuse consent.

It really isn't that straightforward, and in saying that it is you are showing ignorance of the nuances of parental (and indeed human) behaviour.

[/quote]

Now I am confused.

Do you mean that (genuinely, certified)insane parents can reasonably be approached for parental consent?

Or do you mean that certaion beliefs and opinions count as mental illness in your book?

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235413#235413"] I believe parents shouldn't have unquestioned power over a child. [/quote]

Nor should the medical establishment, nor the State.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235413#235413"]The child also has independent rights. [/quote]

Including the unborn child?

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 15:00:21 GMT

[quote userid="6550" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235402#235402"]In these situations the courts have to be act in the interests of the child and there are no easy answers.[/quote]

Absolutely.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235401#235401"]You don't believe that the religion of parent or child can be allowed to have any bearing on the matter. and you consider that your view should be legally enforced upon everybody.[/quote]

I have not said that, and I don't believe that.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235401#235401"]Leave out mental illnesses. Of course if both parents are insane, they cannot give or refuse consent.[/quote]

It really isn't that straightforward, and in saying that it is you are showing ignorance of the nuances of parental (and indeed human) behaviour.

Anyway, you're arguing with me because you've made incorrect assumptions about my opinions. I believe parents shouldn't have unquestioned power over a child. The child also has independent rights. That is all.

RE: Pig Hearts

Bob Russell — Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:31:08 GMT

This is a legal and moral nightmare and can end up with the 'experts believing they know best'.

They don't always but have been known to think they do!

Near here was the case of a young child 'kidnapped' from the hospital and taken abroad because the experts thought proton beam unhelpful but the parents wanted it for their child. As of 2018 the child was considered tumour free after treatment in Europe. One Nil to parents.

Then there were cases where hospital staff considered children terminal and suffering yet parents demanded they are kept breathing long after anyone sensible would have allowed the child to go peacefully.

In these situations the courts have to be act in the interests of the child and there are no easy answers.

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:42:03 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235400#235400"]I would say therefore that it is even more important that the child has an advocate in cases where the parental decision goes against medical opinion. The child has their own human rights, and is certainly not a possession of its parent in the way that a pet is.[/quote]

So now we have a third opinion consulted, the child's "advocate".

Hmm, time was when the third party might have favoured lobotomies. Or Ritalin.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235400#235400"]

Evelyn Barbour-Hill said:
If they believe they are right and they don't consent, that should be it.

This only works if all parents have the child's best interests at heart and don't themselves have belief systems or mental illnesses that contradict that

[/quote]

Leave out mental illnesses. Of course if both parents are insane, they cannot give or refuse consent.

But "belief systems"? Now we're getting to it, aren't we. What this has been about all along. You don't believe that the religion of parent or child can be allowed to have any bearing on the matter. and you consider that your view should be legally enforced upon everybody. One might call that your belief system

The parent who refuses consent to a pig heart transplant is being the child's advocate. They do have the child's best interests at heart.

Being English and coming from a broadly Christian, fairly cosy, easy-going sort of national culture – just like me – you just don't appreciate, let alone understand, the vital and fundamental importance of certain religious strictures to the devotees of certain religious followings. I can't pretend to understand them all either. Where we differ is in your conclusion that these beliefs are worthless.

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:31:58 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235377#235377"]But these are not cats or dogs or parrots we are discussing, they are young human beings.[/quote]

I would say therefore that it is even more important that the child has an advocate in cases where the parental decision goes against medical opinion. The child has their own human rights, and is certainly not a possession of its parent in the way that a pet is.

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235381#235381"] If they believe they are right and they don't consent, that should be it.[/quote]

This only works if all parents have the child's best interests at heart and don't themselves have belief systems or mental illnesses that contradict that

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 00:28:27 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235378#235378"]Being a parent is a privilege, with responsibilities. One of those is acceptance that you may not be the best informed person in everything relating to your child, nor that you can't sometimes be wrong.[/quote]

You have missed the point of course.

If requirement for consent is to mean anything, it doesn't matter whether the parents are, in the view of lots of other people, wrong. If they believe they are right and they don't consent, that should be it.

(And, you never know, in the long term they might turn out to be right after all. )

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 24 Jan 2022 21:03:25 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235377#235377"]So, not much point having a requirement for parental consent. [/quote]

As you know, life's not that simple. Of course the parents opinion should be the default position. But it can be challenged

As far as I'm aware, doctors don't override a parental decision. That can only be done in court.

Being a parent is a privilege, with responsibilities. One of those is acceptance that you may not be the best informed person in everything relating to your child, nor that you can't sometimes be wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.741159

RE: Pig Hearts

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 24 Jan 2022 19:50:00 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235365#235365"]

Evelyn Barbour-Hill said:
I'd be with the parents every time. Otherwise it makes nonsense of the idea of parental consent.

Not really. It just means that sometimes parents are wrong.

[/quote]

So, not much point having a requirement for parental consent.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235365#235365"]Parents look at the case of their own child's medical needs subjectively, as they should. [/quote]

Or even, dare one employ that trendy word, holistically.

So, of course their refusal of consent can be over-ridden, cos doctors always know better don't they?

Best regard that consent form as analogous to the confessions people sign before they are sent to Chinese re-education camps.

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235365#235365"]That doesn't necessary lead to the right decisions - as we all know from dealing with owners.[/quote]

But these are not cats or dogs or parrots we are discussing, they are young human beings.

RE: Pig Hearts

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:48:24 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235309#235309"]I'd be with the parents every time. Otherwise it makes nonsense of the idea of parental consent.[/quote]

Not really. It just means that sometimes parents are wrong.

Parents look at the case of their own child's medical needs subjectively, as they should. That doesn't necessary lead to the right decisions - as we all know from dealing with owners.

RE: Pig Hearts

Lucy Fleming — Mon, 24 Jan 2022 13:01:51 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/off-duty-discussions/30142/pig-hearts/235309#235309"]For hearts? Well, I've learnt something.[/quote]

I would guess that congenital heart problems that would have been lethal not that long ago are now survivable - but may require transplant later on. The conditions they can treat/ repair nowadays are incredible.