Medical ethicists have assumed a role in justifying public voyeurism of human "curiosities." This role has precedent in how scientists and natural philosophers once legitimized the marketing of museums of "human curiosities." At the beginning of the twentieth century, physicians dissociated themselves from entrepreneurial displays of persons with anomalies, and such commercial exhibits went into decline. Today, news media, principally on television, promote news features about persons that closely resemble the nineteenth century exhibits of human curiosities. Reporters solicit medical ethicists (...) for soundbites to affirm the newsworthiness and propriety of public voyeurism of these medical stories. Ethicists' soundbites are usually ambiguous or self-evident and rarely enable viewers to morally engage the issues. The precedent of early twentieth century physicians disengaging from such exploitive public shows is a useful example for medical ethics. (shrink)

Main Response Topics ? Introduction ? Open display and public evaluation ? Publicity versus patient privacy ? Facial tissue donation ? Validity of Louisville Instrument for Risk Acceptance ? Patients' understanding of risk ? Face versus hand transplantation ? Rejection rates/risks ? Patient compliance ? Exit strategy ? Functional recovery ? Societietal implications ? Psychological implications ? Conclusion: Uncertainty likely to persist.

An analysis of the identity issues involved in facial allograft transplantation is provided in this paper. The identity issues involved in organ transplantation in general, under both theoretical accounts of personal identity and subjective accounts provided by organ recipients, are examined. It is argued that the identity issues involved in facial allograft transplantation are similar to those involved in organ transplantation in general, but much stronger because the face is so closely linked with personal identity. Recipients of facial allograft transplantation (...) have the potential to feel that their identity is a mix between their own and the donor’s, and the donor’s family is potentially likely to feel that their loved one ‘‘lives on’’. It is also argued that facial allograft transplantation allows the recipients to regain an identity, because they can now be seen in the social world. Moreover, they may regain expressivity, allowing for them to be seen even more by others, and to regain an identity to an even greater extent. Informing both recipients and donors about the role that identity plays in facial allograft transplantation could enhance the consent process for facial allograft transplantation and donation. (shrink)

Two competing intuitions have dominated the debate over facial tissue transplantation. On one side are those who argue that relieving the suffering of those with severe facial disfigurement justifies the medical risks and possible loss of life associated with this experimental procedure. On the other are those who say that there is little evidence to show that such transplants would have longterm psychological benefits that couldn’t be achieved by other means and that without clear benefits, the risk is simply too (...) great. Ethicists on both sides have called for more analysis of the link between the face and personal identity in order to get a better grasp on potential gains and losses. This paper responds to that call by looking at contemporary philosophical analyses of the relation between organ transplants and personal identity and between the human face, human dignity, and human vulnerability. It is argued that the face matters not because it is the unique marker of our identity, but because of its role in the intersubjective constitution of moral identity and human dignity. (shrink)

An analysis of the identity issues involved in facial allograft transplantation is provided in this paper. The identity issues involved in organ transplantation in general, under both theoretical accounts of personal identity and subjective accounts provided by organ recipients, are examined. It is argued that the identity issues involved in facial allograft transplantation are similar to those involved in organ transplantation in general, but much stronger because the face is so closely linked with personal identity. Recipients of facial allograft transplantation (...) have the potential to feel that their identity is a mix between their own and the donor’s, and the donor’s family is potentially likely to feel that their loved one “lives on”. It is also argued that facial allograft transplantation allows the recipients to regain an identity, because they can now be seen in the social world. Moreover, they may regain expressivity, allowing for them to be seen even more by others, and to regain an identity to an even greater extent. Informing both recipients and donors about the role that identity plays in facial allograft transplantation could enhance the consent process for facial allograft transplantation and donation. (shrink)

Face transplants have been performed, in a small number, since 2005. Popular concern over the morality of the face transplant has tended to focus on the role that one’s face plays in one’s sense of self or one’s personal identity. In order to address this concern, the current paper will explore the significance of face transplants in the light of a theory of the self that draws on symbolic interactionism, narrative theory, and accounts of embodiment. The paper will respond to (...) certain presuppositions concerning personal identity made by Huxtable and Woodley. A theory of the self will be articulated that draws on the work of Merleau-Ponty and G. H. Mead, in order to place embodiment and social interaction centrally to an understanding of self-identity. This will allow an account of the nature of the suffering that a face transplant seeks to remedy, and its worth as an operation, and crucially the impact that it may have on the sense of personal identity of the recipient of the transplant. The conclusion will review the treatment in the context of the prejudices that members of contemporary societies may hold against those with disfigurements. (shrink)

Agich and Siemionov are to be congratulated for their attempt to refocus the debate on facial transplantation on those with most to gain: individuals with severe facial disfigurement.1 They make a good case for the surgical benefits offered by what they term facial allograft transplantation . Moreover, they fare better than other teams in recognising that candidates for FAT might also have much to lose. The team in Louisville had little to say on this issue, writing only rather benignly of (...) the possible “loss of transplanted tissue”.2 In contrast, Agich and Siemionov squarely confront this risk and offer the most complete account to date of how the risk will be minimised and rejection dealt with. This is an important development, which can only enhance the discussions that, contrary to what these authors imply, must indeed continue.According to Agich and Siemionov, their paper also provides a counterbalance to the numerous more sceptical views being expressed in bioethical and media circles—views which are said to rely more on fiction than fact. In response, we wish to argue that, as persuasive as some of their arguments undoubtedly are, the authors will not succeed in stalling this debate for there remain numerous issues that require further attention. We start with a central component of the authors’ argument, their appeal to “clinical need”, and suggest that this is not straightforwardly identifiable. No more straightforward is their suggestion that metaphors and lessons from the creative world have no place in this debate. This seems particularly unlikely when we consider that FAT will not offer the “ideal” solution; perhaps, then, wholesale facial transplantation is or will become the ideal and a film like Face/Off can offer some insights. Finally, we query the role and influence of …. (shrink)

When the world's first face transplant was performed in France in 2005, the complex medical procedure and accompanying worldwide media attention sparked many ethical issues, including how the media covered the story. This study uses framing theory to examine what happens when media ethics intersect with bioethics by analyzing French, American, and British media coverage on the transplant and its aftermath. This study looks at how this story was framed and which bioethical issues were focused upon. The media ethical implications (...) of these findings are then discussed. By doing so, this article attempts to contribute to the debate on how complex medical stories with bioethical components can be reported in an ethical manner. (shrink)

The ethical discussion of facial allograft transplantation for severe facial deformity, popularly known as facial transplantation, has been one sided and sensationalistic. It is based on film and fiction rather than science and clinical experience. Based on our experience in developing the first IRB approved protocol for FAT, we critically discuss the problems with this discussion, which overlooks the plight of individuals with severe facial deformities. We discuss why FAT for facial deformity is ethically and surgically justified despite its negative (...) portrayal in the media. (shrink)

Ethical lapses associated with the first facial transplant included breaches of confidentiality, bending of research rules, and film deals. However, discussions of the risk-benefit ratio for face transplantation are often deficient in that they ignore the needs, experience, and decision-making capability of potential recipients.

Wiggins and his colleagues (2004) are to be commended for their willingness to raise the question of the ethics of undertaking the world's first face transplant prior to initiating the experiment....

ABSTRACT An American surgical team has announced its intention to perform the first human facial transplantation. The team has, however, invited further analysis of the ethical issues before it proceeds and in this paper we take up that challenge in seeking to frame the debate with a particular focus on the recipients of the transplant. We address seven related areas of concern and identify numerous questions that require answers or, perhaps, better answers. We start by examining the nature of the (...) procedure and its intended benefits, why the procedure is being developed, and whether or not this should be viewed as experimental. Having concluded that this is experimental in nature, we then consider the broad question, who is the patient? Here we perceive difficulties in terms of the autonomy of the recipient, the unpredictable effects of receiving the transplant, and the role and influence of society. We conclude by asking whether the question should be ‘whether or not?’ rather than ‘when?’, particularly while the risks of losing face appear to far outweigh the likelihood of gaining face. (shrink)