There are very few uses of animals, other than food, that involve taking part of a non-human animal into our body. Thus it is not surprising that Michael and Brown, 2004) found strong connections between how people understand eating meat, and their attitudes to xenotransplantation (the use of an animal body part to replace a fail human body part).
The authors argue that any new phenomenon is initially understood with reference to something familiar. Because animals are used and understood in such diverse ways, and meat represents the closest equivalent for a situation such as the use of pig as donors of cells, valves, and potentially organs. However meat itself is frequently seen as a source of concern based on intensive farming, disease issues and animal transportation methods. So this comparison is not entirely unproblematic.
Michael and Brown carried out focus groups and extracted three main types of argument: whether people involved in the process are trustworthy, whether ones opinion carries an weight, and how needing a life-saving procedure would change one's willingness to use a xenotransplanted organ. The focus groups exchanges around meat eating show how it provides a familiar model for understanding the option of using animal parts for human purposes--in situations where the literal need may be much greater than eating meat, which is rarely absolutely necessary for continued health and life.
Conversely, it has been suggested that if swine are more widely accepted as organ donors people may feel more 'closely related' to pigs and become less willing to eat them (Glein, 2002).
Risks
The immediate problem with transplantion from a non-human donor is rejection. Research is underway to try and develop donor animals and anti-immune regimes that will allow a wider array of organs and tissues to be donated by non-human animals.
This is also a longer term risk of the transfer of infection agents and the development of dangerous zoonotic diseases (Glein, 2002).
References:
- Glein, H. (2002). Custom made piggeries in Norway? View of the meat producing industry. Acta. Vet. Scand., Suppl 99, 51-52.
- Michael, M., Brown, N. (2004). The meat of the matter:grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 379-397.
No comments:
Post a Comment