Osborne P. Wiggins

On the Ethics of Facial Transplantation Research

Transplantation continues to push the frontiers of medicine into domains that summon forth troublesome ethical questions. Looming on the frontier today is human facial transplantation. We develop criteria that, we maintain, must be satisfied in order to ethically undertake this as-yet-untried transplant procedure. We draw on the criteria advanced by Dr. Francis Moore in the late 1980s for introducing innovative procedures in transplant surgery. In addition to these we also insist that human face transplantation must meet all the ethical requirements usually applied to health care research. We summarize the achievements of transplant surgery to date, focusing in particular on the safety and efficacy of immunosuppressive medications. We also emphasize the importance of risk/benefit assessments that take into account the physical, aesthetic, psychological, and social dimensions of facial disfiguration, reconstruction, and transplantation. Finally, we maintain that the time has come to move facial transplantation research into the clinical phase.

Composite tissue allotransplantation of the hand and face: a new frontier in transplant and reconstructive surgery

Each year an estimated 7‐million people in the USA need composite tissue reconstruction because of surgical excision of tumors, accidents and congenital malformations. Limb amputees alone comprise over 1.2 million of these. This figure is more than double the number of solid organs needed for transplantation. Composite tissue allotransplantation in the form of hand and facial tissue transplantation are now a clinical reality. The discovery, in the late 1990s, that the same immunotherapy used routinely in kidney transplantation was also effective in preventing skin rejection made this possible. While these new treatments seem like major advancements most of the surgical, immunological and ethical methods used are not new at all and have been around and routinely used in clinical practice for some time. In this review of composite tissue allotransplantation, we: (i) outline the limitations of conventional reconstructive methods for treating severe facial disfigurement, (ii) review the history of composite tissue allotransplantation, (iii) discuss the chronological scientific advances that have made it possible, (iv) focus on the two unique clinical scenarios of hand and face transplantation, and (v) reflect on the critical issues that must be addressed as we move this new frontier toward becoming a treatment in mainstream medicine.

Investigation of risk acceptance in facial transplantation.

Background: The surgical techniques necessary to transplant a human face are well established, and the early success of human hand transplants suggests that the immunological hurdles of transplanting human facial tissues have largely been overcome. Therefore, it is the ethical barriers that pose the greatest challenge to performing facial transplantation. At the center of the ethical debate is the question, “Do the risks posed by the life-long immunosuppression that a recipient would have to take justify the benefits of receiving a face transplant?” In this study, the authors answer this question by assessing the degree of risk individuals would be willing to accept to receive a face transplant. Methods: To quantitatively assess risks versus benefits in facial transplantation, the authors developed the Louisville Instrument for Transplantation, or LIFT, which contains 237 standardized questions. Respondents in three study populations (healthy individuals, n = 150; organ transplant recipients, n = 42; and individuals with facial disfigurement, n = 34) were questioned about the extent to which they would trade off specific numbers of life-years, or sustain other costs, in exchange for receiving seven different transplant procedures. Results: The authors found that the three populations would accept differing degrees of risk for the seven transplant procedures. Organ transplant recipients were the most risk-tolerant group, while facially disfigured individuals were the least risk tolerant. All groups questioned would accept the highest degree of risk to receive a face transplant compared with the six other procedures. Conclusions: This study presents an empirical basis for assessing risk versus benefit in facial transplantation. In doing so, it provides a more solid foundation upon which to introduce this exciting new reconstructive modality into the clinical arena.

Typifications: The First Step for Clinical Diagnosis in Psychiatry

Reigning views on psychiatric nosology regard as “too subjective” certain features of diagnosis which respected psychiatrists have reported and several empirical studies have confirmed. We describe two of these persistent “mysteries” of psychiatric nosology: rapid diagnoses and the praecox feeling. We then demystify these mysteries by explicating the workings of “typification” in the diagnostic process. The criteria of disorders which are provided by classification manuals, such as DSM-III, are shown to presuppose such typifications. Psychiatric typification, although a preconceptual skill, can be rendered fully scientific and objective.

Psychosocial implications of disfigurement and the future of human face transplantation.

Summary: Although the first face transplants have been attempted, the social and psychological debates concerning the ethics and desirability of the procedure continue. Critics contend that these issues have not yet been sufficiently addressed. With this in mind, the present article seeks to elaborate on key psychological and social factors that will be central for addressing the ethical and psychosocial challenges necessary to move face transplantation into mainstream medicine. The goals of this article are to (1) discuss the psychosocial sequelae of facial disfiguration and how face transplantation may relieve those problems, and (2) delineate inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of research subjects for face transplantation. The article uses concepts from symbolic interaction theory in sociology to articulate a theoretically coherent scheme for comprehending the psychosocial difficulties of facial disfiguration and the advantages offered by facial transplantation. The authors conclude that the psychosocial implications of disfigurement warrant surgical intervention and that research in the area of face transplantation should continue.

Ethical considerations in human facial tissue allotransplantation.

Background:Human facial tissue allotransplantation is now a clinical reality. Proponents of this new treatment contend that the benefits outweigh the risks, while the critics argue they do not. This debate has been presented in great detail in the bioethics literature but has not been brought to the attention of the plastic surgery community. Methods:The purpose of this paper is to provide a synopsis of the key issues being debated in facial transplantation by presenting to the plastic surgery community a synopsis of an ethical debate published in the 2004 summer issue of the American Journal of Bioethics. Results:Presented is a set of ethical guidelines for facial transplantation in the form of a “target article.” Alongside this are written commentaries from 15 experts in related fields, along with responses to these commentaries. Together, this discussion makes up a landmark exercise in open display and public and professional discussion and evaluation and serves as a comprehensive list of the major ethical issues being debated today in the field of facial tissue allotransplantation. Conclusions:Plastic surgeons play a central role in the care of facially disfigured patients and will therefore lead the introduction of facial tissue allotransplantation into the clinical arena. Consequently, it is important that they be aware of, and indeed that they play a key role in forming, the debate surrounding this new treatment. It is with this in mind that we present this synopsis to the plastic surgery readership.

Plastic Surgeon's Risk Acceptance in Facial Transplantation

Background: A great deal of ethical debate has accompanied the introduction of facial tissue allotransplantation into the clinical arena. Critics contend that the risks of lifelong immunosuppression do not justify the benefits of this new non–life-saving reconstructive procedure, whereas proponents argue that they do. Absent from this debate are the opinions of individuals with real-life experiences with the risks and benefits associated with this new treatment. Methods: In this study, the authors question facially disfigured individuals (n = 33) and the reconstructive surgeons who treat them (n = 45), organ transplant recipients (n = 42) and the professionals who manage their immunosuppression medication (n = 37), and healthy volunteer controls (n = 148) to determine the amount of risk they are willing to accept to receive facial tissue allotransplantation. A survey with psychometrically reliable and validated questions was administered to the above five groups, and appropriate statistical analysis was used to analyze and compare the data within and between groups. Results: Of the five groups studied, reconstructive surgeons would accept the least amount of risk for a facial tissue allotransplant, followed by transplant specialists, then kidney transplant recipients, then facially disfigured individuals, and finally healthy control volunteers, who would accept the most amount of risk. Conclusions: The authors’ data indicate that reconstructive surgeons are the least tolerant of risks compared with the other groups studied concerning facial tissue allotransplantation. This is particularly important because they are the primary caregivers to facially disfigured patients and, as such, will be the ones to lead the effort to move this new reconstructive treatment into the clinical arena.

Risk acceptance in laryngeal transplantation.

Purpose: Advancements in the fields of head and neck surgery and immunology have paved the way for new quality of life‐improving procedures such as larynx transplantation. To quantitatively assess the risks versus benefits in larynx transplantation, we used a questionnaire‐based survey (Louisville Instrument For Transplantation [LIFT]) to measure the degree of risk individuals are willing to accept to receive different types of transplantation procedures.

Toward a Husserlian Phenomenology of the Initial Stages of Schizophrenia

Schizophrenic patients confront the psychiatrist with a wide array of extraordinary experiences. Such patients may assert that other people make their thoughts, actions, and desires. They can hallucinate voices which talk about them, commenting on their actions, praising and condemning them. They may complain that their thoughts and feelings are transparent to the world or insist that their bodies incarnate seemingly random features from the surrounding world. In order to explain experiences like these, psychiatrists have invoked terms and formulations such as ego weakness, ego boundary disturbance, ego pathology, depersonalization and derealization, and the breakdown or violation of the unity of the self (Spitzer 1988, pp. 167–183).

The Phenomenology of Schizophrenic Delusions

Writers on delusions, such as Karl Jaspers and Kraupl Taylor, have rather consistently seen certainty and incorrigibility of belief as two of their defining characteristics (Jaspers 1963, Kraupl-Taylor 1966, 1983, American Psychiatric Association 1987). In this paper we shall challenge this by now customary view. More specifically, we shall challenge this view as its applies to a particular sub-class of delusions: the delusions of patients suffering from schizophrenia. We shall, on the other hand, concede that certainty and incorribility of belief do indeed characterize another species of delusions, the delusions of delirious patients. Moreover, we shall admit that schizophrenic patients regularly claim that they are certain about their delusions or that they “know” some things to be the case that normal people would regard as delusional. We shall interpret these pervasive claims, however, as expressions on the part of schizophrenics that are motivated by a determination to believe something indubitably precisely because they both believe it and doubt it while they seek to eradicate their doubt. More simply put, their assertions of absolute conviction do not depict their actual experience but rather a desired one, an experience they seek to make real precisely by insisting that it is now real.