There was rejoicing this week when the heart of a pig was successfully transplanted into a human.
My first thought was, “And they killed the pig to do this.”
Once again the life of a two-legged animal was determined to have more value than the life of a four-legged animal.
No four-legged animal was invited to join the discussion about the ethics or morality of killing one animal to benefit another. The pig wasn’t consulted. It did not volunteer to sacrifice itself. It did not consent.
And then, several days after the rejoicing came another discussion. The recipient of the pig’s heart might not be worthy. In his past he inflicted grievous harm on another human.
To me, that is an entirely different subject. The initial argument rates the value of one life form against another. I think all life has value, equal value. Any value beyond that basic level is a construct of the human mind.
For me, the life of the man who received the pig’s heart has the same value today as it did at the moment of his birth, no more and no less than the value of the life of the pig.
I can understand the curiosity of scientists, can something like this work? But, I think you’re right, Constance. Scientists must consider the ethics of doing this in the future. I don’t buy “It’s only a pig.” Yes, we eat pig, but… If we are going to eat that pig for dinner, is it OK to take the pig’s heart? Well, I don’t know. It leaves me uneasy about both acts.
It’s causing me to rethink what I’m eating. Uneasy is the right word.
I understand what you were saying. It is a tough call I think.
In thinking this through I learned things I cannot now unlearn which has opened up so much more to questioning. It never gets easier, does it.