What are the disadvantages of using animal organs for human transplants?

Answer 1

Using animals organs for science is cruel, animal organs are different from human organs and the human body could reject it, some religions (eg: Islam) feel that some animals such as pigs are unclean and having a pig organ could go against their beliefs.. Any of that help?

The main issue is that they do not function correctly upon transplantation into humans. This is why the process of xenotransplantation (organs transplanted from animals to humans)is an incredibly rare procedure (especially these days when the risks are well known). The risks of rejection is much higher in xenotransplants, and there is the additional risk of passing on disease from animals to humans. Not to mention the most likely outcome, that the organ does not function correctly. Hence why allotransplants (human to human) are comparatively much safer and are the only type of transplants routinely performed by the medical community.

Answer 2

There are number of organs which can be transplanted from one human to another. You probably know that one person has to be as close as possible in blood type (for instance) to another. Actually blood transfusions are an good example of this. If you are B with Rh factor +, then your donor will also be B+.

Other examples of transplantation are livers, hearts, blood vessels, bone marrow, lungs, pancreas, intestines, tissues. The person must be as close as possible in blood type and tissue type for this to be a success.

Answer 3

None are currently being used. It is currently being researched how to genetically modify pigs to provide organs for human transplants. As far as I'm aware, no transplants have been carried out using those organs. Animals that have not been genetically modified cannot be used for human organ transplants - the organs do not match sufficiently.

Answer 4

Generally they're not used, since animal organs are not similar to human organs, so are not suitable for maintaining function within the human body.

In very rare circumstances they are used to try and bridge a gap until a human organ becomes available. They are never used as a long term solution (because they do not work long term).

Whether they should be used or not is practically irrelevant, since they cannot be used as a long term solution.

Answer 5

This is for research purposes, and is not yet commonplace in hospitals. The main reason for this is due to the shortage of human donors. To combat this, some laboratories try to recreate human organs by genetically modifying animals (pigs, usually), so that some of their organs grow with almost 'human' DNA. Obviously, if you need a transplant, growing the part you need with your own DNA will reduce the need for immunosuppressant drugs post-transplant, which reduces complications dramatically. This method may eventually allow a person to recreate the organ that they need, with their own DNA. Thus the need for human donors will reduce. This technique also lowers the likely-hood of organ rejection.

However actual (non-humanised) animal organs are rarely used for human transplants (they don't work well) and never used without explicit consent of the recipient. (They are only used as an experimental last resort).

Answer 6

I think that most people would consider that question to be ethically along the same lines as "Should animals be used in medical research?".

If anything, it seems ethically more "reasonable" to use their organs in transplants than to eat the animal, since eating the animal only provides fuel for a day or so, whereas an organ could give a human around 15 years of extra life (assuming the animal organs had a similar functioning life as a allograft transplant, which may prove to be a bad assumption). However some people will object to this view on the ground of "it involves genetic engineering" or "it puts the animal through unnecessary pain". Some people may just generally feel uncomfortable at the concept of having an animal organ keep them alive.

There are of course additional risks associated with xenograft transplants, however I suspect that under lab conditions necessary to perform the "humanizing" of animal organs, these risks have been accounted for. (E.g ensuring that animals are not carrying any diseases which could be spread to humans). Indeed, knowing that the animal was completely healthy is actually a huge advantage compared to trying to establish the complete medical (and sexual) history of a cadaverous human donor. The "humanizing" of the organs is designed to negate the additional rejection risks associated with "normal" xenograft transplants (i.e. non-humanized xenograft transplants).

If humanized-xenograft transplants worked as well as (or better) than allograft transplants, fewer people would die whilst waiting for a donor organ. They would also be able to schedule their surgery for a particular day. However, I have always wondered whether hospital transplant units would be able to cope if everyone waiting for a transplant were to receive one. (Even as it is, bed spaces, ITU spaces, surgeons, nurses and blood products seem to be a little stretched.) But I like to think that's just my cynicism, and I hope to be proven wrong.

Answer 7

* Normal lifestyle

* There is a vast shortage of human donors available for transplantation

* * moral, no one has to die for you to live.

Answer 8

No, because most of the time the animal organs will fail and kill the person.

Answer 9

And for it to remain functional? No. Most of our organs are made for humans only :)