본문 바로가기
  • Home

Critical review of the "head transplant" surgery plan

  • Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association
  • 2019, 20(2), pp.45-58
  • DOI : 10.37305/JKBA.2019.12.20.2.45
  • Publisher : The Korean Bioethics Association
  • Research Area : Interdisciplinary Studies > Interdisciplinary Research
  • Received : December 27, 2019
  • Accepted : December 30, 2019
  • Published : December 31, 2019

Kuk jin-ho 1 Ryu, Young-Joon 1

1강원대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study contains a summary and critical analysis of the recent "head transplant" plan known in the media. The plan, dubbed the “Heaven Project,” was announced in 2017 by Dr. Sergio Canavero, an Italian neurosurgeon, a surgical plan to connect the body of a brain death patient to the head of a quadriplegic patient. The word "head transplantation", which frequently appears in the press, is the expression Dr. Canavelo used in his lectures and press interviews. The medical technology process used in the surgical procedure of this plan was named "GEMINI protocol." In a poll of 1,000 Koreans who were commissioned by Gallup Korea, 58% had negative opinions and 15% had positive opinions to “Heaven Project”. However, 41% of the respondents thought it would be technically possible. In this paper, the authors attempted to analyze the exact contents of the plan, to ensure proper naming, to ensure technical safety, to be feasible under current Korean law, and to public opinion on the technology. The term "hair transplant" is not logically consistent in light of the content, but rather the term "body transplant" or "head-to-body joint surgery" is more appropriate. In addition, the “Heaven Project”, which does not provide sufficient technical collateral for neurorecovery such as animal testing and micromanipulation at this stage, it has not the technical sufficient to secure the safety and resilience required when applied to humans. In legal review, it was unlikely to be done in Korea under the current domestic laws, such as the Medical Law and the Bioethics and Safety Act etc. There were many problems in the review of compliance with ethical regulations, and criticism of the humanities occurred because they attempted to justify research that insufficient theoretical background appealed to public sentiment rather than expert opinion. The results of this study will provide neuroethics and humanists who wish to discuss body transplantation with the scientific and medical evidence necessary for an academic approach and provide the knowledge necessary for the humanities review of neuroscience and neurosurgery.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

This paper was written with support from the National Research Foundation of Korea.