Advertisement

Self-formation and Ethical Being

  • Samuel Taylor-Alexander

Abstract

Analysing published interviews with face transplant patients and their families, I examine the profound shifts in individual identity and social relationships that result from the operations performance. In doing so, I demonstrate that face transplant surgery is transformative in a way that otherwise escapes the attention of regulatory bodies. Their primary concern has largely been with issues of psychological rejection on the part of the recipient, and how to retain the anatomical integrity of the brain dead donor’s body considering the overt damage caused by removing facial tissue. Little has been said about the psychosocial consequences, good or bad, of seeing the face of your mother, father, child or sibling on another person. I raise the question of whether established modes of evaluating clinical medicine are able to capture the newfound complexity that the operation introduces into the lives of patients, their families, and the relatives of the deceased donors. Drawing on social science notions of ethics and patient knowledge, I sketch a blueprint for incorporating patient experience and decision-making into existing modes of post-transplant assessment.

Keywords

Brain Death Patient Knowledge Facial Tissue Anatomical Integrity Blind Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death (1968). ‘A Definition of Irreversible Coma’. JAMA, 205(6), 85–88.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giacomini, M. (1997). A Change of Health and a Change of Mind? Technology and the Redefinition of Death in 1968: Social Science and Medicine, 44(10), 1465–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Morris P., A. Bradley, L. Doyal, M. Earley, P. Hagen, M. Milling, & N. Rumsey (2007). ‘Face Transplantation: A Review of the Technical, Immunological, Psychological and Clinical Issues with Recommendations for Good Practice’. Transplantation, 83(2), 109–129, p. 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    Peralta, E. (2013). ‘Falling in Love Again: Face-Transplant Donor’s Daughter Meets Recipient’. http://wwwnpr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/03/180892483/falling-in-love-again-face-transplant-donors-daughter-meets-recipient (Accessed 17.09.13), emphasis added.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Sharp, L. (2006). Strange Harvest: Organ Transplants, Denatured Bodies, and the Transformed Self. Berkeley: University Of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Tarleton, C. (2013). Overcome: Burned, Blinded and Blessed. High Land Park, IL: Round Table Press, p. 262.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Allan, P. (2007). ‘Isabelle Dinoire “May Never Kiss Again”’. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564787/isabelle-dinoire-may-never-kiss-again.html (Accessed 19.09.13).Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    For example, Latour, B. (1992). ‘Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts’ In W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society, pp. 225–258. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Carty, M., E. Bueno, L. Lehmann, & B. Pomahač (2012). ‘A Position Paper in Support of Face Transplantation in the Blind.’ Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 130(2), 319–324, p. 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 12.
    Edwards, J. & D. Mathews (2011). ‘Facial Transplantation: A Review of Ethics, Progress, and Future Targets.’ Transplant Research and Risk Management, 3, 113–125, p. 121.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Coffman, K., C. Gordon, & M. Siemionow (2010). ‘Psychological Outcomes with Face Transplantation: Overview and Case Report.’ Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 15(2), 236–240, p. 258.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Rajan, K. (2005). Biocapital: The Constitution of Post-Genomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Edwards, J. & D. Mathews (2011). ‘Facial Transplantation: A Review of Ethics, Progress, and Future Targets’, p. 121.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    Carty, M., E. Bueno, L. Lehmann, & B. Pomahač (2012). ‘A Position Paper in Support of Face Transplantation in the Blind’.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Jackson, M. (2013). Wherewithal of Life: Ethics, Migration, and the Question of Well-Being. Berkeley: University Of California Press, p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 20.
    Lambek, M. (2010). Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action. New York: Fordham University Press, p. 62.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    Siemionow, M. (2009). Face to Face: My Quest to Perform the First Full Face Transplant. New York: Kaplan Publishing, p. 26.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    Siemionow, M. & E. Sonmez (2011). ‘Face as an Organ: The Functional Anatomy of the Face.’ In M. Siemionow (ed.) The Know-How of Face Transplantation, pp. 3–10. London: Springer, p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 24.
    Jiemionow, M., B. Gharb, & A. Rampazzo (2011). ‘The Face as a Sensory Organ.’ In M. Siemionow (ed.) The Know-How of Face Transplantation, pp. 11–23. London: Springer, p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 26.
    Cited in Lafrance, M. (2010). ‘“She Exists within Me”: Subjectivity, Embodiment, and the World’s First Face Transplant.’ in T. Rudge and D. Holmes (eds) Abjectly Boundless: Boundaries, Bodies and Health Work, pp. 147–162. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. 27.
    Kleinman, A. (1995). Writing at the Margin: Discourse between Anthropology and Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Jasanoff, S. (2006). Designs On Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 31.
    Helgason, A. & G. Palsson (1997). ‘Contested Commodities: The Moral Landscape of Modernist Regimes.’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3(3), 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 32.
    Fortun, K. & M. Fortun (2005). ‘Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary US Toxicology.’ American Anthropologist, 107(1), 43–54, p. 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 33.
    Mashke, K. & T. Murray (2007). ‘Doctors Report on First Partial Human Face Transplant’ Bioethics Responder. www.thehastingscenter.org/news/detail.aspx?id=1650 (Accessed 12.03.2013).Google Scholar
  26. 34.
    For example, Rosenberg, C. (1999). ‘Meanings, Policies, and Medicine: On the Bioethical Enterprise and History’ Daedalus, 128(4), 27–46;Google Scholar
  27. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2005). ‘The Last Commodity: Post-Human Ethics and the Global Traffic in “Fresh” Organs.’ In A. Ong and S. Collier (eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Chicago: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 145–167;Google Scholar
  28. Petryna, A. (2009). When Experiments Travel: Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 35.
    Callon, M. & V. Rabeharisoa (2003). ‘Research “In the Wild” And the Shaping of New Social Identities’ Technology in Society, 25(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 36.
    Pols, J. (2013). ‘Knowing Patients: Turning Patient Knowledge into Science.’ Science, Technology & Human Values, 39(1), 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 37.
    Fortun, K. & M. Fortun (2005). ‘Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary Us Toxicology.’Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Samuel Taylor-Alexander 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Taylor-Alexander
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations