|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Neuroscience||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Erroneous 'Citation Needed'
The summary contains a citation request where there shouldn't be one. You wouldn't cite an absence of claims on human head transplant. You'd cite claims that such a thing *has* happened.
Wasn't the USSR the first?
I believe that the USSR was the first to do a head transplant, not China. http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/head-transplant.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
An interesting book on this subject is "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive: Discorporation and U.S. Patent 4,666,425" by Chet Fleming. I haven't read it. (I have only read about it in another book which is not about head transplants.) Maybe someone who knows more about it can comment on it in the article. Two Halves 12 January 2003
Removed 1812 quote
- The first head transplants were conducted in 1812, although there was only a marginal amount of success.
Removed Warning Quote
Warnings about the future are subjective, not objective.
removed from article
In 1998 Charles Krauthammer of Time magazine warned of the potential medical future of head transplanting with cloning:
|“||At the University of Texas and at the University of Bath. During the past four years, one group created headless mice; the other, headless tadpoles. Why then create them?...Take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and you are become a god: with a single cell taken from, say, your finger, you produce a headless replica of yourself, a mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal, precisely tissue-matched organ farm...Congress should ban human cloning now. Totally. And regarding one particular form, it should be draconian: the deliberate creation of headless humans must be made a crime, indeed a capital crime.||”|
- I definitely think that this should be removed, I doubt that outlawing organ cloning is a widely held view point (at least I would hope not). After all the article on cancer research doesn't have a section on "Opposition to curing cancer"; even though I can gaurantee that there are people who believe curing cancer would be a sin.220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Although the inclusion of this quote does not technically lend credence to the viewpoint, it does give airtime to only one side of a controversy. Since this article is not currently sophisticated enough to support a high-quality "Controversy" section, it should either avoid the controversy entirely or else reference its mere existence in one line without going any further. Furthermore, the Krauthammer quote is a particularly poor exemplar of the "against" argument. It does not even attempt moral argumentation, but references only the man's conclusion and call for legislation. I'm all for headless spares, but the "against" argument deserves better than Charles Krauthammer. I propose removing the quote entirely, and will do so in a week or so if no objections are made and discussed here.