The University of Southampton

A Reflection on Human Head Transplants

Following discussion on organ transplants, my reading led me to the debate of head transplantation, which, to those with terminal disease but a healthy head and brain [1], has the potential to extend life. It would be a last-resort treatment for patients whose body is affected but whose mind and head are healthy, hence treating conditions such as quadriplegia, progressive diseases, and inoperable cancers that have not extended to the brain [2]. In 2019, Valery Spiridonov—a man with Werdnig-Hoffmann disease, a muscle-wasting condition—pulled out of what would have been the first attempted human head transplant [3].

The surgery would require an immunologically matched brain-dead donor with a healthy body, onto which the head of the patient can be transplanted. The procedure has been performed on animals without long-term success [4], and in 2017, it was completed on a human cadaver [5]. Gkasdaris et al. discussed human head transplantation and highlighted the surgical issues involved as donor body selection, head and body interventions on the recipient and donor, ischemia time (managing the blood flow between the head and donor body), spinal fusion and spinal cord reattachment, and post-operative issues [1]. Beyond the surgical hurdles, ethical concerns are raised; notably, the EANS ethico-legal committee concluded that it is ethically unacceptable to attempt a head transplant [6]. Literature considers the great risk involved during and after surgery and the reality of living with the body of another person; for example, a 2017 study by Wolpe considers the extent to which our body, alongside the brain, “makes us who we are” [3]. Legality must also be taken into account. Wolpe points out that the surgery involves intentional decapitation, which means that, by definition, the death of a patient would be murder.

The idea of a head transplant is one that we, as the general public, expect to see in science fiction media, and would therefore view as something detached from reality. Frankenstein’s monster is often referenced in this discussion. We would consider the consequences of such a narrative—written to shock and scare us—and conclude that this is not something that should happen in ‘real life’. We have been told by the fiction we grow up around to be wary of the scientific unknown and the ‘mad scientist’ archetype who would attempt something so shocking and seemingly without consideration of ethical questions. It is difficult to suspend these preconceived ideas of what should and should not be done, and dull the instinctive, fearful dismissal of an attempt. Just the phrase ‘head transplant’ elicits shock, even as somebody so used to hearing about extreme surgical procedures. Through reading and consideration, I hope to form my own opinion on the subject, beyond general concern and morbid fascination.

I believe that the surgical challenges are the lesser issue when it comes to the feasibility of head transplants. Surgical technique is rapidly advancing and there will come a point in medical knowledge where every challenge associated with the procedure will be surmountable. My reading found this to be an existing approach in the conversation; Spagnolo et al. says, in a paper about the possibility of head transplants, “Despite the uncertainty regarding the technical feasibility of this procedure, for the sake of argument, we will assume that the procedure is possible and feasible to perform” [7]. Even so, the first attempt will come with great risk; if we reached a point where an attempt could be made, should it?

Whilst no comparison can be made to head transplants, this scenario brings to mind the case of Ladan and Laleh Bijani: conjoined twins who both died during a separation attempt on 8 July 2003, at twenty-nine years old. The surgery, which separated their heads, had been denied in 1996 based on high risk [8], but was accepted by another surgical team in 2003 despite major safety concerns. Varying reports exist on which parties involved agreed that the surgery should go ahead, but both twins made clear their desire for the surgery by explaining that their lives conjoined “were worse than death”. Similarities can be drawn between this case and the scenario of a person who would undergo head transplantation to avoid a fate they regarded to be ‘worse than death’. To form an opinion on the head transplant debate, I considered the question of whether Ladan and Laleh’s separation surgery should have been performed, knowing the outcome of it. Can the blame for their deaths be placed on the surgeons, or the twins? Perhaps societal pressure—and the public spectacle of such a novel surgery, with the relations between Singapore and Iran affected as a consequence [9]—could have contributed to the decision to proceed with the surgery? Hence, was it correct to place such a spotlight on the case, and would the first head transplant be subject to similar public interest that could influence the decisions of the parties involved?

It is my opinion that the correct choice was made in respecting the wishes of the twins. We will once day live in a world where the knowledge will exist to attempt the first human head transplant. There must always be a first, and that first will be performed on a patient who, like Ladan and Laleh, see their current condition as one worth risking death to escape from. Once it can be attempted, then, even with all the concern that remains, I believe that it should. Still, the only conclusion I can confidently draw from this can be summed up by Gkasdris et al.: “The scientific community should not consider [human head transplantation] as a product of imagination anymore” [1].

References:

[1] G. Gkasdaris and T. Birbilis, “First Human Head Transplantation: Surgically Challenging, Ethically Controversial and Historically Tempting – an Experimental Endeavor or a Scientific Landmark?,” Mædica, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 5–11, Mar. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2019.14.1.5.

[2] B. Peters, “What to Expect From a Head Transplant,” Verywell Health, Jun. 08, 2022. https://www.verywellhealth.com/head-transplant-4801452

[3] Spinalcord. com Team, “Warning Signs of a Serious Spinal Contusion,” Spinalcord.com, Dec. 03, 2020. https://www.spinalcord.com/blog/russian-man-volunteers-to-be-the-first-full-head-transplant (accessed Mar. 06, 2025).

[4] P. R. Wolpe, “Ahead of Our Time: Why Head Transplantation Is Ethically Unsupportable,” AJOB Neuroscience, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 206–210, Oct. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2017.1392386.

[5] X. Ren et al., “First cephalosomatic anastomosis in a human model,” Surgical Neurology International, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 276, 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/sni.sni_415_17.

[6] J. Brennum, “The EANS Ethico-legal Committee finds the proposed head transplant project unethical,” Acta Neurochirurgica, vol. 158, no. 12, pp. 2251–2252, Oct. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2986-y.

[7] A. Cartolovni and A. Spagnolo, “Ethical considerations regarding head transplantation,” Surgical Neurology International, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 103, 2015, doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.158785.

[8] N. Ahmad and L. Board, “World’s first separation of adult Siamese twins in Singapore,” Nlb.gov.sg, 2023. https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/article-detail?cmsuuid=8909f20d-50e5-43f3-86ee-0fe93f58e0a1 (accessed Oct. 08, 2024).

[9] Wikipedia Contributors, “Ladan and Laleh Bijani,” Wikipedia, Jan. 12, 2025.

Poo in a bag?!

When we talk about prostheses, most of us think of prosthetic legs and arms like those we see used by Paralympic athletes. I was interested to learn from Prof Alex Dickinson’s lecture that the definition of a prosthesis is much broader, encompassing any artificial replacement body part.

Anatomy of an end colostomy, where the end of the colon, as well as the rectum and anus, have been removed.1

Stomas and ostomy bags technically come under this definition, but see far less media attention. A stoma is a hole made in the abdomen during surgery, through which to divert faeces (or urine, but I’m not going to cover that here). The surgery is called a colostomy or ileostomy, depending on whether it is part of the large or small intestine that is diverted through the stoma, and the piece of bowel empties into an ostomy bag, which is affixed to the outside of the body.

A stoma may be temporary or permanent, depending on the type of surgery and the reason it is needed. According to the NHS2, a person may need to have part of their bowel removed due to a tumour, infection or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) such as Crohn’s disease or Ulcerative Colitis. Temporary stomas may be needed to give the bowel the opportunity to rest after surgery, or if there has been an injury to the bowel, and may be reversed later. These interventions can be life-changing for the people undergoing them, who are often living with severe pain, digestive issues and sometimes incontinence prior to surgery. Sometimes stoma surgery is the only option to save a person’s life.

When K, a close friend of mine, first told me about her stoma I had never even heard of the word. I don’t think I was alone in my ignorance. According to Colostomy UK3, one in 335 people in the UK live with a stoma, so why are they so rarely talked about?

Social stigma around our bodily functions (especially the smelly ones!) means that this area of medicine is shrouded in mystery for most ordinary people. Nobody wants to talk about their poo, and discussions of bowel disease are a step too far for many a mild-mannered Brit. I am absolutely in support of keeping bodily fluid talk to a minimum at the dinner table, but what about in wider discussion? These things need to be talked about.

According to Crohn’s & Colitis UK4, people living with IBD can often experience feelings of shame and isolation as a result of their disease. Stomas are widely misunderstood; K tells me that hers has enabled her to regain the freedom to live a normal life, but she still faces social stigma, even from the nurses that she works with. It can be hard dealing with people’s misconceptions at the same time as trying to navigate life with a chronic illness.

Negative conversation about bowel disease and stomas, a reality for so many people, can have a real detrimental effect on their self-esteem. It can also be a barrier to meeting needs in the workplace, such as access to a disabled toilet, or accommodations for symptoms.

A more open discussion is needed around bowel disease, stomas and invisible illnesses, so that people like K can have the confidence and resources to access the support they need to live a healthy and fulfilling life. Crohn’s & Colitis UK’s Are You IN? 5 campaign aims to start the conversation by educating employers and employees about invisible illnesses such as IBD. Everyone can play their part by being mindful about how we talk about these conditions, recognising that what might seem strange to us is another person’s reality.

K consented to the information shared here, and her initial has been changed to protect her privacy.

Sources

  1. MacMillan Cancer Support (2025). What is a stoma? (accessed 04/03/25). Available at https://www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/bowel-cancer/what-is-a-stoma ↩︎
  2. NHS (2024). Health A-Z, Colostomy (accessed 04/03/25). Available at https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/colostomy/ ↩︎
  3. Colostomy UK (2025). What is a stoma? (accessed 04/03/25). Available at https://www.colostomyuk.org/information/what-is-a-stoma/ ↩︎
  4. Crohn’s & Colitis UK (2025). Mental health and wellbeing (accessed 04/03/25). Available at https://crohnsandcolitis.org.uk/info-support/information-about-crohns-and-colitis/all-information-about-crohns-and-colitis/living-with-crohns-or-colitis/mental-health-and-wellbeing ↩︎
  5. Crohn’s & Colitis UK (2025). Are you IN? (accessed 04/03/25). Available at https://crohnsandcolitis.org.uk/our-work/campaigns/are-you-in?_gl=1*1w75irk*_up*MQ..*_ga*Njg1NjMyNDE0LjE3NDA4NDM1NzU.*_ga_5THF1XE73Q*MTc0MDg0MzU3NC4xLjEuMTc0MDg0Mzc2My4wLjAuMA.. ↩︎

Embryonic Stem Cells: Medical Breakthroughs vs. Moral Boundaries

Stem cells have the unique ability to change into other types of cells, offering exciting possibilities for future medical treatments. The most versatile type are embryonic stem cells (ESCs), which can self-renew and are pluripotent meaning they can change into any cell type. These cells are collected from 3–5-day-old embryo called a blastocyst.

Image: A basic diagram of embryonic stem cells https://www.eurogct.org/embryonic-stem-cells-where-do-they-come-and-what-can-they-do-0

In many diseases damaged cells cannot replace themselves. For example, after a heart attack, the body cannot replace lost heart tissue. Therefore, there’s a wide range of potential uses including treatment of Alzheimer’s, blindness, deafness, lung disease and autoimmune diseases. A key example from Shufaro and Reubinoffs paper in 2004 is in the treatment of neurological diseases like Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, which may one day be cured by stem cells.

Stem cell treatments are not only a futuristic idea. In his book, Embryonic stem cells and the law: crafting a humane system of regulation, Joshua Weiser shares his experience with a reoccurring tumour in his leg. The removal left him with scar tissue causing him a lot of pain. Stem cells were injected to allow new tissue to grow, which was lifechanging for Joshua, relieving him of his pain.

The prominent ethical issue of ESCs centres on when life begins, at conception, or later in development. The Catholic Church for example opposes research involving human embryonic stem cells. In a conference for the Centre for Stem cells and Regenerative Medicine, the Catholic Bishops stated that “we must protect life at all times”.  

A news article example of an ESC protest https://www.nature.com/articles/21946.pdf

This statement from an interview with the president of the Harvard stem cell institute demonstrates the opposing view: “It is important to be clear about the embryo from which stem cells are extracted. It is not implanted and growing in a woman’s uterus. It is not a foetus. It has no recognizable human features or form. It is, rather, a blastocyst, a cluster of 180 to 200 cells, growing in a petri dish, barely visible to the naked eye.”. I believe the reason this debate is so divided is because once someone’s opinion has formed it cannot be changed and often no amount of evidence will alter this.

As opinions of ESCs are so varied, the laws can be very different worldwide. The UK has one of the most permissive set of laws with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (legislation.gov.uk, 2008), which allows research on fertility, contraception, gene and chromosomal abnormalities, and potential disease cures. On the other hand, some countries do not allow ESC research, for example Italy, which prohibited ESCs in 2009.  A famous advocate for stem cell research was the Superman actor Christopher Reeve, who became quadriplegic after a horse-riding accident in 1995. The US was considering banning ESCs at the time and his inspiring work helped prevent this.

To avoid ethical concerns, adult stem cells can be used, but these cells are limited as they cannot produce all cell types. In 2007 induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) were first discovered by Dr Shinya Yamanaka. This video shows how these cells are made and some of the ways they are used:

 I believe whenever possible, alternatives should be prioritised. However, in cases where there are no other options, I personally believe ESCs should be used and are justified, as the potential scientific breakthroughs could save lives. That said, it is important to consider the differing beliefs and therefore ensure informed consent is gained from anyone donating embryos.

legislation.gov.uk (2008). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. [online] Legislation.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/contents.

Shufaro, Y. and Reubinoff, B.E. (2004). Therapeutic applications of embryonic stem cells. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 18(6), pp.909–927. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2004.07.002.