This source doesn't do me much good. It includes a lot of medical jargon which I do not understand. I surmise that doctors reattached a severed spinal cord? If this is accurate, it's still the existing spinal cord of one individual that was previously intact. That's not nearly the same as attaching the brain stem and spinal cord of one individual into the body of another individual and having any degree of mobility. Based just on my impression of the feasibility of the procedure, I still have to side with the two other neurosurgeons they quoted in the original article as saying such a transplant is not feasible.
Okay, in my previous post I mentioned about a German farmer who lost his hands. Here's the
video (strictly 18+).
Is he a Frankenstein?
I'm a bit apprehensive clicking on anything that says "strictly 18+". Is this a grisly and/or graphic video?
That was a joke really (Frankenstein style). The video seems to be from the news, there is nothing grisly or gory about it. Go watch without fear.
I didn't make the Frankenstein comment, so I'm not sure that was supposed to be directed at me. I don't think people with transplanted organs or appendages necessarily are. But a head is another thing entirely, because the replacement of appendages isn't the replacement of the self. Identity travels with the head, so attaching a head to another body would qualify as Frankenstein-level, if that is relevant to anything discussed here. And the successful attachment of an appendage, like hands, does not foretell the feasibility of something far more complex, like brain stem and spine. Having useful hands after a hand transplant doesn't translate to having useful motor functions after a head transplant.
Just attaching hands is not enough, but if these "new" hands are controllable (and they are), it is quite another story. And yes, it does foretell that attaching the whole body AND making it controllable is feasible.