Head or Body Transplant?

August 20, 2024

Author: Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero

Versión en español

Introduction

The advancement of biomedical technologies has made it possible to conceive procedures that challenge our most fundamental notions about human identity and nature¹. Among these, the possible head transplant using robots and artificial intelligence is presented as an extreme frontier of modern medicine, generating profound ethical dilemmas that not only question the continuity of personal identity, but also force us to reconsider essential principles such as human dignity, justice, and respect for life². This article reviews the ethical, bioethical, and biolegal implications of this radical intervention, and how it could transform our understanding of what it means to be human in an increasingly technological world.

Ethical challenges of identity and personal responsibility

The possibility of performing a head transplant, which should actually be called a body transplant, with the use of robots and artificial intelligence opens up a range of ethical dilemmas that demand deep reflection. This type of medical intervention goes beyond being a simple technological advance; it represents a challenge to fundamental concepts such as personal identity, the connection between body and mind, and essential ethical principles such as human dignity, respect for physical life, solidarity, subsidiarity and justice³. Let's think of someone who wakes up in a body that is not his own; The question inevitably arises: will he remain the same person? A procedure of this nature could cause a profound disconnect between body and mind, seriously affecting the continuity of an individual's identity and questioning our understanding of what human dignity means.

In her essay "After the Head," Daniella Blejer⁴ questions the symbolic hegemony of the head in Western culture, highlighting how this part of the body has been interpreted as the center of identity, power, and social organization. This analysis deeply resonates with the ethical, bioethical, and biolegal dilemmas that arise when considering the possibility of a head transplant. Such an intervention not only challenges our traditional understanding of personal identity—where the head, and more specifically the brain, is seen as the seat of consciousness—but also raises fundamental questions about the continuity of the person and the inherent rights of the human being. If, as Blejer suggests, the centrality of the head is a cultural and symbolic construct, a head transplant could be interpreted not only as a radical medical intervention, but as an act that profoundly deconstructs the notion of what it means to be human. From this perspective, head transplantation requires a critical re-evaluation of the legal and ethical structures that currently define the person and identity in law and bioethics.

This type of intervention raises questions that go far beyond medical technique, delving into the deeper aspects of our understanding of identity and personal responsibility. Advances in neuroscience have led to reconsideration of concepts in fields such as criminal law, where the notion of guilt is revised in light of new discoveries about the human brain. Similarly, a head transplant challenges traditional conceptions about who is responsible for actions and decisions when a person's mind is in a different body⁵. The integration of a head into a new body could not only alter the continuity of personal identity, but also generate uncertainty about the responsibility for the decisions made by that "new" being. This scenario forces us to reassess whether our current legal and ethical definitions are still applicable in a world where technology pushes the boundaries of identity and personal autonomy, fundamental principles in any society that values justice and dignity.

The article Cyborg Ethics and Regulation: Ethical Issues of Human Enhancement by Liza Ireni-Saban and Maya Sherman explores how current technological advances, such as the emergence of cyborgs, challenge the foundations of human identity. This analysis is especially relevant to the ethical dilemmas posed by a head transplant, since the fusion of technology and the human body could blur the boundary between the human and the artificial. As these technological components are integrated into the body, it becomes necessary to reconsider ethical and regulatory standards, an indispensable approach when evaluating the implications of a procedure as radical as a head transplant⁶.

The possibility of keeping a head alive in a different body, especially without motor control, raises serious questions about the quality of life that would be offered to patients, and makes informed consent a significant challenge. It is questionable whether a person can fully understand the risks and implications of such a radical and unprecedented procedure. In addition, ethical and practical concerns arise about how a healthy body would be obtained for transplantation, when the head that will no longer be used would be separated, and how the appropriate body would be selected. These issues not only compromise fundamental principles such as subsidiarity and solidarity, but also profoundly challenge our values on respect for life and human dignity.

Psychological and social implications of head transplantation

The psychological consequences of a head transplant are deeply concerning, as awakening in a different body could lead to identity disorders and dissociation, exposing patients to unprecedented mental challenges⁷. Innovators such as Hashem Al-Ghaili, creator of the BrainBridge concept, have a moral responsibility to ensure that these advances are not only technically feasible, but also ethical and humane. It is crucial that the pursuit of treating neurodegenerative diseases does not overshadow the need for an ethical approach that respects human dignity and social justice.

Another critical aspect is justice and equity in access to this technology, which would likely be expensive and accessible only to a privileged elite, exacerbating inequalities in health care. In addition, this type of intervention raises dilemmas about life, death, and the essence of humanity, questioning whether it is ethical to preserve a mind in a new body or even in machines⁸. These dilemmas, similar to those of the selection of desirable human characteristics, such as aggressiveness or cooperation, reflect the need to establish ethical barriers to avoid a radical alteration of human nature and to prevent possible social and cultural consequences, such as isolation or the creation of new norms.

Impact of technology on evolution and human nature

The impact of technology on human evolution poses profound ethical and philosophical challenges, especially in the context of a head transplant. This technological capacity could lead us to redefine what it means to be human, blurring the line between humans and machines, and generating new categories of existence that question our current notions of life, consciousness, and identity. The intervention of artificial intelligence, or more precisely, complex algorithms, in these processes also threatens social justice and human dignity, by generating scenarios in which personal identity could be fragmented between the donor's body and the recipient's mind⁹.

Moreover, the long-term implications for humanity are immense. A head transplant not only challenges our philosophical conceptions of identity, but also carries enormous psychological repercussions for the recipient, who could face serious identity disorders upon awakening in a foreign body. This type of intervention requires in-depth reflection not only on the technical and medical aspects, but also on the consequences for the human psyche and how these affect the dignity and integral well-being of the person.

Although head transplantation remains a theoretical possibility and its feasibility is still in question, the accelerated evolution of biomedical technologies has repeatedly shown us that reality can surpass fiction. This makes it imperative to reflect on the ethical, bioethical, biolegal and social implications before this procedure becomes a fact. Anticipating these debates is essential, as the decisions we make today will influence how we understand identity, dignity and respect for life in the future.

Conclusions

The possibility of a head transplant using robots and artificial intelligence forces us to reconsider traditional notions of human identity. This procedure could fracture the continuity between body and mind, raising new questions about what defines an individual and how their personal essence is preserved in a context of such radical changes.

The implementation of head transplants not only poses technical challenges, but also carries significant ethical and societal implications. Justice and equity in access to this technology, as well as the possible psychological consequences for patients, are issues that require exhaustive analysis and careful regulation to ensure respect for human dignity.

In a world where technology is advancing rapidly, it is important that we reflect deeply on the bioethical dilemmas that arise. Procedures such as head transplants confront us with the need to redefine our conceptions of life, death, and identity, and demand a renewed commitment to the principles of justice, solidarity, and respect for human life in all its dimensions.

Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero is a lawyer, master and doctor in Bioethics from the Universidad Anáhuac, Mexico. He was director of Human Capital, director and general coordinator in the Faculty of Bioethics. He currently works as a researcher in the Academic Directorate of Integral Training of the same University. He is a member of the Mexican National Academy of Bioethics and the Latin American and Caribbean Federation of Bioethics Institutions. This article was assisted in its writing by the use of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool developed by OpenAI. 

The opinions shared in this blog are the full responsibility of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent a unanimous opinion of the seminars, nor do they reflect an official position on the part of CADEBI. We value and encourage any comments, responses, or constructive criticism you wish to share.