Penis transplant

[Awning10]

www.medpagetoday.com/surgery/transplantation/89033

Transplants unusually have a list dont they?

If this ends up as restricted as other organs how would they determine who gets priority?

They wouldn't have the nerves or anything would they? Would it do anything

There's so much money to be made from mutilation. No wonder gender ideology is pushed so hard.

$300-$400k plus a lifetime of immunosuppression, with the consequent increase in infection and disease and reduction of life expectancy. For a very uncertain outcome - e.g. no idea if an erection will be possible. This is medical hubris, and it's very difficult to believe it's in the patients best interest.

They go into a fair amount of detail if you read the link.

They wouldn't have the nerves or anything would they?

They take out the main nerve(s) to the clitoris and reattach the nerve ending to the skin tube (or in this case, the dead person's penis) so theoretically sexual feeling is acheived when the skin tube is touched, but in reality I understand phaloplasty leads to a loss of sexual feeling.

With an actual penis, they'd attach the clitoris nerve from the patient to the penis nerve which i suppose will branch out across the organ.

Current phalloplasty complication rates are 80 to 90% according to that article. I feel awful for the people having it done, completely unnecessary treatment.

Wow, I didn't not know they could transplant a penis. That's amazing although a bit frankenstein and I'm not sure how I would feel about one being used on me.

But as the other poster said. There will be a limit to how many penis are available. Do male cancer patients or injured males take priority over transmen?

I would think a biological man should have priority because it's about restoring what was/should be there. But a trans person would argue that for them a penis should be there. But it's not the same in my eyes.

I'm confused by the testicle thing. So if you transplant testicles onto a new man, the testicles keep producing sperm with the dna of the donor not the recipient. How does that work.

I think because the donor is dead, and there is no potential fertility, it doesn't raise the same ethical issues as with womb transplants. But I think due to lifelong immune suppresent drugs and decisions about priority of recipients, it's a shaky path to go down.

There's so much money to be made from mutilation. No wonder gender ideology is pushed so hard

There's already a dr in the states with multiple pending law suits for botched phalloplastys. Research and developed of female specific surgeries and treatments hasnt always been treated with the care thought and regard fir the consequences as it should have so this is a huge worry...

Marci Bowers, of Jazz Jennings botched surgery fame?

Yea, I don't think this would work like internal organ transplants do...

The final paragraph:

"Ultimately, bioethicist Kimberly said, institutions may not be able to justify only performing penis transplants in cisgender patients – those born as biological males. "If an institution has determined that it considers the risk/benefit ratio acceptable for penile transplantation in cisgender men, and if the risks to transgender men would not be substantially higher," she said, "it would be hard-pressed to deny access to penile transplantation to transgender men solely on the basis of their gender identity while making it available to cisgender men."

Science is amazing. But it can't change your sex:

'limitations include the fact that transgender men who receive penis transplants will not be able to ejaculate since they lack a male reproductive system.'

These risky, complex and incredibly expensive operations don't seem a good function of medicine, even if they are technically possible. The list of potential complications and ethical considerations must be a very long one.

it would be hard-pressed to deny access to penile transplantation to transgender men solely on the basis of their gender identity while making it available to cisgender men

I wonder if they will properly look outside of risked and benefits. I mean grs is sold as the final step. But I certainly noticed with jj abd others on twitter that its not the final step. They throw themselves into other peoples transitions. Fundraising/sharing crowd funders etc

I think some of these surgeons are thinking very little about the patient - it is all about what is technically possible and having their name at the forefront of surgical developments.

‘ They take out the main nerve(s) to the clitoris and reattach the nerve ending to the skin tube (or in this case, the dead person's penis) so theoretically sexual feeling is acheived when the skin tube is touched, but in reality I understand phaloplasty leads to a loss of sexual feeling.’

As someone who’s had a couple of severed nerves from surgery, this is just fantastical thinking.

Expanding on what the poster above has just said, if doctors can simply attach one nerve to another and make them work, surely they could do so much more than just penis transplants? I know people who have nerve damage, in one particular case very substantial damage, who would be thrilled to have a doctor reattach their nerves so they worked.

Aesthetics are an interesting factor - I think most of us know that penises come in a range of sizes and appearance and presumably the recipient would want something at least comparable to what they previously had, or maybe they might want an upgrade? Whereas for a kidney or heart transplant all that is needed is a functioning organ of the same tissue type. Does the penis need to be tissue typed as well? I suppose it must.

As someone who’s had a couple of severed nerves from surgery, this is just fantastical thinking.

I have a small area on my thumb where I nearly sliced a section off whilst cooking, and a flap was hanging off. I didn't attend A&E, just bandaged it in place and it healed fine. But it has been forever numb.
I have no idea how effective nerve reattachment is.

I also think this will encourage demands for uterine transplants.

Yes. If and when they get to the point of being able to reconnect nerves, a lot of people will be queuing up in joy.

I feel awful for the people having it done, completely unnecessary treatment.

Well, context is king. For the soldier who'd lost his penis along with part of his abdomen the ability to pee alone might be worth the risk and complications.

As an elective surgery to treat body dismorphia it's fucking monsterous.

@Gncq this!

I have always thought that behind the scene pushing this agenda is the medical community or at least the ones that stand to make loads of money....is that too cynical of me. Although looking at twitter, clearly we are, as people/society really fucked up at the moment and all going a little nuts.......

If money is the main factor, the 'who pays' then becomes a question. In the US, companies pay the insurance for their employees and the costs are exorbitant, not just healthcare, but claims. There will be a point when costs become too high. It will be interesting to watch developments. The surgical fraternity are at the stage where 'we can do it' outruns success ratees (as happens with botched phalloplastys) then who decides.

One of the factors NICE was set up, to take the pressure off governments when making difficult decisions

it would be hard-pressed to deny access to penile transplantation to transgender men solely on the basis of their gender identity while making it available to cisgender men.

Errr wouldn't a simple application of ethics stop this in its tracks? I will be so bold as to say those pushing for this haven't got a background in medical ethics.

We know men can't have blood transfusions from women who have been pregnant, we know there are difference between the sexes. We know it takes more than a uterus transplant to grow a baby....

What do they even want to do with these penises, would it get erect?

This is God complex stuff. Phalloplasty with a patients own tissue can go very very badly for them, this is frankenscience.

@Vermeil

‘ They take out the main nerve(s) to the clitoris and reattach the nerve ending to the skin tube (or in this case, the dead person's penis) so theoretically sexual feeling is acheived when the skin tube is touched, but in reality I understand phaloplasty leads to a loss of sexual feeling.’

As someone who’s had a couple of severed nerves from surgery, this is just fantastical thinking.

Yes, any woman who's had a c-section knows all about that "numb letterbox" lack of sensation round the scar.

As anyone who frequents the litterbox may have noticed, DuneCat had to be PTS recently due to advanced cancer. I had many discussions with the vet about the varieties of treatment on offer (steroids, steroids plus palliative chemo, more agressive chemo aimed at shrinking the tumour which would require inpatient treatment and transfusions which my cat would not have tolerated well).

At the back of my mind as the vet described some of the more invasive, intensive therapies, was a little voice saying "just because you can doesn't mean you should."

I feel like my vet and I put more intensive ethical discussion into the treatment of a cat than some of these surgeons do into treatment of actual people.

@Alabamawhirly1

Wow, I didn't not know they could transplant a penis. That's amazing although a bit frankenstein and I'm not sure how I would feel about one being used on me.

But as the other poster said. There will be a limit to how many penis are available. Do male cancer patients or injured males take priority over transmen?

I would think a biological man should have priority because it's about restoring what was/should be there. But a trans person would argue that for them a penis should be there. But it's not the same in my eyes.

I'm confused by the testicle thing. So if you transplant testicles onto a new man, the testicles keep producing sperm with the dna of the donor not the recipient. How does that work.

I think because the donor is dead, and there is no potential fertility, it doesn't raise the same ethical issues as with womb transplants. But I think due to lifelong immune suppresent drugs and decisions about priority of recipients, it's a shaky path to go down.

I don't see that transplanting testicles would ever be a thing because it would raise such huge issues. Why would a wife or parents agree to their loved one's sperm being used to create a child they would never see? I can't see this being a thing at all.

I'll repeat what I tend to post when these outlandish medical treatments are suggested. This is not so much about operations happening as to get the concept of such operations into the public domain as something that is achieveable and real but just waiting for a few technical details to be resolved. It's to lull people into the belief that bodies are effectively neuter made up from a kit of interchangeable parts.

Thus we are to accept that there's no real difference between male and female bodies while the basis for this is insane science fiction medical procedures which do not exist.