SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On December 9 2008, 45-year-old Connie Culp became the first person in the United States, and only the fourth in the world, to receive a face transplant. Connie's transplant took a team at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio more than 22 hours to perform and allowed her to eat solid food again, to smell, and to breathe independently. Four years earlier, Connie had been shot in the face by her husband, who was subsequently imprisoned for seven years for aggravated attempted murder. Sadly, Connie died on July 29 2020, of an as yet unspecified infection.
[...] Understanding the psychological effects of living with visible facial difference, as well as a new face, is very important. Every surgical solution has emotional consequences, which are less documented than physical results. This reflects the context in which face transplants take place. Scientific medicine tends to focus on physical rather than mental measurements, and on the immediate "before and after" rather than the prolonged, complex work of psychological healing.
Surgical teams around the world are beginning to assess the quality of life outcomes of face transplants, but progress is slow. International comparisons are difficult to make, even in physical terms. Nine face transplant patients have died, and two faces have been rejected, but there are few examples of long term, holistic follow-up. Given Connie's work in raising public awareness of the impact of living with facial difference, there will be no more appropriate legacy than a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of face transplants.
The psychological wounds of the procedure may be harder to heal than the physical ones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday August 19 2020, @05:46PM (6 children)
The seven year sentence is shocking. She was going to suffer for the rest of her life with what he had done. The face transplant was to enable the most basic things like eating solid food, smelling and breathing. So she not only suffered for years, but had a premature death.
The seven year sentence is shocking.
I won't even bring up the whole thing about crazy people being able to have firearms because there are too many who oppose any attempt to fix that.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @06:31PM
The husband also shot himself in the face and didnt die either. It was a failed murder-suicide.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @07:54PM (4 children)
How are you going to find out who are crazy enough to do something like that? There will always be crazy enough people to do all kinds of stuff. If he hadn't had a gun, he would've used a knife, or a shovel or a car or a 2 by 4. There's a crazy person as a president of US, Russia, North Korea etc. etc. How is it that you can't get rid of those people who can kill thousands and have and will? And not just kill, make life hell, which is even worse. There will never be 0 gun deaths, 0 car deaths, 0 knife deaths, 0 bicycle deaths, 0 heart attack deaths and so on and so on. Too tight rules and bans are rarely a solution. Think of all the other stuff that's done to people that are worse than death.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @09:01PM (2 children)
Then why ban missile launchers? I don't get it.
Your immovable line in the sand includes guns but not missile launchers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2020, @10:41PM
Ban on missile launchers?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2020, @03:19PM
There was no immovable line, read it again.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:02PM
It maybe impossible to find EVERYONE who is crazy/dangerous and prevent them from having dangerous weapons.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find those who are easily identifiable.
We also can't prevent all pollution. Or all medical problems. Or all Facebook posts. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to solve these problems.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.