New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Facing a Transplant

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As soon as surgeons in France had performed the first partial face transplant (below) late in November, psychologists began to question whether the patient was mentally stable enough to handle the stressful, high-risk procedure. The unidentified woman's face had been mauled by her dog, and doctors had said the damage was too severe for reconstructive surgery. Evidence suggested the woman was suicidal or at a minimum traumatized, but surgeon Jean-Michel Dubernard of Edouard Herriot Hospital in Lyon told the media that the woman had undergone thorough psychological testing that showed she was ready for the transplant's challenges.

Since then, experts have begun to discuss how any analyst could fully know if an individual were “ready” for such a novel procedure. Some psychological readiness criteria exist for patients who seek elective plastic surgery, but there is little literature about the mental attributes that make someone a good candidate for reconstructive surgery, much less a highly visible transplant.

Critics of the French operation say that in addition to needing the mettle to follow postsurgical procedures and stick with anti-tissue-rejection medication and side effects, the woman will have to withstand intense public scrutiny, and they wonder if she is up to it. But Elaine Walker, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Emory University, notes that from the patient's perspective, “the stresses may not trump the stress of living with the original disfigurement.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Walker points out that the patient essentially had to choose between three psychologically challenging options: live with a terrible disfigurement that would very likely instill in her significant social anxiety, attempt a protracted series of reconstructive surgeries that doctors said might not succeed, or undergo the risky face transplant. “None of the alternatives would be free of psychological stress,” she observes.

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti
SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Facing a Transplant” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 1 (), p. 11
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0206-11b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe