ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Baby Fae: Can Animal Organs be Used in Humans?

Updated on June 15, 2018
Schatzie Speaks profile image

Schatzie has bachelor's degrees in animal science and English. She has a master's in education and is a certified teacher.



Baby Fae should not have been given the heart of a baboon. Lucy Shelton of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals accused doctors who transplanted the heart of a primate into the dying newborn of “medical sensationalism at the expense of Baby Fae, her family and the baboon” (1). A Minnesota surgeon John Najarian explained that “there has never been a successful cross-species transplant” and therefore “to try it now is merely to prolong the dying process” (1).

However, some people were in favor of the procedure. Dr. John Collins was one of them. He countered dissent with the following opinion: “If we all were afraid to attempt the untried, we would have no new treatments” (1). Unfortunately, his argument ignores the fact that this experiment constituted medical malpractice for several reasons: the surgeon was unqualified for the operation, other options were not properly investigated, Fae's parents may not have been correctly informed, and there was absolutely no reason to believe it would succeed and every reason to believe it would prove fatal. Therefore there are many more reasons beyond simply being “afraid to attempt the untried” why the surgery should never have taken place.

Dr. Leonard Bailey was the cardiac surgeon responsible for the 1984 Loma Linda Hospital based transplant of a baboon heart into Fae, a human newborn. While he had previously treated infants with hypoplastic left-heart syndrome, a fatal condition that Baby Fae was born with, he had limited experience with human heart transplants (2). In fact, Loma Linda did not even have a human-heart-transplant program (1).

Dr. Bailey had performed over 150 transplants in sheep, goats, and baboons, some of which were interspecies surgeries, but any successes in that area should not be seen as applicable to transplants in humans, another species entirely. Because Dr. Bailey had minimal expertise in human heart transplantation in general, and had never attempted the even more complicated transplantation of placing an animal heart into a human, he was not the ideal candidate to complete Fae’s surgery.

Furthermore, to add to the odds of success, baboons were known not to be ideal donors for humans. Dr. Bailey himself found evidence that chimpanzee, orangutan or gorilla organs would likely give better results, but did not use them. He explained that each was “either an endangered species or [didn’t] procreate well in captivity” (1). Therefore Dr. Bailey went into surgery without appropriate transplanting experience and also with the knowledge that the heart he was transplanting was an inferior type. Although he gave reasons why other animals organs could not be used, he did not convincingly explain why other medical procedures were not pursued, especially when the odds were so highly stacked against his success.


For example, Dr. William Norwood, a chief of cardiac surgery in Philadelphia, had developed a procedure in which babies with heart defects like Fae’s could be treated without requiring an additional organ (1). The Norwood method surgically rerouted blood into the functional half of the heart instead of the underdeveloped half. 40 out of 100 patients had survived the treatment by the time of Fae’s surgery. While these are not fantastic odds, any cardiac surgeon would know that they were still much better than those of using a baboon heart. However, Dr. Bailey was not the only one to have ignored viable alternatives. The Loma Linda hospital as a whole was guilty of severe negligence in this regard.

This is because, in addition to the option of surgically rerouting the blood in Fae’s heart, a two-month-old infant’s heart was actually available on the day of Fae’s surgery. However, the hospital made no request for it. Hospital officials later gave several reasons why this took place.

First, they said that the call came after the baboon heart procedure was complete. However, if they had not approved the highly experimental procedure to begin with, against all odds of success and in spite of better alternatives, this would not have been a problem. Second, they claimed that the heart of a two-month-old “might have been too big for Fae” (1), although by their choice of the word “might” it is obvious that they were not certain of this fact. At the time of the surgery, the chances of surviving when given a baboon heart were proven nonexistent. Therefore the chances of surviving after receiving a slightly over large heart were by default superior.

Lastly, the hospital claimed that it would have taken too much time to carry out necessary testing to ensure the human heart was compatible. This may actually have been true, but given the weakness of their other arguments and their failure to even attempt the process, they deserve skepticism. Further, hospital officials admitted later that “they simply had not considered the possibility of a human donor” (1), which is outright ridiculous. When human donors are the only donors used in virtually every live heart transplant operation, how could their use not even have occurred to the officials of an until-then reputable hospital?


Michael Gianneli, a Fund for Animals science advisor, was completely justified when he asked the following question: “If they didn’t even look for potential life-saving alternatives, what does this mean in terms of the ’informed consent’ of the parents?” (1). The hospital claimed to have informed them properly, but they also admitted to having neglected to consider the most obvious and potentially successful option available to them by using a human organ.

If Fae's parents had been told that Dr. Bailey was not a well-practiced heart surgeon, that every previous cross-species transplant attempted had failed, and that the baboon heart was not considered the best animal organ available, it is hard to believe they would have signed on the dotted line. If they were also told about Dr. Norwood’s surgical procedure and the fact that their signatures would mean no other far superior options, such as a human infant’s heart, would then be considered, it is almost guaranteed they would not have consented.

The only reason why parents would pursue such a route would be sheer desperation or for the publicity such an operation would excite. There was no reason for Fae’s parents to feel so desperate as to attempt an almost proven fatal type of operation when there was also one available with a forty percent survival rate. There was no reason why they would have wanted to use a baboon heart instead of a human one, if the option had been pursued by officals and made available to them. And their true identities and that of their child were concealed from the public for the sake of anonymity, proving they had no desire to sacrifice the well-being of their child on a sensational experiment and a chance in the spotlight.

What happened to Baby Fae is simply a tragedy. Antivivisectionists at the time called the procedure “ghoulish tinkering with human and animal life” and they were correct (1). There is no guarantee that Baby Fae would have lived even if she had not received the baboon heart and had undergone a different procedure instead. But her death was almost guaranteed with the use of the animal organ. The doctors and the hospital involved brought about Fae’s death through negligence and a likely misrepresentation of facts to her parents. Therefore it should not even be considered a failed experiment but instead as an example of unethical and immoral medical malpractice, the cost of which was paid with Baby Fae's life.


(1) TIME in partnership with CNN. Baby Fae Stuns the World. Wallis, Claudia. Nov 12 1884. Accessed at,8816,926947,00.html

(2) The Rights of Animals. Roleff, T., Hurley J. 1999 Greenhaven Press, San Diego, CA. Page used: 82


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • profile image


      6 years ago

      If this poor childs mother was not a 23yrold, unemployed, unmarried woman who had fled to California in part to escape home & get away from problems she created by issuing bad checks. 

      There is no way in hell the idiot doctors would have ever attempted such a farce!

    • Schatzie Speaks profile imageAUTHOR

      Schatzie Speaks 

      7 years ago

      Hi Electricsky,

      Thanks for reading and for commenting. Human life definitely shouldn't be sacrificed unnecessarily; thankfully there are now laws in place that such experimentation would be impossible. The most amazing thing is that this did not happen that long ago...but hopefully will not happen again.


    • electricsky profile image


      7 years ago from North Georgia

      I have never heard of cross transplanting humans and animals. I have heard of using dermal bandages of animals on burn victims and arteries and veins maybe, but never vital organs.

      Yes I think the Dr. acted negligently since he had a human donor and he didn't know what the outcome would be of the animal heart in his young patient.

      Human life should be treated more important than to practice trial and error experiments.

    • Schatzie Speaks profile imageAUTHOR

      Schatzie Speaks 

      8 years ago

      Thank you for your sharing your thoughts, AKA Winston.

      You have left out half of the quote you quoted, which is key. Dr. Najarian said that to try to give Fae a baboon heart would prolong the dying process because “there has never been a successful cross-species transplant.”

      This is why I used this quote. Because I believe it introduces the idea that no mater how hopeless Fae's condition was, it could not be improved through this method. Why? Because, as every single past attempt had proven, such a procedure was 100% unfailingly a failure.

      It offered NO chances of success. Absolutely none. Zilch.

      You can read my hub titled “Xenotransplantation: giving people pig kidneys and goat livers” and it will give a brief history of xenotransplantation. Although some people were lucky enough to live briefly when supplied with animal parts, all eventually died (except one who later received a human organ). Every last person.

      Therefore, Dr. Najarian, I believe, was referencing this history and pointing out that the surgery might extend Fae’s life a day or two, or maybe even three. But Fae would despite it, without question. And to subject her to such a surgery was inhumane.

      This quote was the foundation of my whole argument. The reason why the other side may not have gotten as much attention as you may think it deserved was because I could find very little credible information on it. Few experts, I feel, were willing to say that such a surgery was necessary when it showed 100% failure in every past attempt and there was another procedure that could be done that had a 40% success rate. You can’t change the facts.

    • profile image

      AKA Winston 

      8 years ago


      I think you are underemphasizing this quote:

      Minnesota surgeon John Najarian explained that ...“to try it now is merely to prolong the dying process” (1).

      Syndromes such as the one that affected this child are not one-size-fits-all disabilities but come in degrees of treatability.

      From Dr. Najarian's comment, Fae's condition was hopeless and thus the procedure performed may have been the only one thought to offer any chance at all.

      I don't know that it true, but I would have liked to see more information from the other side as to their views on the necessity of the procedure being done at that time.

    • Schatzie Speaks profile imageAUTHOR

      Schatzie Speaks 

      8 years ago

      Thank you, Simone. I think this was actually the hardest hub I've written because it was so depressing.

    • Simone Smith profile image

      Simone Haruko Smith 

      8 years ago from San Francisco

      Gosh, I had never even heard of a xenotransplant before. Very interesting Hub, though rather sad :(


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)