Abstract
A sound ethical debate in biomedicine calls for (1) equipoise and (2) knowledge. The debate surrounding HEAVEN, the head transplant initiative, has been based on the exact opposite. Here we show that (1) HEAVEN is technically feasible and (2) HEAVEN can help patients with no other course of curative treatment available. At the same time we highlight the true contentious points: (1) life extension, (2) gender reassignment, and (3) cosmetic body swap. Simultaneously, we show how the academic debate on head transplants has been hampered by the failure of “peer review.”