When a new procedure is attempted, who should judge the outcome? What are the stakes?

My research explores the rhetoric of “success” in medicine and biomedical science, taking discourse on hand transplantation as a representative case study. As the first organ transplants performed to improve a person’s quality of life, not save it, hand transplants have been called “successful” since the early 2000s. Perceived success with hand transplants led to attempts at whole arm transplants, face transplants, penis transplants, leg transplants, abdominal wall transplants, and transplants of the womb. The field of “reconstructive transplantation” emerged from these movements. Success claims have never been revisited.

My research places the question of medical success in the hands of people whose bodies are the location of medical experimentation, and whose day to day actions and decisions determine medical experimental consequences. How does the meaning of “success” in hand transplantation change when we change our location - for example, from clinical contexts to personal framings?

With hand transplants as a case study, I also write a lot about hands: Do you need a hand, or both your hands, to be happy? What would you do if your hands or the hands of your partner were damaged or made quite different through an accident or illness - what kind of care would you want, and how would you access care? My research is closely tied to my work in disability advocacy, especially as a nonvoting communication officer with the Reconstructive Transplant Peer Network, the first peer support group in hand and face transplantation.
​
When not recording oral histories and writing, I teach courses in communication at University of Pittsburgh and Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC), and draw caricatures at local events!