Purpose: Composite tissue allotransplantation is a new therapeutic modality to reconstruct major tissue defects of the head and neck region and extremities. However, there is a serious ethical debate about whether the risks posed by the life-long immunosuppression that a recipient would have to take justify the benefits of receiving this non-life saving procedure. The purpose of this study is to examine differences between expert and non-expert groups in risk acceptance and expectations regarding hand and foot allotransplantations. Methods: The author conducted a survey of 345 subjects in total (lay public n=110; medical students, n=120; doctors, n=115), using a questionnaire-based instrument, the Louisville Instrument for Transplantation (translated to Korean). Results: Of the three groups studied, risk acceptance was found to be lowest in the doctor group and highest in the non-expert group, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). The expectations of aesthetic and functional improvement from the procedure, however, were found to be highest in the non-expert group and lowest in the doctor group, and the differences were also significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study shows that the three populations have noticeable differences in risk acceptance and expectations regarding hand and foot allotransplantations. Therefore, accurate and sufficient information on these procedures should be provided to patients from both medical and ethical perspectives.