is it right to create a child to save the life of another?

[wannaBe]

the embriology bill is to be debated by MP's.

here

One of the points being discussed is the ability to be able to create "savior" siblings.

Now I can totally understand the thinking behind this, especially from a parent's point of view, but I have to admit that the idea of this makes me very uncomfortable.

Is it right, after all, to create a child to save the life of another child? What happens if treatment is unsuccessful and the other child dies anyway? What impact must that have on the created child, to find out that they were created to save the life of their sibling? a sibling that has possibly died? And that many other embrios might have been discarded in order to find that one perfect one? and that if they had not had the right tissue type they wouldn't be there?

discuss..

But there is no guaruntee that the new baby would save that child is there?

I expect I might, if push came to shove. I think if the option were there, I wouldn't be able not to.

Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do though.

But I didn't want a new baby!

Anyway, let's agree to disagree.
It is too personal a subject to get into an argument about

I would do anything and everything to save my children - without question. I find it hard to understand any other view tbh.

I couldn't live with myself to allow my child to die when there was a possible solution, whatever it may be and whoever thought it was wrong or unethical.

The child would find out about it eventually and 'you only made the grade because you were the right tissue type' is the message it sends. It's true. That's the whole point of PIGD, to reject embryos that don't meet the specification. Fine if you are trying to avoid some horrible disease/condition but not to benefit someone else.

I would do it. We have children for all sorts of selfish reasons anyway. I agree with everyone else that you'd have to want that child in the first place though - so that they would be valued for who they are, not just for what they can do for the sick sibling.

Why kerry?

embryos are selected during ivf treatment every day ones that are deemed not good enough quality are discarded

if I had the chance to save the life of one of my children by having another then I would but then I have had ivf to conceive ds2 so I don't have any problem with it
a lot of the organisations speaking out against this are opposed to ivf per se not just this use of it

I also don't believe that any of us can say what we would do until we were placed in this situation my professional experience is that most parents will do anything to save their child's life

edam - You are wrong re 'there is no reputable proven therapy as yet'.

Stem cells derived from newborns' umbilical cords are used to treat childhood leukemia, with undeniably successful results. Google leukemia stem cells.

Here, and here, for example.

I think it is wrong. I also think it is right.

In ethical situations like this I think the decision has to be made by people who are not directly affected.

Of course, with our own sick children, we would all do it, surely? In that sense it is right.

But society as a whole has to make difficult ethical decisions and sometimes it has to protect the interests of imaginary future people. This is why governments and ethical committees have to legislate so we don't have to.

I don't think that anyone truly could/would want to know what that was like unless they experienced it.
And I am certainly not going to for the sake of having an argument with a stranger on an internet forum.
My reaction was from a priveliged position and I concede that.
Enough said really.

Those are reports of research, not established everyday medical practice. And involving one specific condition.

What I mean is, it's jolly promising and potentially brilliant for those patients, but stem cell therapy has been over-sold by clinics getting rich quick at the expense of new parents. Too early to say 'we need to collect cord blood from every newborn baby as routine', IYSWIM.

As for the 'I'd do anything for my child' argument, of course you would, but you have a duty to BOTH children. It's about balancing the interests of the sick child against those of any other child you have.

Of course embryos that aren't going to survive are discarded during IVF but that is not the same as choosing an embryo because it is a tissue match and discarding those who aren't.

but what if they couldn't Riven, but found out about the circumstances of their birth? How would they live with their guilt or sense of failure?

Some of you think it is right to create a saviour sibling and sound horrified when people state they wouldn't or at least would have serious misgivings about it.
So for you, would it be immoral for parents in that situation not to resort to having another baby or not selecting the embryo that is to develop into a man/woman in order to cure the other child?
Because, for me if we say that saviour sibling creation is acceptable, it logically follows that not only should be acceptable but enforceable since it saves lives. What do people think?

It's funny how some pass moral judgement on a matter of life and death.

The line separating you from the Jehovah's witness nutters who refuse blood transfusions on their children and let them die is a fine one.

ok, not enforceable, but at least considered immoral or reprehensible, punishable.

cote, with all due respect, wtf do you know about me, life and my circumstances, sweetie