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..

sorry, that was unnecessary
but perhaps instead of insulting you would like to state your opinion about the immorality of not creating saviour siblings for children.

'Sweetie'?

People have children for all sorts of reasons, some probably far less compassionate, than to save another life.

Easy to judge if you are not in the situation yourself

How could anyone be sure it was a much wanted child though? Say you had had your family, 2.4 children and your family felt complete, dh has had the snip so there are going to be no more children. And then you find out one of those children has a life-threatening condition which doctors say is going to kill them unless a suitable tissue match can be found. Neither you, dh or your other child is a suitable match, so realistically the only hope is for you to have another child. That?s not having a much wanted child for the child is it? It?s having a child purely to save the life of your other child.

I absolutely do not think that judgement on this can fall on the parents though. Imo it goes without saying that a parent would do anything to save the life of their child. But I think it?s possible to understand the motivation behind something, while still thinking it to be wrong, iyswim. Ie I can totally understand why someone might kill/harm someone who did harm to one of their loved ones, and while the action is understandable it doesn?t make it right to do so.

I don't disagree with you Sweeney but your logic does not follow. Similarly, it is acceptable to donate organs but not enforcable, because the human right to dignity comes first. Even if it were allowed - to create saviour children - it would be difficult to enforce. Perhaps you were being rhetorical?

I think this is complicated. Like I said in my previous post, I think it is a very difficult decision for parents to make - having the option means in the circs where they would need it, they would almost have no choice but to try and exercise it. Who wouldn't?

But neither is it wrong to object to the idea in the interests of the saviour child. Who else would protect their interests but for society at large? In this instance, they might even need protecting from their parents' love.

I agree Riven - I absolutely think any parent in this position would choose to have another child if they could, including me. I think it would be a compassionate, inevitable decision for me as for most.

But I also think my future child needs consideration and that someone else not directly involved in this situation should decide. I couldn't be relied on to protect them from the burden. And choosing this burden for a child seems like a tough choice.

Riven, I can't claim to understand your or your family's feelings so don't want to tread on them at all. But it is different to have a child for a specific purpose they might not be able to fulfil than to feel sad, guilty, generally burdened.

I probably would do anything too. Like I said, I think we all would when it comes to the crunch. And we can't know, if we have healthy children, what others who don't go through.

But these details are precisely why we shouldn't be making the decision.

i'm not sure i could. i'm not saying i coulnt if it was an option to 'cure' dd's of an illness, but i'm not sure i could do it in theory. i have read the picoult book as well and it does raise some good points, about where do u stop, at stem cells, or a kidney in the future?

i have also looked into donating stem cells from dc#4, and even though we are covered in this area with a couple of NHS stem cell banks, all of the hospitals are too far away for my rather quick labours. Plus i dont feel comfortable stepping into an unknown hospital as i will likely be in for a few days and want to be near home (i am still nervous in case dh gets ill again, which is an unfounded worry but am concerned).

my friends dad has had a rare cancer, and was successfully treated with stem cells, which means ireally do want to donate.

hmm dp and I discussed trying for one more hoping for girl as dd has noonan syndrome and will rely poosibly on donated eggs.
but we decided for us it was not a good reason as it was the only reason we'd have another.
too complex to judge though imo
I think with regard to ivf if people can afford it they will get it tbh
butcshould state pay?
tough call

I would give my life to save either if my kids - so having another child is a foregone conclusion if it saved one fo their lives - would make the doner child very special IMO.

Would the people who are keen on this idea be happy to create children in order to 'save' other family members? Would it be OK to create a saviour if it was your husband who was ill, or your sister, or nephew?

I understand the motivation behind it but for me the issue is that I cannot give what is not mine. I can give my blood, organs, etc, but commit another person's organs before they are even born. I don't see it so clear cut. And it would not be an easy decision, that's obvious.

wedam, i would;ve done anything possible to save dh (i couldnt obviously as i needed my heart), but i'm not sure i could put my chidlren through anything like that.

i always think children are a blessing, if one of mine, say for example went down with leukimia, i would obviously ask the others if they would be screened to see if a tissue match for bone marrow, but i wouldnt automatically expect them to donate. dd1 is actually on the donor register off her own accord. a decision she made at age 6.

Sweeney - I don't need to know your 'life & circumstances'. Their result is your opinion, which we all heard.

You would rather let your child die than follow a medical procedure that 'feels wrong'. In this, you are not very different than the Jehovah's witness who refuses her child a blood transfusion and lets her die instead. That is what I am saying.

cote, i don't think the blood transfusion example is exactly the same.
The "medical procedure" you are talking about is actually creating a new life, and selecting which embryo is to develop and which isn't based on its usefulness to save another existing human being. I don't think refusing to do that is the same as refusing a blood transfusion for your child.

Lump me in there with Sweeney, then Cote.

I love my children very much indeed, but I believe it would not be right to create a saviour sibling, under any circumstances.

having kids to take care of you in old age isn't necessarily ethical either, even if people do it.

And I think Sweeney put it eloquently: we cannot give what is not ours. To put a child in the position, even if you assume they would choose to do so given the chance, is not ethical.

ok, so those of you who would create a savior sibling for your children, what if you didn't have to? What if one of your existing children was a tissue match for the sick child? Would you take that child to the hospital to have their blood/bone marrow/organs removed to benefit that sick child? Or would you discuss it with them first? Would you consider that they had a right to say no? And if so, why would your existing children have more rights than your unborn ones created for the purpose?

What if the child who was ill, didn't want you to create a saviour sibling. Would you take their wishes into account or go ahead anyway?

but kerrymum, the embryo cannot discuss anything yet but will be able to when it is a fully formed human being of 20 or 30. By then, if he or she had any reasons to disagree, it will be too late, it is a fait acompli or however you spell that.
The embryo may or may not have any rights, but the child born from it has.

the child would be burdened whether or not they knew about it. it would be hard to keep such a secret, and moreover parents are going to feel strong, complex, different things about both the poorly child and the saviour child, whatever the outcome.