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..

I don't think it's that clear cut. Plenty of people have other children because they don't want their first one to be lonely. And my friend whose daughter is very severely disabled chose to have another two children because she thought it would be an unacceptable burden in later life for only one sibling. Does that make them saviour siblings?

Incidentally, the bill is about taking cells from bone marrow or the umbilical cord, not organs. I do wish people would get their facts straight before they go off on one.

That is an interesting point spicemonster (about the other burdens parents place on kids)...

But there is a difference between procedures for harvesting umbilical cord blood and bone marrow, isn't there? One is uninvasive and the other quite invasive? I don't really know TBH.

Perhaps the committees will legislate on what kinds of procedures are OK but it is difficult to know where to draw such boundaries.

I didn't say the blood transfusion example is the same as choosing suitable embryo during IVF. And I didn't say you are a Jehovah's witness.

I said both of you would rather see your child die than go through with a scientific procedure you consider morally wrong and that the line that separates you from a Jehovah's witness is a rather fine one.

I can repeat this as many times as you like.

Each of those things (having more children full stop, blood transfusion, termination) is a different ethical situation from creating a life with a purpose. That it may not be able to fulfil.

Most of us who disagree with the principle in general have said we would be the first to do it in practice. This is not hypocrisy, it is real life and this is why we are arguing parents with sick kids are not in a position to decide if it is right or wrong.

I think the question 'what are good reasons to have children' is more pertinent, since it does highlight the lack of moral foresight many of us show when we halfheartedly fulfil our urges... I agree we probably make those decisions by omission rather than commission. And such decisions are no more right or wrong than this case - ie having a child to fulfil some other general purpose they might not live up to.

That fuzziness however doesn't mean we shouldn't legislate on particular difficult ethical cases.

Riven: that's awful for your family and DD. Really sorry to hear that. If I was in your position I'd entirely agree - the only thing in the context of this debate that I'd say is that policy should really be set objectively rather than subjectively. That sounds harsh but, I think, is the only workable solution. If, for example, someone said "What should be the penalty for GBH/ theft/ assault?", I suspect the answer would be very different if it was your own child that had been the victim of it.

That being said, objectively I agree with you. A child only exists because the parents choose that to be the case. Everyone has chosen to have a child for whatever reasons they decide - there are no 'good' or 'bad' reasons for having a child, that simply depends on your own moral viewpoint (is having a 'saviour child' ethically any worse than having a second child to be a sibling to your first?). Ultimately, all that matters is that the child, was born, is cared for and loved as best possible. To the extent having a 'saviour child' impacts on that, it is wrong, but otherwise it is difficult to see what the problem is.

cote, the "scientific procedure" starts at home with a personal decision of having another child to save the first and that has nothing to do with science.
Just because science can give me a savior for my child, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do, because it is not just about me and my child, it is about a third person (another child of mine, not just anybody) who is not even born yet and will be affected by the decision.
But anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

re consent if you ask children about most medical procedures they would refuse so would you stop them having treatment if they needed it no you as the parent would make the decision in their best interests so this idea that you would discuss this with the child who needed the sibling

sweeney to pick up on one of your points would you not donate your child's organs if they were brain dead to others who needed them wouldn't that be similar although you could argue that would make sense out of the child's death

imo at the heart of this is one view wanting to take away the choice of others to do this if they are happy to do it

it is about choice and I do not believe that a certain religious/moral view should be able to take away my choice to do it if I need to

I don't think being opposed to saviour siblings is akin to a JW turning down a blood transfusion. A blood transfusion is not a person - you can't compare creating a new human being to using blood that is already, freely available to whoever needs it.

My rejection of saviour siblings is based on the morality of creating a person in order to use them for someone else's benefit.

What if the saviour sibling suffered and then died due to the operation that saved its sibling?
What have you done then?
You placed one human life higher than another.
Is that right?

Anyone read Sophie's Choice?

Only read op

There's a novel on this subject I read recently - jodi Picoult - disturbing book

It's one of those subjects where you think - well who'll miss a bit of bone marrow? But it's an easy step to make to go on from bone marrow to kidneys and other stuff ... and then you worry that a child has been created as a spare parts shop

"why would you even discuss it with a child? Why put that sort of BURDEN on any child????

You are the parent. You are the adult. You make the decisions.". So you would put an existing child through invasive treatment to help their sibling without actually discussing it with them first? how would you explain them having to go to hospital and having to undergo a general anesthetic (bone marrow retrieval involves a GA iirc)? And what if they died under anesthetic? It's rare but it does happen. Could you live with yourself knowing that you had forced your child into that without their knowledge? could you?

Imo once a child is of an age to have a discussion they should certainly be involved in the discussion process, without any pressure from the parent. Putting a child through invasive procedures without their knowledge is a violation, surely?

wannabe in these cases the children are not usually old enough to give consent either the donor or the recepient

but as the law stands children can give consent to treatment only if they are deemed to be frasier competent
they however cannot refuse treatment if it is deemed to be in their best interest if they are under 16
but saying all that these decisons are always made in consultation between parent/child/hcps

Never let Me Go by Ishiguro is a far more extreme futuristic world about breeding people for their organs, but very interesting

Yes I've read that too pointy. It is most beautifully written.

I think I am with the consent brigade but I would do the fasted u-turn in history if this became a practical issue for me to face.

I am not sure what I think,
if we were talking stem cells from cord blood, then without hesitation YES
if we were talking kidney donor - probably NO
bone marrow - not an easy proceedure.

I would not want the child born to help the first to feel more wanted/needed than loved.
It is so hard to work out how you would make that happen that I think I have to sadly sit on the fence for a little longer.

Some of you are talking as if the 'savior' child will be just used for his cells/bone marrow/tissue and then discarded.

Sweeney, re:

"the "scientific procedure" starts at home with a personal decision of having another child to save the first and that has nothing to do with science"

All treatments start with such decisions. So what?

"Just because science can give me a savior for my child, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do"

This is where your mentality approaches that of Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their children. The rest of us would do whatever it takes to save our children, not just what is 'moral'. If my child's life depended on it, I would prostitute myself. Would you? Or would you rather do what is moral and let your child die?

"because it is not just about me and my child, it is about a third person who is not even born yet and will be affected by the decision."

And what is your point? That it is better that this child is not conceived at all?

Cote, can you please stop bringing JW into this.

please.

Why?

Genuinely interested here cote,

Where do you draw the line?

You think stem cells are okay. What about bone marrow? What about organs? What about the child's informed consent? Ultimately, what about sacrificing the new child's life? Where are your boundaries and how have you drawn them?

you keep trotting out this jehovah's witness line without addressing any of the above

JW arent just about to let their chidlre4n die for the sake of blood. there are many other means of doing operations without blood, there are other treatments available as well. JW have paid for blood salvaging machines in hospitals.

they do NOT just stand by and let their children die.

this is about creating a child who is a perfect match to save the life of an exsisting child. it has nothing to do with JW's at all.

Quattrocento, re "You think stem cells are okay. What about bone marrow? What about organs? What about the child's informed consent? "

I haven't 'addressed' this because it has little to do with conceiving a sibling who can save your child's life.

Minors donate bone marrow and even organs (I remember reading about a kidney) to their sick siblings all the time. These are not kids conceived specifically with this purpose in mind, but the same ethical questions of consent are there. You can Google legal and ethical issues surrounding bone marrow & organ by children, if you are interested.

What we are talking about is conceiving/preselecting a child who can also save the life of your other child.

why ignoring the 3rd person involved cote?
if I prostitute myself to save my child, i am only using what is mine. I am not using someone else's body, let alone creating one with the purpose of using it later, even if it's just for 2 cells. How hard is that to understand. i don't know.
I would not want any child of mine to feel he or she existed only because the older one was ill. To feel that there was a good chance he wouldn¡t have been born, had it not been because there was an illness in the family and he had the right tissue to cure it.
Nobody has spoken here about religion or god, except you. The doubts about these issues exist both in religious and non-religious people.