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..

misdee - What do you mean "there are many other means of doing operations without blood, there are other treatments available as well."?

When you have lost so much blood that you are about to die, there is nothing but a blood transfusion that will save you. Or your child.

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

Most of them do. I remember courts in Ireland making a six-month old baby ward of the state so he could have an operation that required blood transfusion to save his life in 2004. His mother had refused permission.

And anyway, this isn't about JW's. My point is that refusing to save your child's life because the procedure feels immoral or wrong is not that different than the Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions.

It's one thing to say something feels wrong. It's another thing to say you would actually let your child die rather than do it.

A lot of things are wrong and immoral in this world. And yes, I would do them all to save my child's life. Except kill another human being.

I worry about the effect on the 'saviour sibling' if he/she is put through repeated and painful testing and treatments to save the brother or sister.

Cote

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

Yes I know we are but surely the saviour child has rights?

Sweeney - Nobody is "ignoring the 3rd person involved".

What makes you think the new baby will not be just as much loved as his older sibling?

"if I prostitute myself to save my child, i am only using what is mine"

Yes, but you wouldn't do it, would you? Because it wouldn't be 'moral'.

"even if it's just for 2 cells"

So you would let your child die rather than take two cells from his sibling to save his life

I think you are trying to make a point but it is such a bizarre one that it's just not getting any clearer.

funny you say that cote, because i would kill another human being without hesitation if he was harming my child and I had no other means to stop him.
What I would not do is harm an innocent person.

"Yes, but you wouldn't do it, would you? Because it wouldn't be 'moral'"
you are so barking at the wrong tree.
the problem with you cote is that you presume many things about people based on their opinion on one subject. What do you know about what i would do in a desperate situation? More importantly, what do you know about what I have done? Nothing. Stop presuming what strangers would or would not do.
You keep using examples that don't compare with the issue at stake, and use all the stereotypes at hand to defend your position. Fine. But please don't tell me what I would do or not to because you haven't got the faintest idea.

I would.

"So you would let your child die rather than take two cells from his sibling to save his life hmm

I think you are trying to make a point but it is such a bizarre one that it's just not getting any clearer"

clearer: i would not bring or "select´" another child to this world for the purpose of taking 2 or 100 cells to cure another child. If he was already alive (he was born for no other purpose than us wanting another child, not needing one), that would be a different matter.

Just to be clear, my "I would" was in response to the OP.

Cote

You haven't answered my question

If two cells is okay ... then what is wrong with bone marrow transplants ... if bone marrow transplants are okay ... then what is wrong with organ donation ... if organ donation is okay ... then what is wrong with ultimately sacrificing the saviour child's life

Where are you drawing the line?

if one of my current exsisting chidlren could potentially save the life of a sibling, with a donation of cells, then yes i wul,d consider it, and if that child was old enough to it to be discussed (dd1+2 currently, dd3 too young to comprehend) then it would be discussed and with their consent. afterall at the age of just 10years old children have the right to a say over medical procedures. (from what i can remember about transplant anyway).

but i dont think i culd pre-select an embreyo to save a child. i really dont think i could.

Quattro. I agree.

If a blood sample from the saviour's umbilical cord is all that's needed then that is fine.

But if it progresses to bone marrow and, as you say, organs then this just seems wrong.

And I do understand that the parents will love the new baby but ultimately their main aim is to save the older child's life.

You can't issue a decree that every saviour sibling would be adored, or loved as much as their elder brother or sister. There are no guarantees about human emotions, especially when people are dealing with enormous stress in the first place.

One worrying aspect that occurs to me is that parents would come under pressure to conceive again if this was available - even if a doctor merely raised the issue, the suggestion from someone in authority would be fairly powerful. And the time and stress taken up with IVF procedures would be time away from the elder, sick child... it's not a simple option.

Sweeney - We are still on the same subject, and my 'presumptions' about you are valid, since your views on this subject are obvious.

You said you won't do something you consider immoral/wrong (preselect a sibling) to save your child's life.

If so, it follows that you wouldn't do other (even more obviously immoral) things to save your child's life. Like prostitution. How about stealing? That is immoral and wrong, too. Would you steal to save your child's life?

I ask this not because I care so much about your life and choices, but because I would like you to realize that your position is untenable. Only the most fanatically nutty parent would sacrifice the life of her child for the sake of an abstract notion of 'moral' or 'right'.

Hopefully, now you see at last why I compared this issue with Jehovah's Witnesses witholding life-saving blood transfusions from their children.

why would u do something that could potentially put you in jail to save your childs life? what good would it do your hild to be alive and you put away somewhere else? i would go to the ends of the earth to save the life of my children, but i dont think i could do anything illegal.

On the other hand if you've been watching Heroes at all, although the saviour baby didn't arrive in time to save the child who was intended, he did indeed end up saving lots of others.......

You may feel strongly about your own POV, Cote, but that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you is barking mad.

I have a friend who had a "saviour sibling" (hate that term) - the third of her four children.

She had to get permission from the HFEA.

Her eldest child was helped by her little sister, she wanted more children, what's not to like?

bubble

my friend harvested the cord blood, but when it came to the transplant there wasn't enough, so bone marrow had to be harvested too.

The parents really hadn't wanted that to happen, but science has its limitations.

Quattro - I did answer your question.

"If two cells is okay ... then what is wrong with bone marrow transplants ..."

As I said before, courts routinely authorise bone marrow transplantations from siblings who are too young to properly consent. I don't see why you are bringing it up as if it is to be considered for the first time because of advances in genome technology.

I am not a lawyer nor a doctor, but my understanding is that the courts agree with this with the view that the minor inconvenience of the operation on the child is outweighed by having a living sibling.

I asked you before to look up the ethical considerations if you are so interested, and you still can.

"if bone marrow transplants are okay ... then what is wrong with organ donation ..."

Again, not much. As I said before, in absolutely necessary cases, courts have authorised children donating organs to their siblings.

"if organ donation is okay ... then what is wrong with ultimately sacrificing the saviour child's life"

This is a logical fallacy called "Slippery slope" ('Non causa pro causa' iirc). You are putting forth the false assumption that bone marrow donation and organ donation would ultimately lead to killing the child to get his organs. Of course it won't. The goal here is to save a life (the sibling's) not to take one (the donor's).

Your argument is akin to saying "If it's ok to file nails, what is wrong with cutting cuticles?". "And if it's ok to cut cuticles, what is wrong with cutting a finger". It is of course a false argument, since the first two (filing & cutting cuticles) are, although possibly unpleasant at the time, done with the ultimate goal of having prettier hands and would in no circumstances lead to cutting off your fingers.

misdee - 'Illegal' is not the same thing as 'immoral'.

edam - I didn't say Sweeney is 'barking mad'. I said her stated opinion that she wouldn't do anything immoral/wrong to save the life of her child is untenable.

I asked her if she would steal to save her child's life. The answer, I dare assume, will be "yes" and she will have confirmed my point.

I could have also asked "Would you lie?", which is also immoral/wrong, and to which the answer would almost certainly be "yes" as well.

The point I am trying to make is that the vast majority of parents will do whatever it takes to save their child's life and that it is hypocritical to criticize them for it. The niceties of life are quickly and understandably put aside when survival is at stake - times of war, aftermath of a major natural disaster, etc. Watching your child die in the safety of your home is not much different, imho.

bundle - "what's not to like" is apparently that choosing among the embryos and selecting one that will save the life of that eldest sibling is 'immoral' and 'wrong'

really, cote? so you are anti-IVF too?

Do courts routinely authorise bone marrow transplants from siblings who are too young to consent? How many cases are we talking about here?

Cote, you may not have used those words, but you keep saying that you are right and implying that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid/mad/unloving. Following your logic, you might say that anyone whose child has been murdered should be angry and vengeful. But the mother whose son was killed the other day expressed very eloquently why she chooses not to be.

It is possible to see that parents are not the best people to make a decision about saviour siblings precisely because they are not impartial.

And it is also possible to see that although you might be tempted as a parent to do all sorts of things in extremis, society is entitled to stop you.

That may not be your opinion but it is one that other people are entitled to hold. As are lots of other opinions.