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..

No-one's criticising parents for doing everything they can in extremis. But some of us are arguing that's not a good basis for making laws.

bundle - That is not my position (obviously, if you've read anything I wrote on this thread ). I was pointing out what Sweeney, edam et al see as a 'problem'.

edam - With all due respect, you obviously have internet access, why don't you look up how and why courts authorise bone marrow transplants from minors rather than ask me for the data?

"although you might be tempted as a parent to do all sorts of things in extremis, society is entitled to stop you."

Err... What exactly are we talking about here? Society does not normally legislate to prevent life-saving technologies, unless they involve cutting out someone's heart and leaving them to die or some such.

The microscopic cluster of cells that are embryos are not 'people', they are not entitled to civil rights. Whatever wrongdoing you may see here is not an objective one that is possible to define in legal terms. In other words, "It feels immoral and wrong" is not grounds for legislation and 'society' is not entitled to force their view on the matter, even though that may be a majority view.

Seriously, are you advocating a ban on embryo selection? What on earth for?

And edam, I don't "keep saying" that I am right. Can't help it if that is the impression you get from my posts, though

sorry cote, that was a classic skim-read of a thread

I cannot begin to explain how the "saviour sibling" has improved the quality of my friend's child (and the rest of the family) and they were very disappointed that the procedure meant harvesting bone marrow, instead of just using the cord blood.

Before their lives were spent in hospital, worrying about their daughter's future, now she actually has one.

cote why is prostitution immoral if it is to save a life? I don't find it immoral. Immoral are the men who go to prostitutes. Not the women themselves IMO. You see you put things in other people's mouths and minds to fit YOUR argyument and your insults. Don't do it.

wow, i am reading the new posts and cannot believe what I read. I can point you to a few people whose children have been left to die, because
a) the mother didn't prostitute herself to get that much needed money to go to Houston and pay for good cancer treatment.
b) the father did not grab the carving knife and held up the bank round the corner.

Sweeney - That is not an answer to my post and I am not insulting you

It certainly doesn't answer the question "Would you steal to save your child's life?"

Would you?

If so, let's agree that we can do immortal/wrong things to save our children's lives.

riven I'm with you, i have a sick child I would defintely have another one if it would cure her.

What lots of mums here aren't realising is that having another child is wonderful ANYWAY. The fact that its stem cells would help is doubly fantastic. You go from potentially having NO children as one dies, to having 2 healthy ones. Wonderful.

And...what do you say to a lot of mums I know with sick kids who go on and have another, even though they didn't originally want that many, because they know they will lose the elder one. that's really common. Is that bad?

A much loved child is great whatever the reason for its birth, the parents aren't going to treat it as a 'spare parts kit'...which is how the media potray it. Its just another child to be loved.

Of course it's fine. People have children for all kinds of reasons.

Steal, of course I would. Unless I was puting at risk my other children by risking going to prison. I would be leaving them without their mother. You have to think of your other children too, no?

Cote

You argue that stem cells are okay and bone marrow donation is okay and organ donation is okay

Now that seems to me to be entirely a selfish position. The saviour child gets to have an impaired quality of life because you as a parent can't cope with grief ...

Quattro, so much exageration going on here. There is no reason why the new child would have an impaired quality of life. Stem cells are no big deal, nor is a one off bone marrow donation. You seem to be forgetting that the first child will DIE...and that's ok? even when the ability is there to save them???

that first child is also a person that has a right to life - its not just about stopping the parent from grieving.

It continually amaze me how people can be so self righteous when its not THEIR CHILD that's dying. Really, you clearly have absolutely no idea the torment parents go thru with a sick child. Its like a parallel universe, you only see clips but unless you live their lives you are in a dream world. Go visit the SN page and try to understand before judging from afar..

MWO, why don't you try reading my posts?

An impaired quality of life is the result of organ donation.

I accept bone marrow donation (although that carries risk for the donor too) and stem cells but the mere fact of thinking it is acceptable to expect a minor to donate an organ willingly/unwillingly/very probably coerced shows how very slippery this particular slope is ...

Ok see what you mean but can't imagine that there's a law anywhere that would allow a minor to donate without consent (or at all come to that). By confusing the extremes with the mild (stem cell say) it muddies the whole argument.And calling it a saviour child is an underhand appeal to emotion.

We all draw the line somewhere, but some views here are clearly pro-life and so those mothers wouldn't touch embryos at any cost. There's no argueing (oops debating!) with them anyway i guess.

Sweeney - So you agree with me that your previous position is untenable and that of course you would do immoral/wrong things to save your child's life.

Thank you for (finally) stating the obvious.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, would you like to restate why exactly you oppose to parents having a child whose tissue matches their sick child?

Quattrocento - If you have any moral objections to donations by minors, take it up with the courts that allow them.

Better yet, familiarise yourself with the ethical considerations stated by the courts that allow children to donate bone marrow or even organs.

In any case, this is a Straw Man (another logical fallacy) rather than the real issue. We are not debating our feelings about children donating bone marrow or (rarely) organs. We are debating whether or not it is OK to select an embryo and create a saviour sibling to an existing, sick child.

"mere fact of thinking it is acceptable to expect a minor to donate an organ willingly/unwillingly/very probably coerced shows how very slippery this particular slope is .."

You still don't get it.

The fact is that such donations are already happening. Therefore, your slippery slope argument is not only false (see my 'logical fallacy' post) but also null and void. You can't warn against something that is already here.

Cote, I've been reading your responses with interest and I have said in mine that I agree with your sentiment (that most parents including me would have little difficulty making this choice).

But what I'm not sure if you have responded to is the question of how harm to the potential saviour child is prevented and how their interests and rights are protected in this situation. This is why I am ambivalent, and why I believe it is the role of a third party to adjudicate to protect those interests.

Just to clarify and summarise, because some people here seem keen on talking about morality, pro-life mothers, religion and madness.
My main concern is with the selection of the embryo for a purpose external to the embryo itself. I mean not with a purpose based on the best for the future human being that will develop from that embryo (ie screening for incurable diseases etc) but for the purpose of benefiting another person.
This may not raise any doubts for some people, but it does for others, including me, as I see implications that I am not happy with. At the very least, you should respect those doubts, even if you don't share them. I think.

cote - I never denied people can do immoral, wrong and illegal things to save a child. I am sure it happens all the time. I never said (please read again my posts) that I would never do any of the above. But you seem to think that just because someone would be ready to do one thing, that person would then be ready to do anything. I don¡t see any logic in that, and what is more in real life, it doesn't work that way, as people draw limits at different points.
Also, I don¡t understand you since you seem to be saying that the procedure would be immoral but excusable. And yet not doing it would also be being immoral but inexcusable. Why do you say it is immoral in the first place if it is saving a life¿

We have different attitudes in many respects. I would respect and not judge any person who would go through this because I would understand their motivation, although my reasoning would probably lead me into a different decision and FOR ME it would not be the right decision. Whereas you, and a couple of other posters, here have already stated how you condemn and despise as mad or unloving parents anyone who would refuse to have another child to save the first. Someone talked about selfrigtheousness, yes, there is a bit of that, but not where she said it was.

Finally, I couldn't care less if you choose your embryos or not. They're nothing of mine. Just do as you please. All I ask is rhe same respect for those of us who have our serious doubts and would not go down that way.
Is that so hard?

Just saying that I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I think I am right and you are wrong, and that everybody should do as I say. it just means that I wouldn't do it, and that I don't want to be judged/condemned for NOT doing it. Re-read my posts.

I am unaccustomed to being patronised, Cote, and whilst it is a refreshing experience, no amount of being talked down to can convince me that english law allows healthy minors to make organ donations. It's extremely difficult for me to believe that that is true.

I suppose I see people are part of an overall organism. That we are part of a herd. That often in cultures one is sacrificed for the good of others and I have no moral objection to a saviour sibling because I don't put one individual's interests always first.

A good few parents would prefer their child die than have a blood transfusion. Many others again all over this planet would rather kill a daughter than have her shame the family. So of course I accept morality differs between people as to what is justifiable and not. Also until any of us have a loved child who would die without a saviour sibling we cannot know how we would react anyway.

Quattro - I am sorry you feel I am 'patronising' or 'talking down to' you. This is a debate and I have the right and even the obligation to point out the errors in your argument.

"no amount of being talked down to can convince me that english law allows healthy minors to make organ donations"

Well, a bit of Googling would help, but yet again, you would rather talk back empty handed and wait for me to do the digging.

So here it is:

In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, there is no minimum age for organ donation. Majority of donors are over the age of 18 and children are considered in very exceptional circumstances.

In England and Wales the legal position
regarding the age of consent for medical
treatment was clarified by the Gillick
case. This determined that minors who
are able to understand fully what is
proposed and are capable of making a
choice in their best interest could give
medical consent irrespective of their age.
However, even in the case of a ?Gillick
competent? minor where there is parental
consent for donation, it would be
advisable to seek consent from the High
Court before proceeding.

Human Tissue Act 2004 has a whole section on "Appropriate Consent - Children".

You are welcome.

I wasn't actually aware that i'd made any errors in my arguments actually - but thanks for doing the research.

I see that in England it is possible for minors to donate organs but the consent of the high court is advisable, and that it is not possible in Scotland. That pretty well means it doesn't happen. Which is probably as it should be.

I am not clear what the bill means in terms of saviour children. Does it mean that this practice is going to happen more widely, less widely, or does it leave matters as they stand.

I'm really not motivated to discuss the ethics of selecting an embryo here - that doesn't trouble me and I suspect it would only trouble those with strongly held religious views.

But effectively breeding children to have them as spare parts, even you must acknowledge that it's morally suspect. As if any child could exercise freedom of choice in that situation. How could any decision be free from coercion? The child would literally have been bred with the expectation of donating body parts.