'Designer' babies

[Libragirl]

Curious to know what people think of the latest 'designer' baby story. The parents who went to America to have geneically matched baby to help their 4 year old son. I have to admit before I had my two DS I would have been one of those people who are against it but now I wholheartedly support the parents as I would do anything to save my child. In fact until this story we were going to have a permenant solution to contraception but have decided against it now as you never know what will happen to your family in the future - morbid I know but thats being a mummy!

I agree wholeheartedly. I would do absolutley anything to save my ds and if that meant genetically modifying a new ds/dd than I would fight hammer and nail to do so. I think most parents would feel the same. Am I right?

Do not think it is right however in order just to guarantee the sex of a child. For example for someone who has lots of daughters and they want a son. (unless of course having a son/daughter would mean that they have a genetic disease of course)

The parents must be at their wits end, I think most parents would want to do the same to save their child. I dont agree with designer babies for cosmetic reasons either but for medical purposes surely it is justified.

I'd do it too. I think your theoretical principles go out of the window a bit under these circumstances.

Northerner, there wasn't any genetic modification (a whole new ball-game that one) just selecting the embryo with the best genetic match

No question about it - of course I'd do it - even though ds is an only child and we do not plan on having any more children. I know that we would love and cherish the new child if we had one in an attempt to save ds's life just as I know that we would love and cherish a new child that was not planned.

I also feel the family did the right thing and have my fingers crossed for them that it leads to a cure for their eldest son. The pictures of them all on the BBC last night made me feel they were a loving family who would love the new baby just as much even if the stem cells from his umbilical cord don't provide a cure.
I can see that in general terms this is a complex ethical issue but in this case I support the family's motives wholeheartedly. I'd do the same like a shot for ds.

Actually it makes me a bit uncomfortable. I can understand why the parents are doing it, but I can't help wondering about the new child - who has in effect been born to save his sibling's life, and only for that reason.

I have to be honest - I'm not really up on all the why's and wherefore's of this particular case. I am having trouble putting into words quite why it makes me uncomfortable. I have written this paragraph several times, and rubbed it out, because as I say I am finding it hard.

I don't know if I would do the same - I do understand the "I would do anything" feeling, but i'm not sure that I wouldn't feel this was a step TOO far....

my sister was waiting for a heart and lung transplant some years ago and as her health was getting worse the family were asked if two members of the family would donate a lobe of their lungs each-which my mum & dad were prepared to do. luckily she got a transplant before they had to resort to this. Also people donate kidneys for transplantation and bone marrow.

I know this is a different issue, and I suppose alot of people dont agree with this either, but in a way it is still a means to an end- that 1 person is saving anothers life. I would have donated a lung lobe to my sister if my mum & dad wouldnt have been suitably matched.

I think most people go on to have a second child anyway - they are just making sure they have two children who will live. Maybe they'll love the second child even more because of this? I doubt very much they'd love them less. Also, someone on the radio said the second child would feel awful knowing they were born to save someone else's life, but isn't also possible they'd feel proud that they HAD saved their sibling's life? I don't think this is a simple issue, but I can certainly sympathise with the parents.

It's not the inter family donation issue that bothers me - I think it is the fact that we are talking about creating a person in order to "serve" someone else's needs. That the primary purpose of the existance of the new baby would not have been simply for the joy of living (or whatever) but to fulfill a function for somebody else....

I'm not saying that I definately think it is wrong, or that I definately wouldn't do it - just that I am uneasy thinking about it....

I understand your point of view entirely. It is a very complex subject

It is very complex but I do think they said they intended to have four children anyway (they also have a little girl, so now have three). They're worried the new baby may also have the same problems as his brother so they must be beside themselves. A terrible situation for everyone. Lots of luck to them.

I don't have a problem with this at all. This family in particular, stated that they wanted more children anyway, I think. However, people have children for all sorts of reasons, very often little to do with the child they may be created. At least this is a worthy cause, not created to try to save a relationship.

I asked my 6 year old daughter whether she'd feel happy or sad if she'd been made to save her older brother and she said she'd feel happy because she'd have an older brother to play with.

For anyone who doesn't agree, I wonder what THEY would do in a similar situation. Yes, probably the same. They were going to have another baby anyway, whats wrong with trying to make sure it's compatable. The woman (Mrs Aitkins someone) on Question Time last night said if there is a one in four chance anyway, why not have four more children just to try an guarantee a match. Surely thats even worse. I'm sure the new baby will be loved and cared for just like any other. The media seem to think that it will be 'tossed' aside once her job is done. Lets hope she doesn't suffer the same outcome and CAN help her brother. They have a glint of light at the end of their tunnel, lets hope that they can come out the otherside.

I don't have a problem with this either. The motives seem entirely good and I'd do the same I think.

I agree with Oakmaiden that it is such a complex issue - what if the 'match' isn't correct (I heard on the news that it was 95% likely to be) but what if its not? Will the family go on to have more and more children to get the perfect match.

Please don't think I am criticising what this family have done, which is totally understandable, but I just feel this is a very, very complex area which could get much more 'sinister' implications as more & more scientific development goes on.

However, it has certainly made me think what would I do in the same situation? I only have one child, by choice, and would honestly be devasted if I became pregnant again but I really don't know what I would do if this was my child ...... interesting thread.

I also understand your worries Oakmaiden. However, as I understand it the couple have stated that the child is very much wanted in their own right, and that they have just sellected the 'best match'. I understand that there is a potential risk to the new baby's psychological balance when it finds out the details of it's birth.

That said, babies are often concieved for a wide range of reasons. Who is to say that this baby will be traumatised more than a baby who is concieved in an attempt to hold together a relationship, to get one over on a partner, to show a parent that their child is grown up. A large number of children are concieved for reasons other than the pure desire for a child. At lest this child has been concieved for a very positive reason. In fact my ds was concieved out of the desire for another child, but also to be a sibling to his sister.

My understanding is that the fundamental issue here is not the morality of whether or not to have a "designer" baby, but rather the ethics of throwing away the embryos that are not the right genetic match. I think it's the same as the abortion argument....there are people who feel that it is taking a life and that therefore several "babies" were killed in the saving of the child.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with having a baby to save a child. I think I would even do it to save someone else's child if I could. And I think that child will be really proud and honored one day to know that they saved their sibling's life. And as hmb said, babies are often conceived for far less valid reasons, or for no particular reason at all, just carelessness.

I couldn't see what all the fuss was about at first. I didn't like the idea of the 'unsuitable' embryos being destroyed but I don't think this is uncommon with ivf anyway and so a debate on that issue should cover all reasons for destroying embryos. But Sky News (who I am sure are not a reliable source of information) mentioned in passing that in fact there are concerns about the future health of babies when they have cells taken from them for testing while they are still embryos and that this was one of the main reasons why many doctors opposed the practice in the UK unless it was absolutely necessary.
This isn't something I had heard mentioned before but it made me think twice. Of course everyone would do whatever it takes to save their children but what if their first child was saved but their second child later developed some terrible illness connected to the testing?

OK, (deep breath as she prepares to not go with the flow) I think I agree without oakmaiden on this one. I feel really uncomfortable with it. For me it is not really an issue of whether or not the new child is loved or how they would feel psychologically. I am sure that the parents will love the baby, and with careful handling the "you were born to save your brother" situation can be made into a positive one, and so I think those problems can be overcome. But I am just not happy with this kind of select a baby engineering. I totally understand that emotion that says we would do anything for our child, but I feel as if we have to consider the wider implications. I suppose that if as a society we are happy to have selective abortions for disability (please note that I said society was happy, not my personal view, but I respect each persons right to their own opinion on that one) then I suppose it is hypocritical of society to say you can't select and embryo. But for myself, I am uncomfortable with it. I would rather not see it happen. If you start to take this to its logical conclusion, what should we be allowed to select for and what not? Is it ok to select that your baby is a girl or a boy, or that they are clever, or have brown eyes? It is the first step on the way to designer babies, and I think that is a scary prospect. I know that this case is a life and death situation, but it still opens the door to the rest. Sorry to disagree with lots of you, but I am not comfortable with it at all.

this is definitely not about 'designer' babies in the sense of opting for blue or brown eyes. it's for very exceptional cases - a good friend of mine has a child with the same condition as the Whitaker boy and I believe there are only 30 or so children with it in the UK. my friend has just had her 2nd baby and retrieved the cord blood hoping it would match her 1st child - but it didn't, so they too will probably opt for IVF & embryo selection in the States. they want 3 or 4 children anyway, but hope to be able to save their daughter from this awful condition she has by selecting their next baby.
a side issue - I tried to donate dd2's cord blood because I know there's a shortage and I was told my hospital didn't do it, because you're supposed to be counselled etc about the use of the cord blood..but as a blood donor I thought this a p**s poor excuse, it just gets chucked out normally and could help to save a life if bureaucracy didn't get in the way.

maryz - I don't know. Isn't it through discussions of this type that we are able to consider "what if" and develop our understanding of these things?

I agree it is difficult to be certain how you would act when it is a hypothetical situation, not a real one actually affecting you, but that desn't make discussion of the matter less valid. We kow that sometimes in the "serility of our castle" we can make judgemnets on what we believe is the ethical desicion - and that if we were out in the real world having to mkae that decision the descion that we make may not be the one we think most ethical - just the one we want to make.

For example - murder is wrong/unethical/a bad thing. Would you kill someone is it meant saving the lives of your family? The ethical answer is OBVIOUSLY no - murder is wrong. However, lets face it - my family are FAR more important to me than some nameless, faceless stranger. If I had to choose between the value of their lives I would come down on the side of my family every time. And if it was necessary to take action to preserve the lives of my children, then yes, I may well do it. But it wouldn't be the ethical choice.

SO whilst in a way I agree with you, we don't know the situation first hand, so it is hard to comment on what we would actually do, that doesn't make our opinions on the subject (positive or negative) not worth hearing. It helps us decide in our minds what we believe we should do if this situation ever were to come upon us. Though that may not be what we actually would do.

Does that make sense, or have i started to ramble?

Bundle - I tried to donate mine too and they also said they didn't do that at our hospital. Apparently they only do it in some London hospitals, no wonder theres a shortage, it's outragious. What aload of old tripe about councelling for it, surely its more traumatic to think its 'slung in the bin' than maybe saving a life.

totally agree Furball. spoke to my friend this morning and she's pleased to say that dd2 is looking pink - ie sign that she won't be affected by the anaemia her sister has. I probably won't have any more children & feel sad I can't donate to help someone else.