Dear Students,
I think this story will be worth listening to, so we can discuss. It is about a family whose son needed a bone marrow transplant; the parents used IVF techniques to conceive another child selected to be free of the underlying disease, so that the second child could serve as a bone marrow donor for the first.
Yeah, couldn't be any more controversial or relevant to upcoming classes!
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-05/savior-siblings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I saw a similar story on The View today. Parents decided to have a child so he could be a genetic match to their older child who has a rare disease where her bone marrow did not make any red blood cells. The child gave his sister a bone marrow trasplant that saved her life. The girl is now healthy. The parents said they always wanted another child and at that time they decided to use the newborn to save their daughter. On the show they discussed the psychological aspects. The parents said they are very open about it with the children and answer any questions they have. In this story there is a happy ending and it shows how genetics can be used to save a loved one.
ReplyDeleteI think this is crazy because if a family wants to just have another child in order to help another it is wrong and immoral. I think that there are many parents who would not be open with thier children about the diseases and would treat the "donor" child differently than the sick child. I think that this is just opening up issues that should be left to God and what he decides. I think that having another child just for the sake of saving another is wrong because there will always be a loss of connection betweenthe child and parents. I also think that picking out the genetic makeup to ensure the child is not sick too is wrong because I don't believe in manipulating genetic material.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with families having a second child to save the life of the first, particularly if the family was planning on having a second child anyway. As we discussed in class, people have children for many different reasons, some of them are honorable and some are not. For example: some people choose to have children so that they will have someone to take care of them when they are elderly. Although some people may not agree with this motive, no one would actively try to stop them. I don't see any real difference between having a child to take care of you later in life and having a child to save another. In fact, I believe the motives of the family in question to be far more honorable than those of the other couple who would meet no opposition. Therefore, I don't think that we can question the motives of the parents in any meaningful way. The only issue I have with this situation is the autonomy of the child. However, parents are able to make decisions for their children all the time and this situation is no different. From a utilitarian perspective, I believe this situation is highly favored. The sick child benefits from the transplant and, I would assume, that the majority of "donor babies", once they are old enough to understand, would be glad to know that they were able to save the life of a sibling.
ReplyDeleteI agree with colleen's opinion on the subject. It's a sticky situation, but the parents have good motives and it benefits everyone. If I had the genetic capabilities to be a donor for a diseased sibling, I would be happy to help. I know that by doing this, the babies choices are being taken away but I think the child would choose to help if they were capable. In this situation, manipulating genetic material is for treatment and not enhancement, so I think it is morally acceptable.
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't anything much more to say about what is happening in this situation, but I don't find the parents' actions to be morally offensive. If the donor child is treated as well the other child, this seems "fair." If the parents' motivation behind having this child was to keep their first child alive, that is their perogative. True, the child did not have an autonomous choice in the matter, but it is still for a good reason. On this note, if you guys are interested in this topic watch My Sisters Keeper!
My Sister's Keeper is a great example of this. Creating a child specifically for this purpose can be such a sticky situation. If the parents intend to treat the child just like their other children both before and after the procedure, then I think the situation is ok. If the parents do this with anything less than honorable intentions, I think you run into trouble. Also, if the child is old enough that he/she realizes what's going on and refuses to participate, then there are going to be problems. If the parents force the child to cooperate even though the child refuses, then I think you are crossing into immoral ground.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Colleen, if a family is wishing to have a second child and that child could potentially save the life of the elder child I do not see there being an issue. If both children are treated equally and cared for in the same manner I don't think anything is wrong. Obviously the autonomy of the second child is qustionable but I would think they would like to be looked upon as a "hero" to their older sibling. It would be different because typically we see our older siblings as heroes rather than our younger.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough situation because if something goes wrong it could ultimately lead to the death of either child. In today's society we usually only hear about the cases that end great, because who wants to hear about cases that end badly?
ReplyDeleteI do feel the parents have the right to do so, but mentally it could take a toll on either child as well as the parents if the worse case situation occured.
"so that the second child could serve as"
ReplyDeletePhrasing the prompt this way makes it sound as though the second child has zero dignity of his own. Whoever mandarilla is uses a really good example with My Sister's Keeper. It might not even be fair to the first child, who may feel guilty for continually putting their younger sibling's health in a compromised situation.