Saviour Siblings

andrewb · 19-05-2008, 20:54

The general concept is that you 'create' a child who can then be used to treat a child previously born with a disease.

I don't see a problem with it in princple. I think in theory a family could have two healthy children. I don't think it's selfish of the parents either, I can't speak for anybody because I'm not suffering from serious illness, but I can't imagine its a pleasent thing to live with for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand the ethics creap in, how do you legislate it? How do you stop children being created for 'spare parts'

What do you think?

Royboy39 · 19-05-2008, 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb

The general concept is that you 'create' a child who can then be used to treat a child previously born with a disease.

I don't see a problem with it in princple. I think in theory a family could have two healthy children. I don't think it's selfish of the parents either, I can't speak for anybody because I'm not suffering from serious illness, but I can't imagine its a pleasent thing to live with for the rest of their lives.

On the other hand the ethics creap in, how do you legislate it? How do you stop children being created for 'spare parts'

What do you think?

In this case I think you have gone above your station as a novice.

West Ender · 19-05-2008, 21:06

From my limited knowledge of this, I understand that only umbilical blood from the newborn is used for the treatment. I can't see anything wrong with this. I have no problem with IVF (I had a colleague who had IVF twins which she wouldn't have had without the technology) and I can't see much difference. I am quite sure "saviour" siblings are as much loved as the child they can help so where's the dilemma?

I have, thank God, never been in the position where I had a child that needed medical intervention to keep it alive. It must be a horrendous situation for a parent to be in and if another much-loved child can help the suffering one then - why not?

Margaret Pilkington · 19-05-2008, 21:07

I don't think it is necessarily seen as creating a child for 'spare parts' as you put it...if the child is conceived with a view to helping a sibling, and saving a life then I'm sure this child would be loved just as much as any other child...if not more, because of the important role it has played in saving a child.

Rosencrantz · 19-05-2008, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royboy39

In this case I think you have gone above your station as a novice.

What does this even mean? I can't tell if this is an insult or a backhanded compliment.

I think we should take this on a likely worst-case scenario - a family can only afford to raise one child but it's disabled. The second child is made to save the first and we're left with the problem of a life that's been created essentially as a tool, and is now effectively unwanted. Do we put it up for adoption? Can the system handle that?

I say it's technically okay as long as the family can support a second child. Morally? Love that's based on a child's use as a tool is inhumane. I don't know how the children then come from this will feel, so I'm inconclusive.

Margaret Pilkington · 19-05-2008, 21:21

I don't see it quite like that......money is a factor when bringing up children, but there is much help for parents from the state.
I think saviour siblings will be saviours of not just the ill child but also of the parents too. Many parents who lose a child will eventually be split by the grief.
It doesn't cost much more to bring up an extra child...after all many of the things that are needed, will already have been bought for the first child.

Royboy39 · 19-05-2008, 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

What does this even mean? I can't tell if this is an insult or a backhanded compliment.

I think we should take this on a likely worst-case scenario - a family can only afford to raise one child but it's disabled. The second child is made to save the first and we're left with the problem of a life that's been created essentially as a tool, and is now effectively unwanted. Do we put it up for adoption? Can the system handle that?

I say it's technically okay as long as the family can support a second child. Morally? Love that's based on a child's use as a tool is inhumane. I don't know how the children then come from this will feel, so I'm inconclusive.

Why do I get the impression that this post is from the same camp as the thread creator?

Rosencrantz · 19-05-2008, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royboy39

Why do I get the impression that this post is from the same camp as the thread creator?

Well one of us can spell "creep" :P

And besides money, time will probably be a massive problem as well. I mean, I'm not a parent and hopefully won't be for a while, but I imagine professionals who might want just the one due to work pressure might have to ruin their careers for the second kid. I'm not saying that's a particularly moral way of looking at bringing up a child, but it's another of those situations that would have to be taken into account when thinking about legislation.

Royboy39 · 19-05-2008, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

Well one of us can spell "creep" :P

And besides money, time will probably be a massive problem as well. I mean, I'm not a parent and hopefully won't be for a while, but I imagine professionals who might want just the one due to work pressure might have to ruin their careers for the second kid. I'm not saying that's a particularly moral way of looking at bringing up a child, but it's another of those situations that would have to be taken into account when thinking about legislation.

What the hell is that all about?

Rosencrantz · 19-05-2008, 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royboy39

What the hell is that all about?

It's about making sure a child that's essentially born to serve a purpose as a tool gets just as much love and respect as one born the normal way.

Royboy39 · 19-05-2008, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

It's about making sure a child that's essentially born to serve a purpose as a tool gets just as much love and respect as one born the normal way.

And why not???

Rosencrantz · 19-05-2008, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royboy39

And why not???

What do you mean? I think they should have the same opportunities, I'm just pointing out that some parents might not feel that way due to social or economic situations. Constraints on time, money, the parent's religion; these are all reasons that a second child created to save the first might have a hard time.

Royboy39 · 19-05-2008, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz

What do you mean? I think they should have the same opportunities, I'm just pointing out that some parents might not feel that way due to social or economic situations. Constraints on time, money, the parent's religion; these are all reasons that a second child created to save the first might have a hard time.

If a child is born to caring parents...there a still a few about...he or she would be brought up following the family traditions and not discarded as a runt...that would not be allowed either by society or the government one would hope.
We hopefully live or have lived in a civilised country where life is looked on as an asset...male or female....and may this long continue.

andrewb · 19-05-2008, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royboy39

In this case I think you have gone above your station as a novice.

I don't think I understand. What's your opinion on the matter?

blazey · 19-05-2008, 22:10

I personally think it is wrong, but I CAN understand why people would resort to it. Science is rapidly advancing in this field and my main concern beyond my ethical reasons is that the law is struggling to keep up with the various issues that are arising from things like IVF and other modern forms of artificial insemination and conception.

I do support science, but only if it can be regulated, and at the moment, from a law students point of view with a specific interest in medical law, I can see that the law IS trying to keep up with the developments, if anything more competently than some other areas of law, but there are a lot of 'grey areas', though I suppose there isn't really any area of law which doesn't have these

That's all I have to say really, I don't really want to go into my own ethical beliefs surrounding it because I don't think they are strong enough to object completely to the procedure, and they have pretty much been briefly addressed anyway. Hope that makes my position clear