Saviour Siblings As science becomes ever more sophisticated in the coming years, it is becoming harder and harder to determine what is ethically right and wrong. One particular, quite recent event is the “saviour siblings” controversy. Saviour siblings, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, is “a child who is born with particular genes that have been chosen in order to treat an older brother or sister who has a disease.” This particular topic of discussion was started by the author, Jodi Picoult, who wrote My Sister’s Keeper. It is a story about a young girl, born to be her older sister’s saviour sibling, seeking medical emancipation. This book explores the ethics of being a saviour sibling, highlighting the fact that saviour siblings …show more content…
However, to do it with under informed consent may be another thing. While everyone is concerned with the well being of the sick child, not a lot of thought goes to the saviour sibling. As famously stated from the Nash’s family’s case, some critics commented that Adam was like a “spare parts baby”. While the parents viciously denied the comment and argued that they raise Adam with equal love and care, it is undeniable that in some ways, Adam and some other saviour siblings were hauntingly similar to spare parts; if the sick child relapsed, then blood marrow, stem cell would be taken from the healthy child and transplanted into the sick child. This sort of thinking would severely harm the saviour siblings’ psychological state, as they would feel as if their creation was to become a “backup” for the sick child, not out of …show more content…
Some fine examples of countries with laws about saviour siblings in place are Australia and the United Kingdom. Since many of their saviour siblings cases seem to arise from there, they already have laws in place that regulate what is ethically right and wrong. For example, in 2008, the UK has a rigid law in system that keeps parents from demanding too much of their saviour siblings. The donation must benefit or at least not harm either one of the siblings. Therefore, the transplants are only limited to blood marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood stem cell transplants. Anything too detrimental, such as donation of a kidney from the saviour sibling is too harmful. The parents must also get consent from their child once they can understand what sort of risks they have to go through. The child must also be treated as a human being, instead of a sort of back up system that exists solely for the ailing child. In terms of bioethics, America is lagging behind and must start developing a firm infrastructure for the safety of saviour siblings. Otherwise, the future of savior siblings is quite dystopic, as seen in Jodi Picoult’s My Sister’s
Jeannette and her siblings were all forced into completing tasks and taking on roles for themselves and their other siblings that are heartbreaking to read about and uncommon for most children to experience and tackle themselves. Much of this had to do with the lack of responsibility on their parents’ part and the ways they decided to live. As I have read the book, I have been amazed over and over again at the ways Jeannette handled the parental roles—both mother and father. She was very tough and never gave up, but you could tell there were other times she was just plain discouraged. One example we can see her using the roles to benefit her siblings was when her mom left to Charleston to “renew her teaching certificate” for 8 weeks and put Jeannette in charge of the money. She budgeted out $25 a week to provide the groceries and pay all of the bills that would need to be taken care of. Even though Jeannette gave her father (Rex) money when he asked, she
One of the particular areas of interest is prenatal genetics. In this field, many new and outstanding innovations have been made. A mother and father can now check for a large array of disorders that could occur in their child; sexual preference has now been shifted from the hands of a higher being to that of someone with a Ph.D.; and in the near future, a couple will possibly be able to choose the physical features of their child, such as hair color, eye color, etc. Scientifically speaking, all of these new options that parents have is amazing. Not only can they have a healthy baby, but one that is going to be stronger, and better looking. Yet, ethically speaking, many people would dislike the “playing” of God. And when it becomes possible to create a perfect child, what will prevent us in society from doing so? The field of genetics in prenatal situations has become very advanced over the past few years, yet many of these advancements have given arise to unethical applications.
The fight against diseases, especially these serious diseases causing untold suffering for many people, must be continuous and heroic. Fetal tissue use has a promising hope for people in their old age to be and live more sustainable. Even though fetal research does not hold the certainty but only a possibility of cures for such diseases, such possibilities should be realized if one has the resources and there is no moral impediment to doing so. But that remains the question. Is there a moral impediment to such research? ...
I once did not realize the ethics of medical care of an infant, let alone one that is ill in the NICU. Baby Dylan was at 23 weeks gestation when mother Jennifer and father Kevin gave birth to him. He seemed like a little human eager to live but even the latest advances in medicine were unable to keep him alive. I believe that the parents ended up making the correct decision for baby Dylan. If he ended up being a “keeper” he still could have had severe neurological and respiratory problems for the rest of his life.
Although science is at a peak for overwhelming and astonishing outbreaks, the ethical issues concerning these “out breaks” have been inadequately addressed. As the options that couples that are desperate to have a child expand, so do too the expectations of whom the child becomes. Couples are able to choose a donor, of either gender, based on characteristics that they see fit to their liking. Although imperfect, couples now have the ability to choose their child’s gender. “Medicine tends to be patient-driven at the moment.” Said Charles Strom, MD, PhD, director of medical genetics at Illinois Masonic Medical Center in Chicago. “A patient needs something and physicians do all they can to provide that service, and that sometimes makes one shortcut the ethical considerations.” With our vast
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Modern technology has provided families the free choice and ability to abort a fetus that they feel is not the the proper one for their lifestyle. These opportunities are present so that the offspring they create is one born with equal opportunity, and one that will be loved and taken care of fully; as is the ethical obligation of a parent. It is ultimately up to a parent whether or not they will bring a child into the world provided that they stay within the law when doing so, but this response will address the ethical criteria under which parents choose to do so. Dawkins feels that if a fetus with something such as Down Syndrome (DS) is brought into the world, not only would it not be loved properly, but it would not be given a life on equal
A well-known reporter and writer, Gina Kolata, in her article, More Babies being Born to Be Donors of Tissue, addresses the ethics of conceiving donor babies. Kolata’s purpose is to enlighten the reader on the debate of whether conceiving donor babies is ethical. She uses all three ethos, pathos, and logos, in order to inform the reader that there are many sides of the debate.
Even if their baby is not able to live, they want to give another baby that opportunity. They want to give another family the opportunity to see their child grow. Sometimes the parents of an anencephalic infant want to donate the infant 's organs to other babies who need healthy organs. They say that, “by donating the newborn 's organs, they feel that the pregnancy would at least have had some value: their own loss can be another family 's gain.” In the United States, about 2000 babies each year need organs, and the only suitable organs for tiny babies are those from other tiny babies. However, there are also some parents who wish to keep their baby alive. ("3. ANENCEPHALIC BABIES
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
To a parent, the thought of their child having a severe, yet rare genetic disease brings guilt, sadness, and responsibility to an aching heart. Parents who see their child pass through life with the weight of a terminal illness often wish in their hearts that the curse had been placed upon them rather than their child. To some, the thought of the old cliché "no parent ought to see their child die" seems to swim endlessly in their mind. The hope for a cure fills the hearts of many waiting on the edge of their seats in hopes for a better quality of life for themselves, loved ones, and human kind. The news of success with a novel technology in putting to rest these diseases brings a purpose in life. Such is the case with Ashanti DeSilva, a four-year-old girl diagnosed with severe combined immune deficiency (Human Gene Therapy).
One of these moral dilemmas is that genetic engineering changes the traditional dynamic that occurs between the parent and the offspring. This issue arose over the possibility of having a human embryo with three genetic parents which is now possible due to genetic engineering. The procedure in question “involves transplanting the chromosomes from a single-cell embryo or from an unfertilized egg into a donor egg or embryo from which the chromosomes have been removed”(Foht). The procedure itself is very useful for women with mitochondrial disorders but the issue involved with this is that the embryo would technically have three biological parents. There needs to be a real concern about “the way genetic engineering can alter the relationship between the generations from one of parents accepting the novelty and spontaneous uniqueness of their children to one where parents use biotechnology to choose and control the biological nature of their children”(Foht). There is a special relationship between children and their parents that may be disappearing very soon due to these techniques. Children could be born never truly knowing one of their genetic parents. If these procedures continue to prosper people will have to “accept arrangements that split apart the various biological and social aspects of parenthood, and that deliberately create
A. A. The "Best Possible Child" Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web.
Fate, F. (2013, January 16). Identical twins: The truth behind their similarity. The Frozen Fate Reproductive Medicine Ethics. Retrieved November 16, 2013, from http://thefrozenfate.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/identical-twins-the-truth-behind-their-similarity/
One of the proposed solutions to the ethical problem of savior siblings is that we should limit the use of them to only very “serious” and “life-threatening” cases (Smith 159). While this limits the amount of unethical savior siblings it still does not fix the problem. In fact, it worsens the problem. If a savior sibling was allowed because the sick child had a “life-threatening” illness the new child is definitely being treated unfairly. The sole purpose of that child would be to save their sibling. This definitely does not comply with either of Kant’s rules. In some cases, the sibling continues to be a donor for the majority of his life. For example, if a sick child has a bone marrow deficiency, they may need multiple bone marrow transplants throughout their life. This would really ensure that the only purpose of a new child would to be to save their sibling, so they would continue to be treated as a means at birth and throughout