The reaction of the savior sibling could change depending on the amount of pain the savior sibling is going through. In the future, many ethical questions arise such as whether the savior sibling has the right to decide if he or she wants to keep on helping the other sick child. Surely, the rights of the savior sibling have been denied when from their first breath they are being used as a means to an end. Whether we look for moral guidance from our religious texts or to secular historical documents, it is important that we as a society remain rooted in the belief in the inherent dignity of all persons. Ideally, I consider the best ethical choice to be subjecting both children to the potential to attain a high quality of life. In my opinion, parents have the duty to give their children the best lives possible and protect them from harm and having a child that is going to be used as treatment for another child violates this duty.
The noble intention behind creating savior siblings should not go unrecognized. With the emergence of a new technology known as savior siblings, parents are able to conceive a child that will be a perfect fit to cure their other sick child. Our reasons and intentions are complex. It is remarkable that English-language scientific literature rarely takes into account the number of embryos lost in these practices, which are always discarded siblings of the child requiring the transplant. If they do, are there any restrictions or exceptions that should be considered such as age, mental state, etc.
Those against savior siblings would argue the pain to the savior sibling is too much because he or she is undergoing hospital treatment which negatively affects his or her health when they were born and are otherwise, healthy. When is it too far to save one child by using the body of another? It took several rounds of in-vitro fertilization, and tens of thousands of dollars borrowed from Jack's parents, to get an embryo that cleared both hurdles. This type of stem cell transplant is the most ethical and clinically, and legally simple option. It's rare, but far more common among people of Eastern European Jewish descent like the Nashes, who live in Englewood, Colo. Another concern related to savior siblings is that parents are making decisions for the sick child meaning they are not considering his or her autonomy in the situation. References: Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer. In June 2004 they successfully had a son, Jamie, who was a tissue match and suitable stem cell donor for his elder brother.
Before a parent makes the decision to conceive a savior sibling, other options should be considered. Nonetheless, I can understand why one would be ethically concerned with the psychological state of a child raised in such circumstances. It was picked to ensure it did not carry the gene for Beta thalassemia, but also based on its compatibility with the sick siblings. For example, if the sick child needs cord blood, the savior sibling would just need to give up their umbilical cord once they are born. Her parents, however, know what was at stake. PowToon's animation templates help you create animated presentations and animated explainer videos from scratch.
Regardless of intentions prior to conception, should parents be able to decide for their children that they should undergo procedures like surgery on behalf of others that do no benefit them and and instead carry a risk of bodily harm? Social sex-selection is just another euphemism with deadly ramifications. This would result in a lack of harm compared to a situation when a sick child is needed for example for a bone marrow transplant. In the question of savior siblings, I personally think that selecting a child to be a genetic match to another sibling is more positive than negative, if anything. Subsequently, in light of parental autonomy and increasing acceptability of the use of such technologies, many question how much longer parents will be denied the selection of other features; and indeed how much longer the law will legitimately be able to prevent it. This paper will explore the major ethical concerns that arise surrounding the topic of savior siblings specifically focusing on the values of nonmaleficence, parental duty, and autonomy.
When looking at savior siblings, many issues related to values emerge, which I will focus on in my paper. The child is born not for itself but for the continuing good of the family. How do the parents value the lives of both children equally without showing that the savior sibling was born solely for a medical purpose? These are the types of questions that parents face when deciding how to treat their child that has a life threatening disease. If all genetically inherited diseases eventually no longer exist, does that mean that more diseases like this will arise? The Nashes thought they would never have more children until Wagner, an expert in bone marrow transplantation, came to them with a novel idea. Even though for this value, one side is stronger, many more values are apparent in this scenario and have stronger arguments that go against the concept of savior sibling. Therefore, one could argue that the autonomy of both the sick child and the savior sibling are being violated by the decisions the parents think they have the power to make.
Although the technology necessary to create savior siblings raises many ethical concerns. Vital principles are tossed aside in the emotions of the moment. It should also only be contemplated if conceiving a savior sibling is really the only remaining option, and all other possibilities have been considered and tried or eliminated. Their sick child received a bone marrow transplant from a nonrelative but died. Could this be interpreted as giving a child a purpose to serve as a treatment for their sibling? Respect for children is something crucial to the concept of parental duty.
Savior siblings are already a reality, and the use of such practices in the United States is not prohibited. Instead of having a feeling of neglect, would the savior sibling feel as though he or she was being treated better than the other children because the parents are so grateful for them? This is not however the only option. Savior siblings are born to provide their brother or sister with an organ or cell transplant if they are affected with a otherwise likely fatal disease such as cancer, fanconi anemia and many more. The concerns and factors that play into the decision making process and ethics of this dilemma will be discussed at large. The concerns regarding the creation of savior siblings are a pressing issue relevant to this time period. There are myriad examples of parents having a child for the benefit of another, most of which we think are perfectly acceptable.
One child lives only because another one needed him to be born. But of course, as all studies of this nature go, the actual statistics break out quite differently when looked at from educational, economic and age categories. Since adult stem cells are taken from a living human, this eliminates the widespread controversy surrounding abortion. The savior sibling is not only undergoing physical pain, but emotional pain and suffering as well. When multiple fetuses are introduced into this framework, there are eugenic influences that can arise. Due to these devaluing thoughts towards the savior sibling, the parents would show bias in their emotions towards each child.