Should Parents have a Child to Save Another Child - Research Paper Example

?Should parents have a child to save another child? The idea of conceiving a baby for the sake of another child seem so unethical to the ground realities. Create a life to save other when the life of the donor child may lead to many expected and unexpected psychological and biological complexities. Some parents have had another child to save the life of a child they have. How far would a parent go to save the life of his or her child? Who determines what goes too far? Is the baby going to be loved because it saved the life of his or her sibling or will he or she be loved just as much as the other child? Long term repercussions have not been determined as of yet because most of the children born are still underage. Society may not see the negative effects that this process can have on the child until several more years from now, when the child is an adult. As a child, he or she has no choice to donate or not, it is up to the parents. It is definitely heart wrenching to see your child die a little more each day, but parents and society must learn the effects that having another child to save the sick one will have. The opposition is just as outspoken. If a child’s life can be saved, then anything should be done to save it. The opposition has appealing concepts and qualities. No one wants to see a child die, especially the parents of that child. Everything that can be done should be done. Keeping that humane value in mind, during 2002 the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in England laid the basis for an outrageous debate not only in media, but in the ethical circles too, when they allowed a family to have a baby that will be genetically selected to cure the chronical disease of its sibling. A group of medical and scientific researchers fully supported the idea to have a baby as a savior for its sibling. It is ethically acceptable to create an offspring to save the life of a desperately ill sibling. They argue that it would be unethical to leave a child to end even when his precious life can be saved with the help of a new born. The ethical standards demands to do whatever it costs to save a vulnerable life (Simonstein, 2005). The pro researches have shown that the donors who have opted for any sort of transplantation seem to possess psychological benefits of self esteem, pride, saviour of life for the loved ones and encroach humane meanings from life (Switzer, GE., et. al., as cited in Pentz, R., et. al., 2008). They also argue that life is a precious thing and it is obligatory for us to save each and every life when we can do it with available technologies in 21st century. It is better than seeing a child dying with Fanconi anemia. It is heart rendering as a human to see people losing strings to life with peeling mucous membranes, sloughing skin and mouths with pouring bloods. No matter, whatever it takes but lives should be saved (Belkin, 2001). Aulisio, May and Block (2001) indicate that "as a matter of social policy there is no justificatory ground for prohibiting parents from having a child to save a child." They see it quite ethical if a child is brought into existence for specific reasons. Whatever happens next to the donor child is the area of main concern while rest lies with the decision of donation that is taken either by the donor or parents. If the minor donor is involved and is not able to take decision then the donation should be done in the best interest of the donor. For me, infact the idea to create a child as a donor for bone marrow transplant for curing a medically vulnerable sibling, seem awful to all acceptable ethical standards. This is a fact that lot of children born, are from unplanned pregnancies and after the initial shock of the parents, excitement ensues. The baby is born and the parents are happy, proud, and full of love and hopes for the future. Other children are planned and parents experience the same feelings. What happens when that child that is so loved and nurtured becomes so ill that he or she needs a bone marrow transplant in order to survive? Parents have resorted to having another child, created in a petri dish, so that the embryo will match the sick child. This is unethical and immoral. This is equivalent to having children for spare parts. How does a child feel knowing he or she was born only to save the life of an older sibling? There are suggestions that minor donors may experience greater psychological distress, particularly if the transplant is unsuccessful (Pentz, R., et. al., 2008). This statement alone is enough to say that the medical community and the parents are unethical in this process and enough is not known about the psychological damage that may be inflicted on both children. If parents have a sixteen year old child that develops leukemia and needs a bone marrow transplant, then they can either attempt to get pregnant on their own, or pay very expensive amounts to have genetically matched embryos implanted into the mother. The parents had not planned on having other children, as the child is sixteen. More than likely, if they were going to have another child, it would not happen sixteen years apart. Edward (2007) affirms the same by vehemently questioning the ethical standards of medical communities when they plan on to create embryos in forensic laboratories. As the lives are modernizing, we are experiencing what our ancestors did never even think of. Advancements in medical sciences have just demeaned the emotions when children are genetically created in laboratories to achieve the exact stem cell match for a sibling to save his/her life. How it can be justified when couples regularly abort their conceived babies after not finding them a right match for their elder child or when they learn that the baby is healthy but not a donor. It is far more common in couples to try for a baby as time allow them, praying that they will perhaps some time find the rignt match (Belkin, 2001). If the embryo develops properly and the mother carries the baby to term, then the parents have a baby that they did not want. It does not mean that they do not love the child, but nevertheless, the child was born to save a sibling. It just demeans the real existence of the child and ensue the feelings of being an unwanted child for wanted reasons. The capacity to select for desired blood and tissue compatibilities has led to the much discussed “savior sibling” cases in which parents seek to have one child to save another (Lotz, 2009). This controversy has spanned the past twenty years, and will continue into the future until laws and guidelines are put into place to regulate this. Parents should not be able to have a child to save the life of their existing child with a terminal illness. This is a valid argument that whatever it takes to save a life should be allowed. However, where does it end? Since the baby is a match to the sibling, then not only are bone marrow transplants possible, so are organ transplants. Parents make all medical decisions for their children unless deemed unfit, so it is possible that the child could be subjected to donate an organ. This is a very risky surgery and takes months to recover. The line has to be drawn somewhere. In conclusion, parents should not be able to conceive a child to use the bone marrow to save their other child. As horrific it must be to lose a child, society and the medical community cannot allow this to happen. There are no guidelines or laws in place to protect the baby from procedures that are painful and potentially dangerous and life-threatening. How sad it would be to save the older sibling’s life, only to lose the life of the baby that saved him or her. While well intentioned, the fact that there is no monitoring and also no psychological feedback from the donator child concludes that having a child to save a child cannot and should not happen. References: Aulisio, P. M., May, T., Bloc, D. G. (2001). Procreation for donation: the oral and political permissibility of "having a child to save a Child". Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10, 408-419. Belkin, L. (2001, July 10). The Made-to-Order-Savior. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Edwards, B. (2007). A burgeoning science of embryological genetics demands a modern ethics. Ethics, Bioscience and Life, 15(1), 34-40. Lotz, M. (2009). Procreative reasons-relevance: on the moral significance of why we have children. Bioethics, 23, 291-299. Doi. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00656x Pentz, R., Haight, A., Noll, B., Barfield, R., Pelletier, W., Hinds, P. (2008). The ethical justification for minor sibling bone marrow donation: A case study. The Oncologist, (13), 148-151. Simonstein, F. (2005). Genetic screening and reproductive choice: is making a child to save another unethical? Medicine and Law, 24(4), 775-781. Read More