(or savior sibling) is a child who is born to provide an organ or cell transplant to a sibling that is affected with a fatal disease, such as cancer or Fanconi anemia, that can best be treated by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
The savior sibling is conceived through in vitro fertilization. Fertilized zygotes are tested for genetic compatibility (human leucocyte antigen (HLA) typing), using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and only zygotes that are compatible with the existing child are implanted. Zygotes are also tested to make sure they are free of the original genetic disease. The procedure is controversial
Birthing one child to save another, is there anything wrong with using a child as a savior for another dying child?
The young woman who had the disease had her little brother born to give her blood so she could survive, and she lives on. The parents are happy with the decision, and the little boy in the is functional and healthy child without issues.
One of the issues that crops up for example is:
Quote from Savior sibling" raises a decade of life-and-death questions[/quote »
One of his patients, for example, had four embryos implanted in her uterus because the testing for their genetic tissue typing failed. Her IVF doctors said they would test the fetuses and abort the ones that didn't match her sick child.
Which is about as close as this concept gets to the movie The Island.
So wait, does this kill or harm the savior sibling?
No, they typically raise the child as a "normal, healthy child in every other way" with the exception that they're expected to donate tissue to their sick sibling.
For the latter, it needlessly complicates the issue with the abortion issue.
The issue is made more "dramatic" in TV (such as medical drama, or CSI-type shows) when the savior child is forced to donate or in pain or what not. Like abortion, that issue is a completely different. This is a consent/child abuse/slavery issue.
People have children for the sole purpose of wanting to have children. Wanting to have children to save another is just as valid. Taken on its own merits without being conflated with abortion and consent issues, I see no problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
In a situation like this I see no issue with it... The thing I wonder about is doing something like this where the new sibling would be permanently changed as part of the procedure (thought this is also an issue with regular siblings as well). If one sibling needs a kidney and the other sibling is a match... who should get to decide whether or not the child gives up a kidney?
But when it comes to parents being able to verify that their next child does not have a debilitating disease and gets to save another child in the process... seems like a lot better reason to have a kid than "oops the rubber broke".
I am going to take the opposite point if view, raw genetic material, sure, the second that child has a mind what your doing is slavery, no different then if I took people hostage and forced them to give blood/plastma/bone marrow ect. Bringing a sentient being in to this world for the sole purposes of harvesting it to help another sentient creature is wrong on many levels, its taking away choice (and their is no way you will convince they its "their choice" they are being guilting likely from birth for this).
In third-world economies, many parents have a lot of children so that they can be assured there will be someone to take care of them in their old age. That seems like a very similar situation, and I don't think there's any ethical objection. Certainly as long as the second sibling isn't harmed and their well-being isn't put in jeopardy, it seems fine to me. If you want to start harvesting organs or something like that, it'd be another story.
I am going to take the opposite point if view, raw genetic material, sure, the second that child has a mind what your doing is slavery, no different then if I took people hostage and forced them to give blood/plastma/bone marrow ect. Bringing a sentient being in to this world for the sole purposes of harvesting it to help another sentient creature is wrong on many levels, its taking away choice (and their is no way you will convince they its "their choice" they are being guilting likely from birth for this).
Tell that to virtually everyone from a century and onward ago who had children specifically so that they could work and earn income for their family.
The whole "have children because you want to have children" and "children are expensive to raise so you don't have many children" are VERY NEW PHENOMENA.
I am going to take the opposite point if view, raw genetic material, sure, the second that child has a mind what your doing is slavery, no different then if I took people hostage and forced them to give blood/plastma/bone marrow ect. Bringing a sentient being in to this world for the sole purposes of harvesting it to help another sentient creature is wrong on many levels, its taking away choice (and their is no way you will convince they its "their choice" they are being guilting likely from birth for this).
Tell that to virtually everyone from a century and onward ago who had children specifically so that they could work and earn income for their family.
The whole "have children because you want to have children" and "children are expensive to raise so you don't have many children" are VERY NEW PHENOMENA.
The Sumerians had a part of their religion that the more children you had the better you were treated in the afterlife. However, we must also say that "children being too expensive" causes problems with that:
1. We see that with an increase in violence such as civil wars there's a decline in birth rate, the same with economic downturns (demographics and cliodynamics)
2. The Spartan citizens themselves to consolidate property purposely had fewer children which helped to undermine the Lacedaemonian system
3. Romans under Augustus famously had an issue with the patrician not having enough children
So yea, there's certain trends when humans have certain placements on them for familial strategy. It's just that in the long term that labor was short and resources plentiful with areas, and in recent years this has reversed itself towards specific issues.
Tell that to virtually everyone from a century and onward ago who had children specifically so that they could work and earn income for their family.
The whole "have children because you want to have children" and "children are expensive to raise so you don't have many children" are VERY NEW PHENOMENA.
So are things like "eugenics ", "Women shouldn't have rights" and "Slavery!" all very popular things from hundred years+ ago, we have done away with barbaric practices such as this, we tend to accept that these new addition are "good" things for society as a whole.
I am going to take the opposite point if view, raw genetic material, sure, the second that child has a mind what your doing is slavery, no different then if I took people hostage and forced them to give blood/plastma/bone marrow ect. Bringing a sentient being in to this world for the sole purposes of harvesting it to help another sentient creature is wrong on many levels, its taking away choice (and their is no way you will convince they its "their choice" they are being guilting likely from birth for this).
Hang on, you're saying that the first child should be condemned to death? What's wrong with saving a life?
Your argument > I think you've said it just to get a reaction.
For the latter, it needlessly complicates the issue with the abortion issue.
People have children for the sole purpose of wanting to have children. Wanting to have children to save another is just as valid. Taken on its own merits without being conflated with abortion and consent issues, I see no problem.
I agree with your thoughts, I agree this practice of having a second child to save another is fine. This issue does not need to be complicated by talking about abortion, which we all know is a very dividing issue indeed.
Unless you are a regular blood/marrow donator and a registered organ donator. You are being very hypocritical, We as a society have chosen that choice individual choice, is more important than the life of any given person. Perticuarly when you view the cronic shortages our blood banks/marrow banks suffer, its quite clear that we as a race value the ability to choose and the ability to use said choice more than saving someones life.
Unless you are a regular blood/marrow donator and a registered organ donator. You are being very hypocritical.
I am a registered organ carrier (says so on my Drivers license) and do regularly donate blood, but not marrow > that's too hardcore for me.
Hypocritical you say? Irrelevant > and even if I was, it doesn't mean you're right.
...when you view the cronic shortages our blood banks/marrow banks suffer, its quite clear that we as a race value the ability to choose and the ability to use said choice more than saving someones life.
This is definitely wrong.
Example : A Jehovah's witnesses' child is dying and needs a blood transfusion.
Parents say, "no, it's up to god now." The Doctors have the right, by law (at least in my country), to effectively save the child from the parents and no longer need consent for any further treatment.
Honestly, show me you're not a troll draftguy;
If raising a child for the purpose of saving a sibling seems repulsive to you > put yourself in their shoes.
Would you consider it if your child was dying of something perfectly preventable?
If not, why not?
Ofcourse I wouldn't, To me having a child for the sole purpose of donating its body to another child is no different then me kidnapping my neighbors child and forcing THEM to give their body to save my child. Every child deserves the right to life free, to make its own choices. To suppress that freedom is in my honest opinion criminal. I honestly see no difference between this and coldbloodly killing someone for their organs. During the days of slavery it was not uncommon for someone to keep slaves JUST FOR THEIR TEETH, was that right no. You are placing your child on a pedestal above another, You are showing blatant favoritism, what happens when the child is an adult and gets wise to the blackmail you have been using on them? You are allowing your child to grow resentment and hatred towards your other child. So they decide to stop, Now your adult child still has his conditions and you need to make another child to support him. Can you not see this cycle only having one inevitable sad ending?
you are also drawing the wrong comparison, in your example the donation material was already their, You already had a person who made a willing donation. To make a real example it would be the parents saying their religion prevents THEM from donating blood to save their child, The doctor can not force the parents too donate.
My problem is with making a willing informed choice without duress, not the science or medical tech.
If to you > put yourself in their shoes.
Would you consider (raising a child for the purpose of saving a sibling) if your child was dying of something perfectly preventable?
Yes I would. If the only way to have him live was to force another child to give up something of theirs. (Note I said force, if the other child was genuinely willing and was able to make an unbiased informed consent I would have no issue accepting it, but creating a child explicitly for that purpose is by no means an "informed and unbiased " decision.
Seems you and I are worlds apart here.
The very thought of letting a family member die for the sake of principle's alone, is extremely unappealing to me.
A regret like that would plague me for the rest of my life.
I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think it's that big a deal, compared to a life of a loved one.
well Slave, its a very VERY slippery slope, would you have a child just so you could donate its eyes to your other child? The logical extension of your line of thought is that we have mandated donation registrars after all everyone is someones family. It starts to put value of human life, example maybe the street person doesn't deserve to have both kindey's after all that organ could save someone innocent child. Its not right to force someone else to suffer so your family member can life/have a better life. Just because you created a new life, doesn't mean that life should be forced to extremely unpleasant things for no tangible benefit.
well Slave, its a very VERY slippery slope, would you have a child just so you could donate its eyes to your other child?
Hang on a minute > you and I are saying things relative a different context. Having no eyes is not life-threatening, having 1 kidney is not life-threatening.
I'm talking about a condition, like kidney failure for example, that will eventually be lethal if a donor is not found. A sibling donating a kidney could give that person back their life again > a human body can operate on a single kidney just fine.
I thought that was the issue here, preventing death, not stealing organs like you're suggesting > relative to our OP in post #1.
The logical extension of your line of thought is that we have mandated donation registers, after all everyone is someones family. It starts to put value of human life, example maybe the street person doesn't deserve to have both kindey's after all that organ could save someone innocent child. Its not right to force someone else to suffer so your family member can life/have a better life.
There is already registers of people with rare blood types/bone marrow etc., for good reason.
Enforced donation will never happen, that's crazy talk.
Just because you created a new life, doesn't mean that life should be forced to extremely unpleasant things for no tangible benefit.
I would suggest saving a human life is quite tangible.
I also suggest you consult our OP's post #1 to understand what direction we're all talking about here > it's got nothing to do with organ theft or thieving eyeballs.
Ofcourse I wouldn't, To me having a child for the sole purpose of donating its body to another child is no different then me kidnapping my neighbors child and forcing THEM to give their body to save my child. Every child deserves the right to life free, to make its own choices. To suppress that freedom is in my honest opinion criminal.
First of all it's different because the neighbor's child isn't your child and there are rights that parents have.
Second it's different because there's no guarantee a savior child will be born correctly, where as you've decided that someone else's child here has the right donation specs.
Next, no kids don't have the right to make these choices. Try explaining to a five-year-old the consequences of this decision. I bet they change their mind with a bowl of ice-cream. They're kids. Parents make choices for them all the time and it's not a crime when you give them a vaccine over their cries of "No shot!" You have to understand: Kids are dumb.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Slave its not so crazy you are effectually do it for your child, you are forcing your child to do something harmful to himself to save your other child. When I say no tangible benefit I mean for that child. No having a leaching sibling is NOT a tangible benefit. Giving a child an inoculation has VERY tangible benefit for the child in question, namely preventing the diseases. An argument might be made say if it only had to be done once, but its NEVER just once, you are creating a parasitic relationship with your children.
At LordOwlington, in the OP it showed they were aborting fetus that did not have appropriate matches, so yes I think that sort of is guaranteeing a fit.
Now when your child gets older, lets say a teenager, and does not want to continue with marrow donations or blood donations or whatever, Can you honestly tell me that you as a parent are going to be able to love that child and treat that child same as before? When they tell the sibbling they honestly hate them, hope they die so they can live their own life free of the chain you have placed on them? You are setting your family up for heart break, Children may be dumb but Teens can be very heartless.
When they tell the sibling they honestly hate them, hope they die so they can live their own life free of the chain you have placed on them?
The piece in our OP was relating to blood/stem cells etc. taken from the umbilical cord of the "sibling saviour" born. No chains there.
Name some conditions that would result in the *slavery* you speak of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Birthing one child to save another, is there anything wrong with using a child as a savior for another dying child?
Update Real life example:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/103584799.html
The young woman who had the disease had her little brother born to give her blood so she could survive, and she lives on. The parents are happy with the decision, and the little boy in the is functional and healthy child without issues.
One of the issues that crops up for example is:
Which is about as close as this concept gets to the movie The Island.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
No, they typically raise the child as a "normal, healthy child in every other way" with the exception that they're expected to donate tissue to their sick sibling.
Here's a real life example:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/103584799.html
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
The issue is made more "dramatic" in TV (such as medical drama, or CSI-type shows) when the savior child is forced to donate or in pain or what not. Like abortion, that issue is a completely different. This is a consent/child abuse/slavery issue.
People have children for the sole purpose of wanting to have children. Wanting to have children to save another is just as valid. Taken on its own merits without being conflated with abortion and consent issues, I see no problem.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
But when it comes to parents being able to verify that their next child does not have a debilitating disease and gets to save another child in the process... seems like a lot better reason to have a kid than "oops the rubber broke".
Tell that to virtually everyone from a century and onward ago who had children specifically so that they could work and earn income for their family.
The whole "have children because you want to have children" and "children are expensive to raise so you don't have many children" are VERY NEW PHENOMENA.
The Sumerians had a part of their religion that the more children you had the better you were treated in the afterlife. However, we must also say that "children being too expensive" causes problems with that:
1. We see that with an increase in violence such as civil wars there's a decline in birth rate, the same with economic downturns (demographics and cliodynamics)
2. The Spartan citizens themselves to consolidate property purposely had fewer children which helped to undermine the Lacedaemonian system
3. Romans under Augustus famously had an issue with the patrician not having enough children
So yea, there's certain trends when humans have certain placements on them for familial strategy. It's just that in the long term that labor was short and resources plentiful with areas, and in recent years this has reversed itself towards specific issues.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
So are things like "eugenics ", "Women shouldn't have rights" and "Slavery!" all very popular things from hundred years+ ago, we have done away with barbaric practices such as this, we tend to accept that these new addition are "good" things for society as a whole.
Your argument > I think you've said it just to get a reaction.
I agree with your thoughts, I agree this practice of having a second child to save another is fine. This issue does not need to be complicated by talking about abortion, which we all know is a very dividing issue indeed.
I am a registered organ carrier (says so on my Drivers license) and do regularly donate blood, but not marrow > that's too hardcore for me.
Hypocritical you say? Irrelevant > and even if I was, it doesn't mean you're right.
LOL.
So is it cool if it's my choice to kill you for your opinion in this thread?
Do you actually believe what you're saying?
This is definitely wrong.
Example : A Jehovah's witnesses' child is dying and needs a blood transfusion.
Parents say, "no, it's up to god now." The Doctors have the right, by law (at least in my country), to effectively save the child from the parents and no longer need consent for any further treatment.
Honestly, show me you're not a troll draftguy;
If raising a child for the purpose of saving a sibling seems repulsive to you > put yourself in their shoes.
Would you consider it if your child was dying of something perfectly preventable?
If not, why not?
you are also drawing the wrong comparison, in your example the donation material was already their, You already had a person who made a willing donation. To make a real example it would be the parents saying their religion prevents THEM from donating blood to save their child, The doctor can not force the parents too donate.
My problem is with making a willing informed choice without duress, not the science or medical tech.
Whoa.... am I understanding what you're saying here?
So you'd let your own child die?
The very thought of letting a family member die for the sake of principle's alone, is extremely unappealing to me.
A regret like that would plague me for the rest of my life.
I understand what you're saying, but I just don't think it's that big a deal, compared to a life of a loved one.
Hang on a minute > you and I are saying things relative a different context. Having no eyes is not life-threatening, having 1 kidney is not life-threatening.
I'm talking about a condition, like kidney failure for example, that will eventually be lethal if a donor is not found. A sibling donating a kidney could give that person back their life again > a human body can operate on a single kidney just fine.
I thought that was the issue here, preventing death, not stealing organs like you're suggesting > relative to our OP in post #1.
There is already registers of people with rare blood types/bone marrow etc., for good reason.
Enforced donation will never happen, that's crazy talk.
I would suggest saving a human life is quite tangible.
I also suggest you consult our OP's post #1 to understand what direction we're all talking about here > it's got nothing to do with organ theft or thieving eyeballs.
First of all it's different because the neighbor's child isn't your child and there are rights that parents have.
Second it's different because there's no guarantee a savior child will be born correctly, where as you've decided that someone else's child here has the right donation specs.
Next, no kids don't have the right to make these choices. Try explaining to a five-year-old the consequences of this decision. I bet they change their mind with a bowl of ice-cream. They're kids. Parents make choices for them all the time and it's not a crime when you give them a vaccine over their cries of "No shot!" You have to understand: Kids are dumb.
At LordOwlington, in the OP it showed they were aborting fetus that did not have appropriate matches, so yes I think that sort of is guaranteeing a fit.
Now when your child gets older, lets say a teenager, and does not want to continue with marrow donations or blood donations or whatever, Can you honestly tell me that you as a parent are going to be able to love that child and treat that child same as before? When they tell the sibbling they honestly hate them, hope they die so they can live their own life free of the chain you have placed on them? You are setting your family up for heart break, Children may be dumb but Teens can be very heartless.
The piece in our OP was relating to blood/stem cells etc. taken from the umbilical cord of the "sibling saviour" born. No chains there.
Name some conditions that would result in the *slavery* you speak of.