Saviour Siblings?
By ShardAerliss
@ShardAerliss (1488)
May 19, 2008 2:18pm CST
These are babies born from embryos selected because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition.
Some people are strongly opposed to the creation of these children. The general argument is that a child should not be born simply to serve as a tissue bank for someone else.
Others argue that, whatever reason a child is born for, as long as it will be loved should it matter? Saviour siblings, as the name implies, save lives; how can that be seen as a bad thing, they ask.
So my question to you; do you agree with the creation of a child to help save the life of another child?
Personally I'm cut down the middle on this issue. I do not agree with IVF usually; if you want a child so badly, give an already born one a loving home. However, this child is being created to save a life... as others say; how is this a bad thing?
I don't see a problem with the reason for the child being created. People have children for all sorts of reasons and I think having one to save a life is far more honourable than having one just because your body clock is ticking down.
But, that's just me. How do you feel? Maybe you can help sway me one way or the other...
2 people like this
4 responses
@AJ1952Chats (2332)
• Anderson, Indiana
19 May 08
Just so long as the child is born into love--even if that child doesn't end up saving the life of his/her older sibling.
Although one child doesn't replace another one, the home wouldn't seem to be as empty should the older child die.
We have this one monument in one of our local cemeteries where it's made in the likeness of an eight year old girl and a sixteen year old boy.
These were two siblings--the children of a doctor and his wife. The little girl passed on first at the age of eight. The boy passed on a few years later when he turned sixteen.
This couple had no other children and, as far as I know, never had any after that, so I've often though about how empty their home must have felt with first one child taken and then the other.
If there had been other siblings, there would have still been grief, but they would also still have other children with them.
If this child is able to save his/her older sibling, I would imagine that the two of them would have a very special bond.
If not, the house would seem less empty.
It's a win-win situation just so long as love of both children figures into the picture and the younger child wasn't just seen as a place to get body parts.
1 person likes this
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
19 May 08
So long as the child is born into love.
Perfectly put. A child should only ever be born into love... but is this enough for some people?
@positiveminded1977 (7072)
• India
20 Jul 08
Hi Shard! I am with you when you say that instead of going in for IVF, people could just adopt one of the millions of orphans and give him/her a home. But "savior sibling" is a different matter. Here, a child is being created to save the life of another. Of course, this child cannot be treated as a "tissue bank." That's just horrible! The baby should be given ample love. Maybe when he/she grows up, the story of his/her birth can be told to him/her. Don't you think this child will feel happy to know that he/she was born to save another?
Cheers and happy mylotting
1 person likes this
@revellanotvanella (4033)
• United States
20 Jul 08
That sounds weird to me and seems like it would devalue life rather than add to it. I heard about this but not indepth and thought it was silly and if this is where stem cell research is going then im not for it and its a shame because I supported it even with the opposition but the logic in this I just cannot see and the use of technology is not advancing this way and it just sounds lazy that they cannot think of better ways to grow sells then use another life--.....pause
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
20 May 08
And the winner of the "Shortest Response Ever" award goes to agent! lol
Care to elaborate?
@ShardAerliss (1488)
•
21 May 08
How to justify the destruction of one life to save another
Saviour siblings are not killed. If that were the case it would totally illegal. Their tissue is used for the saving of another life. This can be anything from umbilical cord fluid to bone marrow.
In Britain, all alternative therapies must be taken into account before the decision to make a saviour sibling can be made.
@freethinkingagent (2501)
•
20 May 08
I find it maddening concidering the pros and cons, and then deeper questions of ethics and could I live with myself. How to justify the destruction of one for the life of another. Shear maddness. Too many unknow consiquinces. It is maddness to concider such things.
