Philosophy Now Forum

I've just read this story on the BBC and wonder what others think about the ethics involved.

Briefly, it concerns a child receiving treatment from a younger sibling who was born from selected embryos but I'd recommend reading the article.

First successful saviour sibling treatment for UK

I'm racking my brains to find some ethical problem with this but nothing but goodness emerges from this story.

The reason I highlighted it was because my initial instinct when I started reading the story was that it had to be ethically dubious but I came to the same conclusion as you did by the end so I was just interested to see if anyone else had interpreted it differently.

It seems we are thinking or emoting at the same level.
I'd also like to hear from others.

the only reason you were born is to provide spare parts for your older sibling...

-Imp

Weasel words: "only".

This Kg of carrots is ONLY $30.

If the parents love their child enough to take extraordinary steps to preserve its life they are likely to love the second child with as much strength. Additionally the second child will always be special in the sense of saving the first child's life.
Presumably it could be possible that a case might be found where the word "only" were to occur but unlikely. In fact the case in point mentions specifically that the couple always wanted another child.

I think a different set of arguments could be brought to bear if a previously childless parent had a child to save his/herself.

I've just read the article again and I'm interested in this bit (my highlighting):

"Medical teams in Cambridge, Bristol and Nottingham coordinated treatment to create a baby who was a perfect tissue match and then to use donated cells to treat Megan's blood disorder.

CARE Fertility in Nottingham carried out IVF treatment, taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant.

Two embryos were implanted and a single baby boy, Max, was born 18 months ago.

Max's umbilical cord blood was preserved and he later needed an operation to recover bone marrow."

I'm not an expert in such things but does that mean that the donation required the donor to undergo an operation? The first time I read the article I thought the donated cells were from the umbilical chord but it looks like I probably read it to quickly and was careless.

If my interpretation is correct then what are the ethical considerations of making a child who can't give consent undergo a surgical procedure for the sake of another? That question isn't specific to this situation though as there must be many cases of children needing transplants that only their siblings can provide.

I'm sort of thinking aloud there but to answer my own question I'd say that where the procedure isn't dangerous or unduly distressing to the donor it's ethically acceptable for the parents to decide on the child's behalf. Therefore if it's acceptable when the child isn't conceived to be a donor then it must be acceptable when they are.

Counter opinions or pointing out flaws in my logic are welcome.

Well spotted!! You can be forgiven for missing the nuance: the writer of the article has used a disgraceful sleight-of-hand. I wonder if it was intentional, or whether s/he was consciously tying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Either way it worked.

"Max's umbilical cord blood was preserved and he later needed an operation to recover bone marrow."

Clearly 'he', Max did not NEED an operation at all! That is a deceit. I am presuming that the operation to recover the bone marrow was that which saved Megan's life. So, it should have read; "Megan needed Max to have an operation."
This is a completely different scenario. I wonder what significance the umbilical cord blood has, or was this a bit of misdirection?
As far as I know a bone marrow removal can be a very painful experience, not without its risks.

I have no problem with the 'engineering' of the embryo in the first place, as that would have been acceptable in any case to have a viable second child without the disabling genetic disease. But there is a problem with consent of a minor.
I think the future for the parents might be a law suit against them by the second child, were the operation to have any adverse affects.

This where I think the ethical issue arises. I think it's fine if the operation is fairly trivial but if it is more intrusive or runs the risk of complications then it doesn't seem quite so clear cut. Without the required medical knowledge its a bit hard to judge though.

None of the other reports I've read mention Max having an operation other than the procedures required to extract bone marrow from his hips (which is one of the ways it's commonly donated) when he was a year old because there weren't enough stem cells in the umbilical chord.

I hate using the Daily Mail as a reference for anything but this article, if accurate, seems to suggest that only megan underwent an operation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1340611/Saviour-sibling-brings-hope-family-makes-medical-history.html

Perhaps the BBC article is just grammatically sloppy.

It was that point that caught my eye as well but a cursory search seemed to say that marrow donation was a fairly 'safe' procedure with no real complications and I was looking for them as I was going to use it to start playing devils advocote.

Still, it is interesting to think how far this could go as what would happen if the sibling needs an organ?

I also think there might be a minor issue when the teenager realises that he could have easily been the discarded cells and his existence was for the love of his sister.

Possibly, but just think of the "you owe me big time" emotional blackmail opportunities it might afford him. Leverage over an older sibling has to be worth something

More seriously though the ethical arguments for and against seem to be characterised by the media as the medical profession saying its OK and the anti-abortion lobby saying it isn't. I.e, dividing along fairly predictable lines. I'm not convinced the divide is as clear cut as that though. Is this a good practical example of where philosophers should be getting involved in the public debate and showing that philosophy isn't a discipline obsessed with abstract concepts that most lay people find of no interest? That's not to say they aren't, but if they are they don't seem to be getting reported in the press.

No one is against stem cell research. Just don't kill people to do it. If the savior kid was going to die to save the sibling would you still be for it?

1) Not true, there are those that are against it whatever the source of the cells.
2) no one is being "killed" to obtain stem cells. This has never been the case, and so your objection is false.