Read the case about the Spanish stem cell baby created specifically to save his brother's life. Do you agree with the parent's decision? Why or why not? What are the significant moral considerations in this case? What consideration is decisive for you?
I think that the parents are doing wrong by what they are doing their new born. Because basically what there doing is giving birth to human being and then taking it away to save another. In case that the transfusions and everything else that the doctors have to do didn't work the parents would see the smaller child as a failure and might even deny him. Because the reason of his existence was for him to save his older brother's life. So I believe that they should just stop the process and have the parents look for another donor.
I do stand mutual in this case. To each their own and it was their decision to do this. I don’t agree nor do I disagree. I do feel that they were interfering with God’s/ natures selection process and took it in their own hands. Then the fact they destroyed so many good fertilized eggs. I understand how the parents didn’t want to go through the trouble of giving birth to another sick baby, but the way they went about it wasn’t quite right. For the sake of saving their 6 year old son’s life. I don’t think they fully understand the pain and suffering both kids will have to endure. The stress the parents will have to go through to take care of both kids.
I can’t even begin to imagine the heartache these parents have gone through trying to find ways to save their son. I would only hope that they have exhausted all other options before turning to this extremely controversial procedure. My feelings on this particular situation are this type of procedure and screening is wrong. There are so many people in this world so it would seem that there are other ways to try and save their child’s life. I understand a parents’ will to do whatever possible to save their child’s life but how far are they willing to go? I feel that it is morally wrong to create babies essentially for the sole purpose of screening them for the disease and then disposing of them, or for any further experimentation. My belief is that a child should be brought into the world based on love not science. We are human beings not science experiments. My other concern with this procedure is what if it does not work? Yes, bone marrow transplants have saved many lives but if it does not work than they went through all this anguish for nothing. Would they resent the new baby for the procedure not working? I can only hope and pray that I will never have to face this situation as I would not be able to make the same decision as these parents did.
I can’t say that I agree nor do I disagree with the couple’s decision either. Maybe they could have looked into other options for a donor or transplant for their son. It just seems to be a risky decision process, I think. You have to take several things into consideration; is this process guaranteed and what if your case was the case where this process didn’t work, will both kids live healthier lives or will they have complications after the surgery, and if the process doesn’t work, you take the chance of losing one of the kids or possibly losing both, will you have resentment toward the kid or yourselves, perhaps? It’s really hard to say whether or not one can go through a situation like this. I can’t say that I would or wouldn’t go through this process when it’s affecting the life of my child. It’s funny what parent’s would do for their children, in this case it work out for both boy’s and their parent’s.
I do and do not agree with the parent’s decision. I as a parent would do anything to save my son’s life. It is my belief that they should be able to do what is needed. Since the article did not particularly say what they will do with the other fertilized eggs, I do not assume that they will be destroyed. I do not see the difference between the screening for the embryos versus the screening of a person who is 8 weeks pregnant and decides to abort. It is hard to decide since I have a lot more questions before I can say it is or is not wrong. I would just hope that the newborn would never feel pain but I know it may not be so. I would also hope that the cord blood would do the job so the little one does not have to undergo a bone marrow transplant.
I have a biased opinion regarding stem cells. My father has a disease in which stem cells could “turn back time” and ultimately cure him. If I was put in the situation like these people were, where my loved one could be cured, I wouldn’t think twice about it. These parents are extremely brave and I think Javier will grow up and be looked upon as a lifesaver. If he ever does find out the primary reason why he was brought into this world, at first it’ll be a shock to him, of course, and he might upset and asking questions but I think in the long run he too will feel proud for saving his brothers life. This has created a bond between these brothers that can never be broken. I don’t think Javier’s parents will love him any more or less than they do Andres. I’m sure his parents will not treat him like the science experiment everyone else looks at him as. Ultimately this was the decision of the parents, and really it’s nobody else’s business. I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about stem cells, which is unfortunate, because the research I have done shows that adult stem cells are a better choice and work better than embryonic stem cells. If people could be given the true facts about stem cell research, it could dramatically change the entire medical world.
Being a mother myself this would probably be the most difficult decision a parent would have to make. I think morally that when you take Mother Nature into your own hands that we open up doors to the unknown, and do believe that if experiments like this go wrong, inevitably someone or something involved will suffer to some degree. However I also realize that a mother and father's love for their child is hard to put a "cap" on. Obviously these people are loving caring and were willing to go to those lengths for their existing son, I am sure the love for their baby would be past on. As far as the child having to now live a life of public recognition, I do think the professionals in this case were irresponsible as far as protecting the child’s future from ridicule and judgment. We are all quick to judge these kinds of advertisement in technology and science, but risks must be taken in order discover new cures.
I do not exactly know where I stand in this whole situation, but I think that the parents are doing what they think is right and I say that they have a right to choose what they wanted to do. It seems somewhat odd to make life and take it away but to save their kid of course parents are going to do whatever they can. They still do have the chance of finding a donor but if that fails, they will still have their other options. But i think that if i did have a kid i would more understand why they made their decision. But for now i would say that they are doing the right thing to save their son.
I honestly don't know where I stand on this. A life is a life and I think all steps should be made to save a life but to create another life spefically to save another sits as wrong with me. So no I don't agree with the parents descion at all it strikes me as pride in of itself. Its one thing to use a lucky chance child but quite a different thing all together to create life for that reason. There are many moral considerations to think about too many truth be told but the ones that sticks out to me are the child will at some point know he was created to save his brother at that was all, the possibility that he won't save his brother and how that will effect him and his relation to his parents. Its one thing as I have said to use a lucky chance child to heal an older sibiling but it is completely different to search and create a precsious life just to maybe save a life. I speak not from any religion though I assure myself that many have something to say but rather as a moral human being that is wrong and a step in a direction we do not want to go. This is the first step in engenering our children to be what we want them to be instead of letting fate and life play its hand. All I can say in closing is may this child be blessed with saving his brother so he may walk strong through life as a Human being.
For this particular situation I stand neutral due to the fact I do not know much about stem cell and their full potential use. I will say that there are good and bad sides to this. The bad side is that they’re creating so many yet only a select few are able to go through the process. Those that are not being used get stored or destroyed over time. However, doing this procedure could help save the life of another child. The good side to this with stem cell, you could find a duplicate in order to aid in their unique situation. Since I am not a parent, I find this to be wrong. If the procedure went well, and the child becomes healthy, one parent might neglect the other child for that specific reason, or pay attention to the other child more. Unfortunately sometimes we have to let nature take its course. But if I were a parent, my views will probably be different. I’m sure that any parent in the world would do anything for their child to live. You also have to think for the child’s safety. What if one day the child finds out on the media or internet that he/she were used as experiments? I hope the parents thought of every option before making this controversial decision. To me creating so many of those embryo’s just to save one child is wrong.
First off, I hope that I never have the misfortune to have to make a decision like Javier’s parents were faced with. I have step children, but none of my own. I can’t imagine what it would be like to see your child suffer with a disease, then to have to decide how far to go with treatment. As we talked about in class, it’s easy to believe with your whole soul one way about an issue, and then when faced with the issue, do a 180. At this point though, I disagree with the parent’s decision to have a child, to try to save their other child. The way the parents went about providing a cure for their son will emotionally affect all of them, for the rest of their lives. It would be different if Javier was already living, was disease free and a match. His parents would have already decided to expand their family; he would know that he was wanted as a member of the family, not as a potential “cure” for his brother. The article stated that Javier was “born through stem-cell selection because his parents ‘hope’ that he will provide a cure for his chronically ill brother.” What will be his parent’s attitude toward Javier if the treatment with the implanted stem cells from his umbilical cord doesn’t work to cure his brother? How many procedures will Javier be subjected to? Javier deserves to be loved, and to know that he is loved because he is his own little self. The feelings of Andres need to also be considered. I can’t imagine that the knowledge of what he will owe his brother won’t affect how he sees himself, how he sees his parents, and how he sees his brother. I would try to find a donor from among other family members or from a bone marrow registry first. The major moral consideration surrounding this story is about whether stem cell screening is killing a life. Spain has been ruled by the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years. The new Socialist Government sounds like it is giving the Church fits with reforms that allow for stem cell screening. The article also stated that in Andalusia, where Javier was born, embryo screening is seen as a public health right. Will this technology be available to everyone, or only for those who can afford to pay for the procedure? How public is public?
This is a really difficult issue to discuss. I have to think about this from my own religious beliefs, from a parent’s perspective, and what I think is morally correct. Hearing about this case my feelings are all scattered. At this moment, after reading it, I have to say that I disagree with the decision of the parents. Killing is wrong and goes against what God says and also society. I do have to say that, though I am not a parent, I cannot say that I may have not done what these parents did. Sometimes we have to be in a situation in order to know what we would do or say. Having a child is one of the most blessed things that have happened too many of us, and I know that there are many parents that would do anything for their children. I think the most significant moral consideration in this case is that you cannot take away a life to save another.
I want to start by generalizing the whole concept of using stem cells. Before hurrying into extensive involvement of using embryonic stem cells, the study of other possible known sources of stem cells (like bone marrows of mice) should be encouraged. Even if its present practicality is not as reliable as that of the embryonic stem cell, it should be further investigated for the sake of shaping our society in ethical manner. Knowing how stem cell could prevent many critical diseases has indulged as into being greedy of using it hurriedly that we give the least attention to why our society needs to rethink about this whole situation before being too excited about it. Cures for many diseases had always been found through a process that took years of experiment no matter how many had suffered while seeking the solution to their particular disease. I am not inconsiderate or misinformed but how are these diseases any different. I hope that we could find a solution to Parkinson’s, Cancer or other diseases sooner too but lets look at in what direction our society and the world in general is moving. Giving a birth to somebody to save another person is just wrong. Religiously or from any other standpoint, I know each and every one of us have a very strong setback that tells us how this and many other ethical issues around us can shape us into an out-of-line and deformed society. I know even the parents that did this had a setback before doing this and just moved on by telling themselves the all time excuse “We didn’t have any chance”. How about millions of people around the world dying from these types of diseases?. Why can’t we all wait for scientists finding other ways to cure these diseases like we always do before? Or Why don’t we just set a legalized form stating the right to abort kids, suck out babies bone marrows or give a birth to save forums so we can have the best out-of-proportion society we always dreamed of. All that I am trying to say in no matter how significant the use of embryonic stem cell is, its effects could be a turning point to the naturalistic society we always had. This is not civilization and it has nothing to do with being civilized. As a matter of fact no matter what it could for our disease or for any other importance, we should never mess with others life whether its in the microscopic, embryonic, or early childhood form. It doesn’t matter if babies at embryonic stage are seen as a property or if its our own babies that we are doing this too. These are just excuses that we created to make ourselves feel better about why we keep doing what we somehow think is wrong.
On one hand everyone has enjoyed the advancements of technology, as well as benefited from it in one way or another. However, on the other side of the spectrum it could be declared unfit. Meaning that the advancements of Science technology has surpassed and complicated ethics and in how to regulate it without it getting out of hand. Clearly, the advancements in human genetics have astoundingly influenced the views of the public and society in the area of reproductive decision making, as well as other advancements in this area. What comes to my mind is what is a justifiable morally right or wrong decision when faced with the fact that your child is going to die, has a long-term illness or disability. It is never an easy decision when parent(s) are placed in a position, such as the ones from Spain. Their decision may be based upon many factors. Factors can be individualized from family to family. But, the question is should we use this technology? If so, who is to decide and establish what criteria it is used for and regulate it? No matter what, every choice has a consequence. But do we all make rational decisions and think of the long term effects, the effects on others and society as a whole? Yes, I do understand the fact that some decisions like the one that Javier’s parents made can affect the society as a whole and that it could have and turn into a slippery slope effect. Their new son might or might not be affected not only by how society will treat him or how his parents will, but can there be a guarantee that he will grow up without any health problems. Since this is a fairly new technique and there is so much to be learned about genetics still, will something happen to him that the child might say “hey since you made me to save my brother, can you make someone for me?” However, I cannot condemn them for their decision, based on the fact that I have a child with autism and I do not know what I would of done if I was in the same shoes as they were especially when I had seen my child lick walls, benches and when my child did not even recognize me. Today, I would still want a cure for my son, it would not only benefit him, it will benefit the whole family as well and society in supporting him with tax dollars for the rest of his life. There could be a negative impact though on individuals with disabilities in the fact that the making of “designer babies” could make them feel worthless and even fear that they could be eliminated or even unwanted. Another impact could be instead of enjoying the anticipation of all the wonders and mysteries of having children will society start treating having a child as like a selection, for example which is the best computer, or which one will fit my needs or even make me happy in the long run. Knowing what I know now, might help me to have a better perspective of knowing that my decision of using this method could give people the wrong idea and start using it for non-medical uses and eliminate having children the old fashion way. But in the end will I not feel guilty and be satisfied with my decision. However, in all decisions a line has to be drawn some time and who and what establishes that line.
I am not just against the parents’ decision to create a life to save another life but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. As human beings, it is our responsibility to preserve life; we neither have the right to create nor terminate it. Scientific advances and research in genetic engineering is impressive and essential to preserving life, however, where do we draw the line? I come from a Pentecostal Christian background and I am opposed to this decision because it is morally wrong. I understand many people may not have the same religious beliefs that I do. Whether I look at this case from a religious or logical aspect, it would still be immoral. Immanuel Kant’s logical approach to morality uses the categorical imperative to determine whether one maxim or action is right or wrong. If we take this decision and set this precedent of creating a life to save a life and apply it to the universal law, this principle would be considered immoral. If everyone created dozens of babies to be prescreened to find the “perfect match”, to potentially save one or risk the other, then it would define life expendable instead of sacred. This is a very dangerous precedent because this would be the gateway argument for future cloning practices. This would devalue humanity and life itself because it would give the notion that it is ok to take life into our own hands and manipulate it according to our needs at our own convenience. Genetic engineering should stop at the point of creation and termination of life to prevent the domino effect as it relates to future related moral conflict such as cloning and designer babies. Therefore, it is not morally right to create dozens of embryos, while only one will be used to create a life to potentially save another. Humankind is neither competent nor righteous to role play as God.
This is a hard one. I'm on the fence on this one. I am sort of offended, but then again I can see why they may do this. But I am leaning more towards to against it. It seems a little too much like the movie Gattaca, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca, in the movie they created only "perfect" people, to be born naturally without human intervention was to be "in-valid". Stem cell research is an amazing. I think what these parents did went beyond the norm, sort of like the people who clone their dead pets. I worry about the future for this child, what if his brother dies before they cure him? What if they hurt the boy too much in order to save the older boy? Should social services get involved? Again what about as he gets older, how will others treat him? There are more questions than answers. I just feel bad for this boy, he is so innocent
The significant moral considerations in this case is whether or not it is right to create, screen and select or destroy embryos based on their traits, and whether or not it is right for the parents to have a child specifically for donation to save another. For the former question, I feel that the parent's have every right to screen embryos for their traits. This is a useful scientific tool for parents to ensure the best for their children, this way they can select an embryo that has no genetic diseases. People use the argument the embryos are potential human beings and have a future like ours, therefore should not be created in the lab and destroyed. However, embryos only develop when implanted in the womb and even then may or may not come to term due to numerous factors. Embryos cannot possibly develop in the lab and have no potential for growth if they are not selected. Embryos are considered as property and are treated as such. I agree with this and do not consider an embryo a human being with rights that need to be protected. The deontology moral theory states that you must fulfill your duties no matter the consequence. The parents have a duty to do whatever it takes to help their sick son Andres and now that the baby brother is born he has a duty to help his brother as well. The utilitarian moral theory states the right thing to do is the choice that creates the most pleasure for most people and that causes the least pain for most people. The parent's decision produces the most pleasure by bringing a new life into the world, and it reduces the most pain by giving the best possible chance to save their son. Other’s displeasure with the parent's decision isn't considered into the equation because their displeasure is based on a different moral theory. The main objections in the article come from the divine command theory. However, there is no way to really know if these objections are God's objections as well. The passages in religious texts can be interpreted different ways and they have been translated many times to where there is no guarantee that the current passages have the correct meaning. Even so, isn’t it possible that the almighty in his all knowing, all seeing, divine power than created us in his image and planed our destinies, meant for us to develop this technology to help people and further our society? The divine command theory isn’t sufficient for me to base my decision on. There are of course the possibilities of the procedures for both Javier and his sick brother Andres to go wrong or have complications. However, Andres is guaranteed to have a short and painful life. It might be possible to find a donor for him but that option isn’t definite and the risks would be increased since any other donors wouldn’t be as great a match as Javier and therefore won’t have as great a possibility of success as Javier’s donation. There are people who die all the time waiting for donations and the risks obviously are greater. As a parent myself I would do whatever it takes to help my child and this option seams the most likely to be successful. There are also the arguments that this stem cell screen process will lead to parents selecting their potential children as seen in Science Fiction such as Gattica. However, this is a slippery slope fallacy. People are also very concerned will how this will affect Javier growing up knowing he was born simply to save his brother’s life. However, there is no possible way to know how this will affect Javier when he grows up. We can only project what we believe he would feel or how we think it would affect us if we were Javier. The parent’s made this decision and now it is their responsibility to raise both sons the best they can. This procedure could negatively or positively affect Javier. He could grow up proud and become an advocate for such procedures or he could become a serial killer or any incalculable number of reactions. He can grow up with issues and receive help like many other people do. Even if he does have issues that irreparably damage him in some way that is not necessarily a reason not to have the procedure done for some other family. Every person, every family and every situation is different therefore if some other family has stem cell screening and selection to save a life that selected child could grow up just fine. People and children especially have a quality of plasticity and can survive, adapt and grow up happy and healthy from many different situations. People are also worried about how the parents will treat both sons if the procedures work or if something goes wrong, but again there’s no way to determine this. Just because the parent’s selected the embryo due to its genetic traits doesn’t mean they will love him any less or hate him if the procedures don’t work to save Javier. There is no way to determine their feelings and treatments towards their sons, their sons’ reaction and feelings toward themselves, each other, the world and their parents for this decision. Risks for surgeries and donor matches can be determined but the listed above incalculable, relative factors were not taken into consideration for my decision on the moral questions posed here. If the parent’s do mistreat their sons for whatever reason there are legal systems in place to solve this problem. If the parent’s mistreat aren’t enough for legal action then the boys can grow up and get themselves help and take responsibility for their issues just like every other person on the planet regardless of how or why they came to be. There is great hope in this solution for both Javier and Andres , and regardless of the consequences there is always hope and the audacity for the human spirit to overcome whatever obstacles are in their life. For all of the reasons stated above I do agree with the parent’s decision.
The case of Javier family is very sad and unprecedented the fact that Andres, the six years old boy living with such a chronic debilitating disease, beta-thalassamia.Any parent would try to do any thing to save one's child even trying such a controversial medical research treatement like stem cell.The sentiment and love that people have their loved one's would make them so biased to make ethically unsounding decisions.Through out history people have searched the earth inorder to cure disease and give loved one's hopes of living normal and happy lives.Javier's family decision was wrong because it is a distruction of lives to save other's.The stem search process might kill some other potential Javier's cells and saved one of the parents choice.There are lot of ethical dilemma on this case because Javier is created to save the end of his brother's life.He should be wanted for parents own sake.This is like manipulating the child and using him as a tool or instrument.It wouldn't be acceptable if the only reason for creating Javier just to provide a source of stem cell to treat his brother, Andres.There might be other consequences; like if the umblical cord stem cell transplant fails or if the sick brother requires further treatement.There might be severe factors which may contribute to potentail harm to Javier.He might be psychologically harm because he might find out that he was wanted not for him self,but as a means,to save the life of his sick brother.To me, the right to live is a divine and shouldn't be for humans to make that decision.This has a big ethical and moral implications for the current and future generations.It is morally wrong and ethically inhumane to destroy Javier's life and to save Andres life.The parents should find other means to cure their son.
Posts
20 comments:
Test position paper response
I think that the parents are doing wrong by what they are doing their new born. Because basically what there doing is giving birth to human being and then taking it away to save another. In case that the transfusions and everything else that the doctors have to do didn't work the parents would see the smaller child as a failure and might even deny him. Because the reason of his existence was for him to save his older brother's life. So I believe that they should just stop the process and have the parents look for another donor.
I do stand mutual in this case. To each their own and it was their decision to do this. I don’t agree nor do I disagree. I do feel that they were interfering with God’s/ natures selection process and took it in their own hands. Then the fact they destroyed so many good fertilized eggs. I understand how the parents didn’t want to go through the trouble of giving birth to another sick baby, but the way they went about it wasn’t quite right. For the sake of saving their 6 year old son’s life. I don’t think they fully understand the pain and suffering both kids will have to endure. The stress the parents will have to go through to take care of both kids.
I can’t even begin to imagine the heartache these parents have gone through trying to find ways to save their son. I would only hope that they have exhausted all other options before turning to this extremely controversial procedure. My feelings on this particular situation are this type of procedure and screening is wrong. There are so many people in this world so it would seem that there are other ways to try and save their child’s life.
I understand a parents’ will to do whatever possible to save their child’s life but how far are they willing to go? I feel that it is morally wrong to create babies essentially for the sole purpose of screening them for the disease and then disposing of them, or for any further experimentation. My belief is that a child should be brought into the world based on love not science. We are human beings not science experiments.
My other concern with this procedure is what if it does not work? Yes, bone marrow transplants have saved many lives but if it does not work than they went through all this anguish for nothing. Would they resent the new baby for the procedure not working? I can only hope and pray that I will never have to face this situation as I would not be able to make the same decision as these parents did.
I can’t say that I agree nor do I disagree with the couple’s decision either. Maybe they could have looked into other options for a donor or transplant for their son. It just seems to be a risky decision process, I think. You have to take several things into consideration; is this process guaranteed and what if your case was the case where this process didn’t work, will both kids live healthier lives or will they have complications after the surgery, and if the process doesn’t work, you take the chance of losing one of the kids or possibly losing both, will you have resentment toward the kid or yourselves, perhaps? It’s really hard to say whether or not one can go through a situation like this. I can’t say that I would or wouldn’t go through this process when it’s affecting the life of my child. It’s funny what parent’s would do for their children, in this case it work out for both boy’s and their parent’s.
I do and do not agree with the parent’s decision. I as a parent would do anything to save my son’s life. It is my belief that they should be able to do what is needed. Since the article did not particularly say what they will do with the other fertilized eggs, I do not assume that they will be destroyed. I do not see the difference between the screening for the embryos versus the screening of a person who is 8 weeks pregnant and decides to abort. It is hard to decide since I have a lot more questions before I can say it is or is not wrong. I would just hope that the newborn would never feel pain but I know it may not be so. I would also hope that the cord blood would do the job so the little one does not have to undergo a bone marrow transplant.
I have a biased opinion regarding stem cells. My father has a disease in which stem cells could “turn back time” and ultimately cure him. If I was put in the situation like these people were, where my loved one could be cured, I wouldn’t think twice about it. These parents are extremely brave and I think Javier will grow up and be looked upon as a lifesaver. If he ever does find out the primary reason why he was brought into this world, at first it’ll be a shock to him, of course, and he might upset and asking questions but I think in the long run he too will feel proud for saving his brothers life. This has created a bond between these brothers that can never be broken. I don’t think Javier’s parents will love him any more or less than they do Andres. I’m sure his parents will not treat him like the science experiment everyone else looks at him as. Ultimately this was the decision of the parents, and really it’s nobody else’s business. I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about stem cells, which is unfortunate, because the research I have done shows that adult stem cells are a better choice and work better than embryonic stem cells. If people could be given the true facts about stem cell research, it could dramatically change the entire medical world.
Test position paper response
Being a mother myself this would probably be the most difficult decision a parent would have to make. I think morally that when you take Mother Nature into your own hands that we open up doors to the unknown, and do believe that if experiments like this go wrong, inevitably someone or something involved will suffer to some degree. However I also realize that a mother and father's love for their child is hard to put a "cap" on. Obviously these people are loving caring and were willing to go to those lengths for their existing son, I am sure the love for their baby would be past on. As far as the child having to now live a life of public recognition, I do think the professionals in this case were irresponsible as far as protecting the child’s future from ridicule and judgment. We are all quick to judge these kinds of advertisement in technology and science, but risks must be taken in order discover new cures.
I do not exactly know where I stand in this whole situation, but I think that the parents are doing what they think is right and I say that they have a right to choose what they wanted to do. It seems somewhat odd to make life and take it away but to save their kid of course parents are going to do whatever they can. They still do have the chance of finding a donor but if that fails, they will still have their other options. But i think that if i did have a kid i would more understand why they made their decision. But for now i would say that they are doing the right thing to save their son.
I honestly don't know where I stand on this. A life is a life and I think all steps should be made to save a life but to create another life spefically to save another sits as wrong with me. So no I don't agree with the parents descion at all it strikes me as pride in of itself. Its one thing to use a lucky chance child but quite a different thing all together to create life for that reason. There are many moral considerations to think about too many truth be told but the ones that sticks out to me are the child will at some point know he was created to save his brother at that was all, the possibility that he won't save his brother and how that will effect him and his relation to his parents. Its one thing as I have said to use a lucky chance child to heal an older sibiling but it is completely different to search and create a precsious life just to maybe save a life. I speak not from any religion though I assure myself that many have something to say but rather as a moral human being that is wrong and a step in a direction we do not want to go. This is the first step in engenering our children to be what we want them to be instead of letting fate and life play its hand. All I can say in closing is may this child be blessed with saving his brother so he may walk strong through life as a Human being.
For this particular situation I stand neutral due to the fact I do not know much about stem cell and their full potential use. I will say that there are good and bad sides to this. The bad side is that they’re creating so many yet only a select few are able to go through the process. Those that are not being used get stored or destroyed over time. However, doing this procedure could help save the life of another child. The good side to this with stem cell, you could find a duplicate in order to aid in their unique situation. Since I am not a parent, I find this to be wrong. If the procedure went well, and the child becomes healthy, one parent might neglect the other child for that specific reason, or pay attention to the other child more. Unfortunately sometimes we have to let nature take its course. But if I were a parent, my views will probably be different. I’m sure that any parent in the world would do anything for their child to live. You also have to think for the child’s safety. What if one day the child finds out on the media or internet that he/she were used as experiments? I hope the parents thought of every option before making this controversial decision. To me creating so many of those embryo’s just to save one child is wrong.
First off, I hope that I never have the misfortune to have to make a decision like Javier’s parents were faced with. I have step children, but none of my own. I can’t imagine what it would be like to see your child suffer with a disease, then to have to decide how far to go with treatment. As we talked about in class, it’s easy to believe with your whole soul one way about an issue, and then when faced with the issue, do a 180. At this point though, I disagree with the parent’s decision to have a child, to try to save their other child.
The way the parents went about providing a cure for their son will emotionally affect all of them, for the rest of their lives. It would be different if Javier was already living, was disease free and a match. His parents would have already decided to expand their family; he would know that he was wanted as a member of the family, not as a potential “cure” for his brother. The article stated that Javier was “born through stem-cell selection because his parents ‘hope’ that he will provide a cure for his chronically ill brother.” What will be his parent’s attitude toward Javier if the treatment with the implanted stem cells from his umbilical cord doesn’t work to cure his brother? How many procedures will Javier be subjected to? Javier deserves to be loved, and to know that he is loved because he is his own little self. The feelings of Andres need to also be considered. I can’t imagine that the knowledge of what he will owe his brother won’t affect how he sees himself, how he sees his parents, and how he sees his brother. I would try to find a donor from among other family members or from a bone marrow registry first.
The major moral consideration surrounding this story is about whether stem cell screening is killing a life. Spain has been ruled by the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years. The new Socialist Government sounds like it is giving the Church fits with reforms that allow for stem cell screening. The article also stated that in Andalusia, where Javier was born, embryo screening is seen as a public health right. Will this technology be available to everyone, or only for those who can afford to pay for the procedure? How public is public?
This is a really difficult issue to discuss. I have to think about this from my own religious beliefs, from a parent’s perspective, and what I think is morally correct. Hearing about this case my feelings are all scattered. At this moment, after reading it, I have to say that I disagree with the decision of the parents. Killing is wrong and goes against what God says and also society. I do have to say that, though I am not a parent, I cannot say that I may have not done what these parents did. Sometimes we have to be in a situation in order to know what we would do or say. Having a child is one of the most blessed things that have happened too many of us, and I know that there are many parents that would do anything for their children. I think the most significant moral consideration in this case is that you cannot take away a life to save another.
I want to start by generalizing the whole concept of using stem cells. Before hurrying into extensive involvement of using embryonic stem cells, the study of other possible known sources of stem cells (like bone marrows of mice) should be encouraged. Even if its present practicality is not as reliable as that of the embryonic stem cell, it should be further investigated for the sake of shaping our society in ethical manner. Knowing how stem cell could prevent many critical diseases has indulged as into being greedy of using it hurriedly that we give the least attention to why our society needs to rethink about this whole situation before being too excited about it. Cures for many diseases had always been found through a process that took years of experiment no matter how many had suffered while seeking the solution to their particular disease. I am not inconsiderate or misinformed but how are these diseases any different. I hope that we could find a solution to Parkinson’s, Cancer or other diseases sooner too but lets look at in what direction our society and the world in general is moving. Giving a birth to somebody to save another person is just wrong. Religiously or from any other standpoint, I know each and every one of us have a very strong setback that tells us how this and many other ethical issues around us can shape us into an out-of-line and deformed society. I know even the parents that did this had a setback before doing this and just moved on by telling themselves the all time excuse “We didn’t have any chance”. How about millions of people around the world dying from these types of diseases?. Why can’t we all wait for scientists finding other ways to cure these diseases like we always do before? Or Why don’t we just set a legalized form stating the right to abort kids, suck out babies bone marrows or give a birth to save forums so we can have the best out-of-proportion society we always dreamed of. All that I am trying to say in no matter how significant the use of embryonic stem cell is, its effects could be a turning point to the naturalistic society we always had. This is not civilization and it has nothing to do with being civilized. As a matter of fact no matter what it could for our disease or for any other importance, we should never mess with others life whether its in the microscopic, embryonic, or early childhood form. It doesn’t matter if babies at embryonic stage are seen as a property or if its our own babies that we are doing this too. These are just excuses that we created to make ourselves feel better about why we keep doing what we somehow think is wrong.
On one hand everyone has enjoyed the advancements of technology, as well as benefited from it in one way or another. However, on the other side of the spectrum it could be declared unfit. Meaning that the advancements of Science technology has surpassed and complicated ethics and in how to regulate it without it getting out of hand. Clearly, the advancements in human genetics have astoundingly influenced the views of the public and society in the area of reproductive decision making, as well as other advancements in this area. What comes to my mind is what is a justifiable morally right or wrong decision when faced with the fact that your child is going to die, has a long-term illness or disability. It is never an easy decision when parent(s) are placed in a position, such as the ones from Spain. Their decision may be based upon many factors. Factors can be individualized from family to family. But, the question is should we use this technology? If so, who is to decide and establish what criteria it is used for and regulate it? No matter what, every choice has a consequence. But do we all make rational decisions and think of the long term effects, the effects on others and society as a whole? Yes, I do understand the fact that some decisions like the one that Javier’s parents made can affect the society as a whole and that it could have and turn into a slippery slope effect. Their new son might or might not be affected not only by how society will treat him or how his parents will, but can there be a guarantee that he will grow up without any health problems. Since this is a fairly new technique and there is so much to be learned about genetics still, will something happen to him that the child might say “hey since you made me to save my brother, can you make someone for me?” However, I cannot condemn them for their decision, based on the fact that I have a child with autism and I do not know what I would of done if I was in the same shoes as they were especially when I had seen my child lick walls, benches and when my child did not even recognize me. Today, I would still want a cure for my son, it would not only benefit him, it will benefit the whole family as well and society in supporting him with tax dollars for the rest of his life. There could be a negative impact though on individuals with disabilities in the fact that the making of “designer babies” could make them feel worthless and even fear that they could be eliminated or even unwanted. Another impact could be instead of enjoying the anticipation of all the wonders and mysteries of having children will society start treating having a child as like a selection, for example which is the best computer, or which one will fit my needs or even make me happy in the long run. Knowing what I know now, might help me to have a better perspective of knowing that my decision of using this method could give people the wrong idea and start using it for non-medical uses and eliminate having children the old fashion way. But in the end will I not feel guilty and be satisfied with my decision. However, in all decisions a line has to be drawn some time and who and what establishes that line.
I am not just against the parents’ decision to create a life to save another life but I am completely opposed to embryonic stem cell research. As human beings, it is our responsibility to preserve life; we neither have the right to create nor terminate it. Scientific advances and research in genetic engineering is impressive and essential to preserving life, however, where do we draw the line? I come from a Pentecostal Christian background and I am opposed to this decision because it is morally wrong. I understand many people may not have the same religious beliefs that I do. Whether I look at this case from a religious or logical aspect, it would still be immoral. Immanuel Kant’s logical approach to morality uses the categorical imperative to determine whether one maxim or action is right or wrong. If we take this decision and set this precedent of creating a life to save a life and apply it to the universal law, this principle would be considered immoral. If everyone created dozens of babies to be prescreened to find the “perfect match”, to potentially save one or risk the other, then it would define life expendable instead of sacred. This is a very dangerous precedent because this would be the gateway argument for future cloning practices. This would devalue humanity and life itself because it would give the notion that it is ok to take life into our own hands and manipulate it according to our needs at our own convenience. Genetic engineering should stop at the point of creation and termination of life to prevent the domino effect as it relates to future related moral conflict such as cloning and designer babies. Therefore, it is not morally right to create dozens of embryos, while only one will be used to create a life to potentially save another. Humankind is neither competent nor righteous to role play as God.
This is a hard one. I'm on the fence on this one. I am sort of offended, but then again I can see why they may do this. But I am leaning more towards to against it.
It seems a little too much like the movie Gattaca, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca, in the movie they created only "perfect" people, to be born naturally without human intervention was to be "in-valid".
Stem cell research is an amazing. I think what these parents did went beyond the norm, sort of like the people who clone their dead pets.
I worry about the future for this child, what if his brother dies before they cure him? What if they hurt the boy too much in order to save the older boy? Should social services get involved? Again what about as he gets older, how will others treat him? There are more questions than answers. I just feel bad for this boy, he is so innocent
The significant moral considerations in this case is whether or not it is right to create, screen and select or destroy embryos based on their traits, and whether or not it is right for the parents to have a child specifically for donation to save another. For the former question, I feel that the parent's have every right to screen embryos for their traits. This is a useful scientific tool for parents to ensure the best for their children, this way they can select an embryo that has no genetic diseases. People use the argument the embryos are potential human beings and have a future like ours, therefore should not be created in the lab and destroyed. However, embryos only develop when implanted in the womb and even then may or may not come to term due to numerous factors. Embryos cannot possibly develop in the lab and have no potential for growth if they are not selected. Embryos are considered as property and are treated as such. I agree with this and do not consider an embryo a human being with rights that need to be protected.
The deontology moral theory states that you must fulfill your duties no matter the consequence. The parents have a duty to do whatever it takes to help their sick son Andres and now that the baby brother is born he has a duty to help his brother as well. The utilitarian moral theory states the right thing to do is the choice that creates the most pleasure for most people and that causes the least pain for most people. The parent's decision produces the most pleasure by bringing a new life into the world, and it reduces the most pain by giving the best possible chance to save their son. Other’s displeasure with the parent's decision isn't considered into the equation because their displeasure is based on a different moral theory. The main objections in the article come from the divine command theory. However, there is no way to really know if these objections are God's objections as well. The passages in religious texts can be interpreted different ways and they have been translated many times to where there is no guarantee that the current passages have the correct meaning. Even so, isn’t it possible that the almighty in his all knowing, all seeing, divine power than created us in his image and planed our destinies, meant for us to develop this technology to help people and further our society? The divine command theory isn’t sufficient for me to base my decision on.
There are of course the possibilities of the procedures for both Javier and his sick brother Andres to go wrong or have complications. However, Andres is guaranteed to have a short and painful life. It might be possible to find a donor for him but that option isn’t definite and the risks would be increased since any other donors wouldn’t be as great a match as Javier and therefore won’t have as great a possibility of success as Javier’s donation. There are people who die all the time waiting for donations and the risks obviously are greater. As a parent myself I would do whatever it takes to help my child and this option seams the most likely to be successful. There are also the arguments that this stem cell screen process will lead to parents selecting their potential children as seen in Science Fiction such as Gattica. However, this is a slippery slope fallacy.
People are also very concerned will how this will affect Javier growing up knowing he was born simply to save his brother’s life. However, there is no possible way to know how this will affect Javier when he grows up. We can only project what we believe he would feel or how we think it would affect us if we were Javier. The parent’s made this decision and now it is their responsibility to raise both sons the best they can. This procedure could negatively or positively affect Javier. He could grow up proud and become an advocate for such procedures or he could become a serial killer or any incalculable number of reactions. He can grow up with issues and receive help like many other people do. Even if he does have issues that irreparably damage him in some way that is not necessarily a reason not to have the procedure done for some other family. Every person, every family and every situation is different therefore if some other family has stem cell screening and selection to save a life that selected child could grow up just fine. People and children especially have a quality of plasticity and can survive, adapt and grow up happy and healthy from many different situations. People are also worried about how the parents will treat both sons if the procedures work or if something goes wrong, but again there’s no way to determine this. Just because the parent’s selected the embryo due to its genetic traits doesn’t mean they will love him any less or hate him if the procedures don’t work to save Javier. There is no way to determine their feelings and treatments towards their sons, their sons’ reaction and feelings toward themselves, each other, the world and their parents for this decision. Risks for surgeries and donor matches can be determined but the listed above incalculable, relative factors were not taken into consideration for my decision on the moral questions posed here. If the parent’s do mistreat their sons for whatever reason there are legal systems in place to solve this problem. If the parent’s mistreat aren’t enough for legal action then the boys can grow up and get themselves help and take responsibility for their issues just like every other person on the planet regardless of how or why they came to be. There is great hope in this solution for both Javier and Andres , and regardless of the consequences there is always hope and the audacity for the human spirit to overcome whatever obstacles are in their life.
For all of the reasons stated above I do agree with the parent’s decision.
The case of Javier family is very sad and unprecedented the fact that Andres, the six years old boy living with such a chronic debilitating disease, beta-thalassamia.Any parent would try to do any thing to save one's child even trying such a controversial medical research treatement like stem cell.The sentiment and love that people have their loved one's would make them so biased to make ethically unsounding decisions.Through out history people have searched the earth inorder to cure disease and give loved one's hopes of living normal and happy lives.Javier's family decision was wrong because it is a distruction of lives to save other's.The stem search process might kill some other potential Javier's cells and saved one of the parents choice.There are lot of ethical dilemma on this case because Javier is created to save the end of his brother's life.He should be wanted for parents own sake.This is like manipulating the child and using him as a tool or instrument.It wouldn't be acceptable if the only reason for creating Javier just to provide a source of stem cell to treat his brother, Andres.There might be other consequences; like if the umblical cord stem cell transplant fails or if the sick brother requires further treatement.There might be severe factors which may contribute to potentail harm to Javier.He might be psychologically harm because he might find out that he was wanted not for him self,but as a means,to save the life of his sick brother.To me, the right to live is a divine and shouldn't be for humans to make that decision.This has a big ethical and moral implications for the current and future generations.It is morally wrong and ethically inhumane to destroy Javier's life and to save Andres life.The parents should find other means to cure their son.
Post a Comment