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?
No, I do not agree with the parent’s decision to have a baby specifically to save his brother’s life. While it is a tragedy the child has a disease there are other treatments for the disease besides growing a human for donation. Once the infant is delivered, they should have the same right to privacy as the adults. The people that are supposed to protect the child are allowing him to become the science experiment of the year. Moral considerations in this case revolve around the creation of life for a life. They have taken out the natural selection process which has gotten people this far. The U.S. has had several cases of creating a life to save a life. Those parents were also judged in the press. Actually, the first case ever reported of designer savior babies was in Englewood, Colorado in 2000 for a child with a rare genetic disease called Fanconi anemia, that prevents the body from making bone marrow. If the new boy had not been a match, would the parents have kept him and tried again? How many times would they have tried? Although this case was in Spain and the laws are different for each country, where is the line in the sand that will not be crossed? England recently passed laws allowing the creation of “Designer” savior babies used specifically for donor reasons. If we are going to allow the creation of babies in a lab to save lives, why not allow human cloning. The deciding consideration for me is the genetic engineering of life.
The decision these parents made in the hopes of saving the now oldest son Andres from sure death related to Beta Thalassemia which is a very painful and complicated disease to have, was made out of love. Andres has been part of their lives for six painful sickly years and to know that the child you loved is dying and you can do something to stop the pain and save his life, as loving parents what choice do you have. To have a child just to save another child is wrong, but to have a child because you want another child to love, protect, and help grow into a healthy productive person in society is human nature. If this child (Javier) can increase the chances of the older child (Andres) to live, and be healthy with an improved quality of life then I say go for it. The significant moral considerations are; having a child to save the life of another child and the parental responsibility for the well-being of your children. The consideration that was decisive to me is the latter. As a parent I would do what ever I can legally to ensure the well-being of my children. The article in question states the parent wanted the joy of having another child. Therefore, their motives were pure. Furthermore, they are ensuring the safety of both by genetic engineering the second child to make sure he doesn’t have the same hereditary disease that runs in the family and to save the life of the other child. In conclusion I believe if they treat the children equally and explain everything to them, these children and parents can have a healthy and loving relationship.
There has been a rant or two in the blog posts about quality of life. I would hope that the same people who have argued for quality of life would also be in favor of the decision of the parents. Assuming they are capable of caring for and providing for two children (which is an easy assumption given the cost of living with Andre’s disease as well as the cost of stem cell selection) then ultimately the parents are improving the quality of life for the older child while bringing a new life into this world. Javier does not need his umbilical cord after birth, in fact, it will fall off shortly after, so what is the harm in taking cells from a source that is no longer required by the baby? No harm has been done to either child and in fact the quality of life may improve greatly for the ill child, so I see no issue with quality of life. Some have argued the intention of the parents and the idea that all the other embryos were not considered because they may have suffered from the same disease. It makes sense if we consider each embryo to be a life and the selection of one deems the others unworthy of life. However, if a randomly selected embryo was to take and grow into a child, what would come of the other embryos? Would they not suffer the same fate? What if the randomly selected embryo carried the same gene combination that lead to the congenital anemia? Then we have two children who are going to suffer through a shortened existence. I feel that no harm was done and if in fact the couple in question wanted to have another child then why not improve the quality of life of their existing child? The root of the issue seems to be how we feel about stem cell research and what exactly are the rules governing the embryos created for artificial fertilization. Some in the class have argued that the embryos are the property of the couple. If they are in fact the couple’s property, then their right to privacy should be respected enough that it’s not anybody’s business which embryos they decide to implant. I feel that ultimately no harm was done to the newborn child and in fact the older child has a chance at a better life so the issue really lies in how one feels about stem cell research in general. The fact that most people in the class argue that as long as it’s used for good then there is no problem, how can this be any different?
I do agree with Javier’s parents and the use of stem cell selection for creating Javier. In the hopes of saving their 6 year old son who suffers from beta-thalassemia, which is a very severe form of anemia and requires constant blood transfusions, which in turn sets him up for possible heart failure leading to an early death. Javier’s stem cells from his umbilical cord will be used for his brother’s bone marrow transplant. I don’t see the harm in that. I know that the parents of Javier thought long and hard about their decision to bring another child in the world. They are obviously well aware of the sacrifices and difficulties that come along with parenthood. So by no means did they just “create” little Javier for the sole purpose of saving his brother’s life. They are going to love and cherish this little guy just like they do his older brother Andres. However, I do not agree with using stem cell selection for selecting the sex, the eye or hair color, or having basketball player genes. If we use it strictly for medical purposes then it’s ok, but I don’t see the necessity in choosing your child’s eye color. Perhaps when that child grows up he or she may feel that they were created for superficial reasons and maybe the child would have wanted, say brown eyes instead of blue eyes. When a child is being genetically created for the purpose of saving another’s life they most likely won’t have those types of issues. They might feel very needed and special in that they were created for a more meaningful purpose, to help save a life. The significant moral consideration is the creation of a genetically engineered child in the hopes of saving another child. The consideration that was decisive for me was to put myself in their shoes and try and feel what it would be like to have a sick child with a short life span with all sorts of complications. I would try anything to save his life. And thanks to advanced medical technology we have the ability to make two miracles happen, a new life whose saving another’s life.
I personally view creating another life for the sole purpose of harvesting bodily materials necessary for another being’s life as not being ethical. The only slight exception is for the collection of stem cells. As in the case of the Spanish couple who had a second child. I agree with their decision only because the child was not harmed. The new baby’s umbilical cord stem cells were the only materials to be harvested, and they were to be used to create bone marrow for his older brother. This I agree with this because the new born baby is not being harmed, and he did not lose any tissues or organs necessary to lead a normal happy life. On the other side, I do not agree with children being created for the exclusive reason of aiding a sibling with a supply of genetically identical parts (organs, tissues, ect.) I do not agree with this because it is morally and ethically wrong to create a child, and force him or her to suffer and go through countless operations to save an older siblings life. The “created” individual’s rights as a human being need to be taken into consideration and their quality of life as well. No one person should be denied the ability to have a normal, happy, functioning existence. It is understood, that when a child becomes ill a parent can become frantic and look for anyway to help them, but it is not ethical to allow create another person to suffer at the cost of saving a preexisting one. Thus, the ethical scenario where creating an individual is okay is in a situation where only stem cells are harvested (non-invasively). No other reason besides that is ethical.
Given what medical technology can do today that it couldn't do even 5 or 10 years ago, with regards to saving a life or improving the quality of life for a person, I would have made the same decision that these parents made to save their first born, Andres. The reality is since we now understand the extreme benefit of stem cells and their potential to reverse or completely get rid of a disease or provide the potential to have a new organ is just ground breaking science. I agree with the parent's decision because one, it is within their rights to choose to do this and two if we all could afford to do what these parents did for their oldest child, I believe that 85% of us would do the same thing. Let me also say that every day doctors provide the service of 'medical practice'. Literally, doctors practice medical services and procedures on us every time we go to see one of them. It is not concrete medical science and never will be. Considering this fact, I have reservations about how stem cell usage could eventually be used for mallicious purposes and that I would not agree to. Morally, if you are of a particular religious belief then one could have issue with stem cell usage and especially with regards to becoming pregnant specifically to make sure that your other child could live a longer life with the potential to be disease free because of the new born child that was genetically tested to make sure he/she was a donor match for the child with the disease. What if the child was not a donor match? Would the parents have aborted the child and tried again? I do not support that at all. Then I have to question, since doctors practice medicine daily, how on earth could they possibly give the parents any assurances since this area of medicine is still so new? Morally, what obligations do the doctors have to themselves about tampering with this type of science still knowing full well that there are no guarantees and all the testing could say this is what should happen but we always have room for that margin of error of what could happen? Then I have my belief that all things happen for a reason and that if the risks that were taken that led to medical history being made, since we can remember, weren't taken at all where we would be today? It's medical breakthroughs like stem cells, heart transplants, face transplants, etc. that allow us to be able to decide whether or not the risk is worth it. In this case I believe the risk was worth it.
I do not agree with Javiers parents. I am not against stem cell research, but reading this story specifically, I belive it is not right. It is not so much that Javier will be spending his life helping his brother, but the fact that he is only living because of him. If I was in Javiers position, after he is old enough to understand what is going on, I would feel used and unwanted. I understand that Javiers parents are doing what they obviously think is the right thing for Andres, but they are also obviously not thinking about Javier and how he will feel later on. I just dont think its fair that Javier has no choice of what he has to contribute and if he even wants to. Parents facing similar situations should really think about both kids, not only the one they want to save, because in the end both kids are human and they both have feelings.
It is hard to say if I agree or disagree with the parents decision. My mother always told me until I became a parent, I wouldn’t understand love like a parent has for their child. It is clear that both parents love their son very much. However, I disagree with the parents decision. They were only thinking about their son when they made this decision now they have to think(hopefully) about another life they brought into the world. This child was made “hoping” he had the cure. If he does not, are they going to create another child to try and find another cure? Are they financially stable so they can care for another child? Will this child be treated the same as their first? These are all considerations that were very decisive for me. After reading the article, the parents showed me that they are very caring because they would consider bringing another life into the world in order to save another one, however, this also shows greed. One cannot assume however what the parents were thinking when they chose this decision. You cannot understand until you are placed in that situation. Honestly, I believe it is wrong what they did, however, if it were to happen to my child, I would probably do the same thing. However, I would treat this child like my first and hopefully these parents will too. Some moral considerations may be was it right to bring another life into the world because you were thinking for the moment. No one knows how the parents will treat this new child. Will they treat him like family or like a nobody? Another question that is still being debated is the right to use stem cell selection babies. The views of the Roman-Catholic Church and Pro-Life groups is that many other potential human beings are being killed in order to find this one that MAY help. This is a major moral issue surrounding this case. Manuel Cruz, the director of the Life Foundation said it was like “selecting a prize” which is also something that could be viewed as morally wrong.
After reading the article about Javier, I agree with his parent’s decision to use stem-cell selection in the hopes that they might able to provide a cure for their 6 year old son, Andres who suffers from beta-thalassaemia. In this case, Javier was genetically engineered to ensure that he would be a match with his brother Andres. This enabled Javier to donate his stem cells from his umbilical cord for a bone marrow transplant on his brother. Medical research and advances have given couples the opportunities to genetically select and predetermine if their child is going to be free of medical illnesses and complications. This medical technology has now enable parents to take this one step further to create a child to save another child. I agree with this ability and the right of parents to choose to do this. However, I think that there has to be a line drawn on where the donation from the genetically engineered child begins and ends. I believe the donation of stem cells from their umbilical cord is the only donation that ever should be made. There are medical risks with all procedures and I am against harming another child just to save another child. Even though a child has the ability to save another child they should not be put through any medical treatment or procedure to do so. Their life needs to always be protected. This is their personal right to freedom. Ethically and morally, I child should not be made to go through endless procedures in the attempt to save another child’s life. Each child has value to their own life which always needs to be respected and preserved. Because we cannot look into the future, we cannot say that what you are asking a child to do to save another child will not harm or hurt him in the future, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically. There are repercussions when placing the responsibility of saving another child’s life on a child also. What if a procedure was done and it didn’t take and the child died anyway. How is the child who was created to save their sibling going to feel? Will child feel like they failed? Will the child feel like the parents will blame him or her for not saving their sibling? Will the child also feel like they were not really wanted because of the reason they were created? These issues and questions should not be placed upon a child. That is why the only donation that should be allowed between siblings is the stem cells of an umbilical cord. I do not agree with the thought when using genetic engineering to select a child that you are destroying other lives. I do not agree that the embryos not selected are actually alive and considered a life being destroyed. The embryos have the potential and ability to become a person. But if taken at the stage they are implanted in vitro, if you were to place these embryos outside the uterus, there would be no signs of viability or the ability to attain life on their own. The moral consideration that needs to be made here is when choosing to create a child is it for the sole purpose of saving another child with the benefit of having another child also or is the first consideration to have another child because that was the plan to expand the family and f at the same time we can help their sick sibling. We will never know how parents come to their decision when choosing to genetically engineer a child to save another child. In this case it is not clear if they also truly wanted to have another child or if the sole purpose for having Javier was to only help cure Andres. I think I support having this opportunity available to parents. I think there should be a limitation on what the created child is able to donate to their sick sibling. I think this is where the lines of what is best for both children become unclear. For me I think if a couple chooses to create a child to save another child the only donation to be made is their umbilical cord blood which was the case with Javier and his brother Andres.
In the case of a stem-cell baby born to help his ill Spanish brother, I don’t agree with the parent’s decision because it is morally wrong. There are three significant moral considerations in this case. First, by doing the stem-cell selection, the parent kills many embryos because those embryos have specific conditions. This undermines human life. Human life is valuable from conception because it possesses the potential for personhood. By eliminating the other embryos, the parent devalues personhood. Second, the intention to create a baby for the sole purpose of supporting a different individual is an unethical thing to do. The intention of conception should be to create human life for its own sake, not as a calculated move to help another. In this case, the parent’s intention to have a new baby is to help the other son, and that is morally wrong. Third, the child that the parents create is also their own child, and he has the same rights to live a normal life as the other child. The parents are morally wrong when they exploit one child for the good of another. It violates respect for individual worth of all persons because this child’s value is being judged in relation to his ability to help his brother, rather than being understood to have value by merit of his own existence. From my perspective, my decisive consideration is that the parents violate respect for the individual worth of all persons. The whole purpose of creating the stem-cell baby is to help his brother, and that devalues the stem-cell baby’s existence.
I agree with javiors case I think if the parents are not harming the child in the process of helping another it would be fine. But in the eyes of catholic’s this should never take place, catholic’s have strict morals and rules they abide by. This situation paints a horrible picture and stands against everything they believe in. I know if I had a child who was chronically ill and his sickness could potentially kill him I would do everything in my power to save the life of my son. If that means to give birth to another child to use the cells from the umbilical cord I would, from what I understand Mrs. Puertas is desperate to help her child, and in an act of desperation and the willingness to do anything. This last resort is not morally wrong.
In regards to “Creating a Life to Save a Life” seems morally unethical. But if the, shoe was on the other foot, and I was in a situation that my child’s life was at risk, I would reach out as well to find anything to keep him or her alive. I would only hope that creating a child for another child, you would not run into the same or different kind of medical issues. Also, in regards to how they harvested the stem cells from the new baby Javier from my understanding they extracted the stems cells from the umbilical cord after the baby was born. So in reality, the umbilical cord is cut and eventually falls off, so the baby wasn’t harmed at all. Now if the baby was genetically produce to remove organs or tissue that would put the baby through a great deal of pain and suffering. I think that it is terribly wrong. The quality of that child’s life would then be taken from him or her without even considering there life as a person. The medical technology that has been studied and developed has helped and saved numbers of peoples life, is incredible. As long our medical research do not go too far and forget the quality of human life and morally don’t use science against us.
By maternal instinct, a mother will do anything for her offspring. The problem is what happens when there is an option to save your first child by sacrificing your second child. I do not agree with creating a human being to only live life as a donor to save another human being. When a person is an organ donor they have agreed to be one, a fetus cannot agree to this and in return, I do not think that it is ok that the mom can make the decision for her next fetus to be sacrifice for her first child. I understand that it is hard to lose a child and it is hard not to do any and everything to save them but to use another child either way the mom is losing a child. It’s not fair that a child who is born completely healthy has to go through surgeries and death to save an unhealthy sibling. Where are the rights for the second child and why don’t they have a say in what happens to their body, organs, and life. I believe that you should do whatever it takes to save your child as long as another innocent life isn’t harmed in doing so. Everyone is some way or another knows what its like to lose someone close and it is hard to see how people have to cope with it. It is hard to go through but eventually there is a light at the end of the tunnel and sometimes you have to let life happen. Even if that means letting go of a terminally ill child if the outcome is another child is harmed.
As a parent I can understand wanting to save you child at any expense, who wouldn't but when is to much enough. I would do any and everything to save my daughter's life but having a another child just for the umbilical cord is a little to much for me. The child that is conceived to just save someone life will live a life feeling that he or she was only needed to save their brother or sister. Having a child to save another one is just not right to me where is the love, I see this is a another from of child abuse. I have to question if the parent will even want to care for this child once the ill child becomes health.What if the baby also has an illness do you kill that fetus and keep trying to you have a match. I just don't agree with this from of treatment.
Posts
14 comments:
No, I do not agree with the parent’s decision to have a baby specifically to save his brother’s life. While it is a tragedy the child has a disease there are other treatments for the disease besides growing a human for donation. Once the infant is delivered, they should have the same right to privacy as the adults. The people that are supposed to protect the child are allowing him to become the science experiment of the year. Moral considerations in this case revolve around the creation of life for a life. They have taken out the natural selection process which has gotten people this far. The U.S. has had several cases of creating a life to save a life. Those parents were also judged in the press. Actually, the first case ever reported of designer savior babies was in Englewood, Colorado in 2000 for a child with a rare genetic disease called Fanconi anemia, that prevents the body from making bone marrow. If the new boy had not been a match, would the parents have kept him and tried again? How many times would they have tried? Although this case was in Spain and the laws are different for each country, where is the line in the sand that will not be crossed? England recently passed laws allowing the creation of “Designer” savior babies used specifically for donor reasons. If we are going to allow the creation of babies in a lab to save lives, why not allow human cloning. The deciding consideration for me is the genetic engineering of life.
The decision these parents made in the hopes of saving the now oldest son Andres from sure death related to Beta Thalassemia which is a very painful and complicated disease to have, was made out of love. Andres has been part of their lives for six painful sickly years and to know that the child you loved is dying and you can do something to stop the pain and save his life, as loving parents what choice do you have. To have a child just to save another child is wrong, but to have a child because you want another child to love, protect, and help grow into a healthy productive person in society is human nature. If this child (Javier) can increase the chances of the older child (Andres) to live, and be healthy with an improved quality of life then I say go for it.
The significant moral considerations are; having a child to save the life of another child and the parental responsibility for the well-being of your children.
The consideration that was decisive to me is the latter. As a parent I would do what ever I can legally to ensure the well-being of my children. The article in question states the parent wanted the joy of having another child. Therefore, their motives were pure. Furthermore, they are ensuring the safety of both by genetic engineering the second child to make sure he doesn’t have the same hereditary disease that runs in the family and to save the life of the other child. In conclusion I believe if they treat the children equally and explain everything to them, these children and parents can have a healthy and loving relationship.
There has been a rant or two in the blog posts about quality of life. I would hope that the same people who have argued for quality of life would also be in favor of the decision of the parents. Assuming they are capable of caring for and providing for two children (which is an easy assumption given the cost of living with Andre’s disease as well as the cost of stem cell selection) then ultimately the parents are improving the quality of life for the older child while bringing a new life into this world. Javier does not need his umbilical cord after birth, in fact, it will fall off shortly after, so what is the harm in taking cells from a source that is no longer required by the baby? No harm has been done to either child and in fact the quality of life may improve greatly for the ill child, so I see no issue with quality of life. Some have argued the intention of the parents and the idea that all the other embryos were not considered because they may have suffered from the same disease. It makes sense if we consider each embryo to be a life and the selection of one deems the others unworthy of life. However, if a randomly selected embryo was to take and grow into a child, what would come of the other embryos? Would they not suffer the same fate? What if the randomly selected embryo carried the same gene combination that lead to the congenital anemia? Then we have two children who are going to suffer through a shortened existence. I feel that no harm was done and if in fact the couple in question wanted to have another child then why not improve the quality of life of their existing child? The root of the issue seems to be how we feel about stem cell research and what exactly are the rules governing the embryos created for artificial fertilization. Some in the class have argued that the embryos are the property of the couple. If they are in fact the couple’s property, then their right to privacy should be respected enough that it’s not anybody’s business which embryos they decide to implant. I feel that ultimately no harm was done to the newborn child and in fact the older child has a chance at a better life so the issue really lies in how one feels about stem cell research in general. The fact that most people in the class argue that as long as it’s used for good then there is no problem, how can this be any different?
I do agree with Javier’s parents and the use of stem cell selection for creating Javier. In the hopes of saving their 6 year old son who suffers from beta-thalassemia, which is a very severe form of anemia and requires constant blood transfusions, which in turn sets him up for possible heart failure leading to an early death. Javier’s stem cells from his umbilical cord will be used for his brother’s bone marrow transplant. I don’t see the harm in that. I know that the parents of Javier thought long and hard about their decision to bring another child in the world. They are obviously well aware of the sacrifices and difficulties that come along with parenthood. So by no means did they just “create” little Javier for the sole purpose of saving his brother’s life. They are going to love and cherish this little guy just like they do his older brother Andres.
However, I do not agree with using stem cell selection for selecting the sex, the eye or hair color, or having basketball player genes. If we use it strictly for medical purposes then it’s ok, but I don’t see the necessity in choosing your child’s eye color. Perhaps when that child grows up he or she may feel that they were created for superficial reasons and maybe the child would have wanted, say brown eyes instead of blue eyes. When a child is being genetically created for the purpose of saving another’s life they most likely won’t have those types of issues. They might feel very needed and special in that they were created for a more meaningful purpose, to help save a life.
The significant moral consideration is the creation of a genetically engineered child in the hopes of saving another child. The consideration that was decisive for me was to put myself in their shoes and try and feel what it would be like to have a sick child with a short life span with all sorts of complications. I would try anything to save his life. And thanks to advanced medical technology we have the ability to make two miracles happen, a new life whose saving another’s life.
I personally view creating another life for the sole purpose of harvesting bodily materials necessary for another being’s life as not being ethical. The only slight exception is for the collection of stem cells. As in the case of the Spanish couple who had a second child. I agree with their decision only because the child was not harmed. The new baby’s umbilical cord stem cells were the only materials to be harvested, and they were to be used to create bone marrow for his older brother. This I agree with this because the new born baby is not being harmed, and he did not lose any tissues or organs necessary to lead a normal happy life. On the other side, I do not agree with children being created for the exclusive reason of aiding a sibling with a supply of genetically identical parts (organs, tissues, ect.) I do not agree with this because it is morally and ethically wrong to create a child, and force him or her to suffer and go through countless operations to save an older siblings life. The “created” individual’s rights as a human being need to be taken into consideration and their quality of life as well. No one person should be denied the ability to have a normal, happy, functioning existence. It is understood, that when a child becomes ill a parent can become frantic and look for anyway to help them, but it is not ethical to allow create another person to suffer at the cost of saving a preexisting one. Thus, the ethical scenario where creating an individual is okay is in a situation where only stem cells are harvested (non-invasively). No other reason besides that is ethical.
Given what medical technology can do today that it couldn't do even 5 or 10 years ago, with regards to saving a life or improving the quality of life for a person, I would have made the same decision that these parents made to save their first born, Andres. The reality is since we now understand the extreme benefit of stem cells and their potential to reverse or completely get rid of a disease or provide the potential to have a new organ is just ground breaking science. I agree with the parent's decision because one, it is within their rights to choose to do this and two if we all could afford to do what these parents did for their oldest child, I believe that 85% of us would do the same thing. Let me also say that every day doctors provide the service of 'medical practice'. Literally, doctors practice medical services and procedures on us every time we go to see one of them. It is not concrete medical science and never will be. Considering this fact, I have reservations about how stem cell usage could eventually be used for mallicious purposes and that I would not agree to. Morally, if you are of a particular religious belief then one could have issue with stem cell usage and especially with regards to becoming pregnant specifically to make sure that your other child could live a longer life with the potential to be disease free because of the new born child that was genetically tested to make sure he/she was a donor match for the child with the disease. What if the child was not a donor match? Would the parents have aborted the child and tried again? I do not support that at all. Then I have to question, since doctors practice medicine daily, how on earth could they possibly give the parents any assurances since this area of medicine is still so new? Morally, what obligations do the doctors have to themselves about tampering with this type of science still knowing full well that there are no guarantees and all the testing could say this is what should happen but we always have room for that margin of error of what could happen? Then I have my belief that all things happen for a reason and that if the risks that were taken that led to medical history being made, since we can remember, weren't taken at all where we would be today? It's medical breakthroughs like stem cells, heart transplants, face transplants, etc. that allow us to be able to decide whether or not the risk is worth it. In this case I believe the risk was worth it.
I do not agree with Javiers parents. I am not against stem cell research, but reading this story specifically, I belive it is not right. It is not so much that Javier will be spending his life helping his brother, but the fact that he is only living because of him. If I was in Javiers position, after he is old enough to understand what is going on, I would feel used and unwanted. I understand that Javiers parents are doing what they obviously think is the right thing for Andres, but they are also obviously not thinking about Javier and how he will feel later on. I just dont think its fair that Javier has no choice of what he has to contribute and if he even wants to. Parents facing similar situations should really think about both kids, not only the one they want to save, because in the end both kids are human and they both have feelings.
It is hard to say if I agree or disagree with the parents decision. My mother always told me until I became a parent, I wouldn’t understand love like a parent has for their child. It is clear that both parents love their son very much. However, I disagree with the parents decision. They were only thinking about their son when they made this decision now they have to think(hopefully) about another life they brought into the world. This child was made “hoping” he had the cure. If he does not, are they going to create another child to try and find another cure? Are they financially stable so they can care for another child? Will this child be treated the same as their first? These are all considerations that were very decisive for me. After reading the article, the parents showed me that they are very caring because they would consider bringing another life into the world in order to save another one, however, this also shows greed. One cannot assume however what the parents were thinking when they chose this decision. You cannot understand until you are placed in that situation. Honestly, I believe it is wrong what they did, however, if it were to happen to my child, I would probably do the same thing. However, I would treat this child like my first and hopefully these parents will too. Some moral considerations may be was it right to bring another life into the world because you were thinking for the moment. No one knows how the parents will treat this new child. Will they treat him like family or like a nobody? Another question that is still being debated is the right to use stem cell selection babies. The views of the Roman-Catholic Church and Pro-Life groups is that many other potential human beings are being killed in order to find this one that MAY help. This is a major moral issue surrounding this case. Manuel Cruz, the director of the Life Foundation said it was like “selecting a prize” which is also something that could be viewed as morally wrong.
After reading the article about Javier, I agree with his parent’s decision to use stem-cell selection in the hopes that they might able to provide a cure for their 6 year old son, Andres who suffers from beta-thalassaemia. In this case, Javier was genetically engineered to ensure that he would be a match with his brother Andres. This enabled Javier to donate his stem cells from his umbilical cord for a bone marrow transplant on his brother. Medical research and advances have given couples the opportunities to genetically select and predetermine if their child is going to be free of medical illnesses and complications. This medical technology has now enable parents to take this one step further to create a child to save another child. I agree with this ability and the right of parents to choose to do this. However, I think that there has to be a line drawn on where the donation from the genetically engineered child begins and ends. I believe the donation of stem cells from their umbilical cord is the only donation that ever should be made. There are medical risks with all procedures and I am against harming another child just to save another child. Even though a child has the ability to save another child they should not be put through any medical treatment or procedure to do so. Their life needs to always be protected. This is their personal right to freedom. Ethically and morally, I child should not be made to go through endless procedures in the attempt to save another child’s life. Each child has value to their own life which always needs to be respected and preserved. Because we cannot look into the future, we cannot say that what you are asking a child to do to save another child will not harm or hurt him in the future, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically. There are repercussions when placing the responsibility of saving another child’s life on a child also. What if a procedure was done and it didn’t take and the child died anyway. How is the child who was created to save their sibling going to feel? Will child feel like they failed? Will the child feel like the parents will blame him or her for not saving their sibling? Will the child also feel like they were not really wanted because of the reason they were created? These issues and questions should not be placed upon a child. That is why the only donation that should be allowed between siblings is the stem cells of an umbilical cord.
I do not agree with the thought when using genetic engineering to select a child that you are destroying other lives. I do not agree that the embryos not selected are actually alive and considered a life being destroyed. The embryos have the potential and ability to become a person. But if taken at the stage they are implanted in vitro, if you were to place these embryos outside the uterus, there would be no signs of viability or the ability to attain life on their own.
The moral consideration that needs to be made here is when choosing to create a child is it for the sole purpose of saving another child with the benefit of having another child also or is the first consideration to have another child because that was the plan to expand the family and f at the same time we can help their sick sibling. We will never know how parents come to their decision when choosing to genetically engineer a child to save another child. In this case it is not clear if they also truly wanted to have another child or if the sole purpose for having Javier was to only help cure Andres. I think I support having this opportunity available to parents. I think there should be a limitation on what the created child is able to donate to their sick sibling. I think this is where the lines of what is best for both children become unclear. For me I think if a couple chooses to create a child to save another child the only donation to be made is their umbilical cord blood which was the case with Javier and his brother Andres.
In the case of a stem-cell baby born to help his ill Spanish brother, I don’t agree with the parent’s decision because it is morally wrong. There are three significant moral considerations in this case. First, by doing the stem-cell selection, the parent kills many embryos because those embryos have specific conditions. This undermines human life. Human life is valuable from conception because it possesses the potential for personhood. By eliminating the other embryos, the parent devalues personhood. Second, the intention to create a baby for the sole purpose of supporting a different individual is an unethical thing to do. The intention of conception should be to create human life for its own sake, not as a calculated move to help another. In this case, the parent’s intention to have a new baby is to help the other son, and that is morally wrong. Third, the child that the parents create is also their own child, and he has the same rights to live a normal life as the other child. The parents are morally wrong when they exploit one child for the good of another. It violates respect for individual worth of all persons because this child’s value is being judged in relation to his ability to help his brother, rather than being understood to have value by merit of his own existence. From my perspective, my decisive consideration is that the parents violate respect for the individual worth of all persons. The whole purpose of creating the stem-cell baby is to help his brother, and that devalues the stem-cell baby’s existence.
I agree with javiors case I think if the parents are not harming the child in the process of helping another it would be fine. But in the eyes of catholic’s this should never take place, catholic’s have strict morals and rules they abide by. This situation paints a horrible picture and stands against everything they believe in. I know if I had a child who was chronically ill and his sickness could potentially kill him I would do everything in my power to save the life of my son. If that means to give birth to another child to use the cells from the umbilical cord I would, from what I understand Mrs. Puertas is desperate to help her child, and in an act of desperation and the willingness to do anything. This last resort is not morally wrong.
In regards to “Creating a Life to Save a Life” seems morally unethical. But if the, shoe was on the other foot, and I was in a situation that my child’s life was at risk, I would reach out as well to find anything to keep him or her alive. I would only hope that creating a child for another child, you would not run into the same or different kind of medical issues. Also, in regards to how they harvested the stem cells from the new baby Javier from my understanding they extracted the stems cells from the umbilical cord after the baby was born. So in reality, the umbilical cord is cut and eventually falls off, so the baby wasn’t harmed at all. Now if the baby was genetically produce to remove organs or tissue that would put the baby through a great deal of pain and suffering. I think that it is terribly wrong. The quality of that child’s life would then be taken from him or her without even considering there life as a person. The medical technology that has been studied and developed has helped and saved numbers of peoples life, is incredible. As long our medical research do not go too far and forget the quality of human life and morally don’t use science against us.
By maternal instinct, a mother will do anything for her offspring. The problem is what happens when there is an option to save your first child by sacrificing your second child. I do not agree with creating a human being to only live life as a donor to save another human being. When a person is an organ donor they have agreed to be one, a fetus cannot agree to this and in return, I do not think that it is ok that the mom can make the decision for her next fetus to be sacrifice for her first child. I understand that it is hard to lose a child and it is hard not to do any and everything to save them but to use another child either way the mom is losing a child. It’s not fair that a child who is born completely healthy has to go through surgeries and death to save an unhealthy sibling. Where are the rights for the second child and why don’t they have a say in what happens to their body, organs, and life. I believe that you should do whatever it takes to save your child as long as another innocent life isn’t harmed in doing so. Everyone is some way or another knows what its like to lose someone close and it is hard to see how people have to cope with it. It is hard to go through but eventually there is a light at the end of the tunnel and sometimes you have to let life happen. Even if that means letting go of a terminally ill child if the outcome is another child is harmed.
As a parent I can understand wanting to save you child at any expense, who wouldn't but when is to much enough. I would do any and everything to save my daughter's life but having a another child just for the umbilical cord is a little to much for me. The child that is conceived to just save someone life will live a life feeling that he or she was only needed to save their brother or sister. Having a child to save another one is just not right to me where is the love, I see this is a another from of child abuse. I have to question if the parent will even want to care for this child once the ill child becomes health.What if the baby also has an illness do you kill that fetus and keep trying to you have a match. I just don't agree with this from of treatment.
Post a Comment