Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(17)
-
▼
July
(14)
- Treatment of the Mentally Ill (PP13)
- Health Care Rationing (PP12)
- Health Care Reform (PP11)
- Alternative Medicine (PP10)
- Human Subjects Research (PP9)
- Animal Rights (PP8)
- Animal Rights Extremism (PP7)
- Forced Sterilization (PP6)
- Right to Refuse Treatment (PP5)
- Creating a Life to Save a Life (PP4)
- Roe v Wade (PP3)
- Care for the Beginning of Life (PP2)
- Care for the Dying (PP1)
- Welcome to PHI213
-
▼
July
(14)
About Me
- dsm
- Biostatistician, Biology and Philosophy Faculty, Lacrosse Addict
Posts
16 comments:
The case of the Spanish boy (Javier) that was genetically selected and born is a difficult issue to consider. As of right now it is hard to say if what the parents did was ethical or not. The answer to that for me will be in the years to come. To me it comes down to respect for human life so if the second child they had is loved and treated respectfully I don’t have a problem with their decision. However if Javier is made to feel as if he is just “spare parts” for his brother and he is not loved and accepted in his family I would disagree with their decision. The parents, in a way, helped to give Javier a good start by making sure that he was not born with same condition that his brother has. So in a way the genetic manipulation was a good thing for Javier. There will be a point in the younger brother’s life where I feel he should be allowed to choose whether or not to continue helping his brother medically. This early on in the situation the parents are simply using the Javier’s cord blood which does not harm him. If the cord blood does not work to help Andres with his anemia and more invasive procedures are necessary perhaps at that point Javier should be allowed to choose to continue to help or not to help any longer. As the situation stands now I feel the parents are demonstrating behavior that is ethically appropriate.
Some of the moral considerations in this case coincide with those of assisted reproduction. Because they had to select a specific embryo for implantation that means other embryos died and some are concerned that you are killing a person instead of just cells. There are differing opinions on this from those who say person hood begins the moment of conception to those who say the developing child is not a person until birth. Religious groups feel that you are taking the role of a god in deciding what child should be born so this is yet another moral consideration.
This is not an easy ethical concern because there are more than just one person’s needs involved. There are concerns for the Andres and his anemia, for the proper treatment Javier, and for what the parents feel is the correct way to approach the situation. When considering which ethical issue was decisive for me I concluded that it is the future treatment of Javier. There is not enough information in the story for me to come to a reasonable conclusion so far. Javier is still young and as of yet no harm has come to him. There are also no statements from the parents explaining their complete reasoning for undertaking the responsibility of another child by completing the procedure. It was not explained why they felt that giving birth to Javier was an acceptable decision. If they plan on raising Javier with love and he is provided with the same positive opportunities as his older brother then I have no problem with their decision
Andrea Gracia
This is a hard situation to take sides on. But for the most part I have to agree with the decision of the parents. Even though they “picked out” Javier to make sure he did not have the same illness as his brother I think it was good that they did that so Javier won’t have to suffer like his brother Andres. Plus I can only imagine what it is like to have your child dying; I think I would do the same thing. I don’t think that by choosing from many embryos a specific one is unethical, I don’t think that they “killed” other potential babies because they weren’t really people yet. The Roman Catholic Church should not be one to choose ones actions because in a sense they are trying to choose whether to save or not to save Andres by judging the parents decisions. With this class I am learning a lot about myself, I’m catholic, well at least I think, I guess I don’t know what type of catholic I am because I’m learning that I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church a lot. I do think it is cruel to “take parts” from one child to save another, but with the technology we have now there are new noninvasive way to get what is needed without hurting the child so with that I think it’s okay. The article doesn’t really give much information about what else Andres may need from Javier other than the stem cells from his umbilical cord. Only time can tell if having Javier to help Andres is ethical or not, because for me it depends how much and what they take from Javier. I just hope that even though Javier was “engineered” that the parents love, care, and treat him with fairness and respect just like their other son. I agree with the parents but it’s hard to judge because I am not and hopefully never am in their position, but I know I will always love all the children I have and fight for their lives no matter what.
I can understand a parents wish to try to save their child. After reading this story I agree with the parents decision to proceed to use assisted reproduction and create an designed child to save their other child. Not only do they now have the hope to save their first child but they now have another child that will be free from the same anemia disorder as the other child. This is a child that has been chosen and has not been created through the "luck of the draw".
I feel that the parents must have has extensive counseling concerning this procedure as well as 9 months to get ready to become parents for this child. As a parent, I know that while I may not initially be excited to have a child, I develop love and a desire to protect my unborn child. I am sure that these parents developed that same love and desire. They will desire to have the best for the second child as they do the first.
While many skeptics wonder about the child's future and wither the child will be used only for its spare parts , they are also concerned about future medical issues that may have not been disclosed during the genetic testing process. As long as the first child is only using the cord blood (which is usually discarded at birth) of the second and as long as the second child is not subjected to painful procedures that could shorten their life, I agree on the use of the second child to potentially save the first. I do not agree, of any future medical procedures that would create pain and suffering of the second child. I believe that every individual has a right to not experience unnecessary pain and suffering. I think in this case, as in the movie, "My Sisters Keeper" that an individual, regardless of age should be able to have medical emancipation to be able to say what they want to do with their own body. That is what we all strive for. Dignity.
Creating a life to save a life
Do you agree with the parent's decision?
If I believed that with just the cord blood, my other child could be saved, than yes I agree with their decision. However, you have to make a distinction between having a child to help your child, and making genetically altered trophy children. Besides, from checking for diseases, or to match another child in case of sickness, I believe the only thing you should be allowed to choose is the sex of the baby. Anymore and you alter their genetic makeup with no concern for their safety or health.
Why or why not?
Genetic testing to make sure that a child is born without debilitating diseases passed down from parent to child, could save parents and the medical staff undue stress. As long as they are not using it to be substitute parts for their other children.
What are the significant moral considerations in this case?
This technology can be used for good to help many children out there, as long as it does not turn into people genetically designing children to try to make so-called super children. Choosing to weed out diseases, or at the far end choosing the sex, would be acceptable.
What consideration is decisive for you?
How much they need to take from the baby, cord blood would be ok, but if they had, the child to give its organs or parts than I think the law should step in and make rules about what are the limits gene-therapy can alter before a child is conceived.
Leonel Martinez
The situation in the case of Javier is a difficult decision to decide, if the parents were ethical to bring another child only for the purpose to save another child. The article did not give much background information, but I’m assuming their intention of having another baby was to help Andres for all the right reasons. Cases like this bring up questions, like how far are we going to go to keep our selves alive. I understand the position of the Catholic Church why it stands on its moral grounds. Nobody should be playing god but is creating another life to help another life moral.
If Andres ever needed more than cord blood from his brothers umbilical cord, how far are they willing to go to save Andres. I agree on the good intentions the parents have, to help Andres but I believe there are boundaries when it comes to using somebody for spare parts. It doesn’t say in the article what their future intentions are with Javier but hopefully they will love Javier the same way as Andres. In either case if the intentions of the parents ever change to use him as spare parts, hopefully Javier by that time will be old enough to make decisions by himself if it ever comes to that.
In the article the parents of Andres and Javier, sound very loving and caring. That they even went through stem-cell selection to find the perfect match for Andres, against the church rules. There are some significant moral considerations that this case brings up for using this procedure. The use of embryonic stem cells is considered to be murder according to the church Bishops. Science has broken so many moral boundaries with stem-cells research, that it will continue doing so, until the church sets more boundaries. According to the articles I’ve read in this class I have gained a different view on stem cell research. I don’t believe killing a stem cell is the same as killing a person because nobody really knows when person hood begins exactly. I myself can never be in situation like the parent of Javier and Andres after watching the class movie. It has giving me a different perspective on body parts. When is it right to take them and when is it wrong. I am not much of a religious person but I still have standards of how far to go to save life. Hopefully I will never experience that decision in my life time.
As much as I strongly support research and science for better and healthier living, I cannot agree with what Soledad Puertas and Andrés Mariscal have done. I am a proponent of stem cell research as well as research in gene therapy…I guess because I view such research in a Utilitarian way, the greatest good for the greatest number with the least amount of harm. While embryos are destroyed in pursuit of answers and advances in science, I feel that such technologies show much promise to eventually reduce the devastating effects of many illnesses that affect the lives of many humans. However, depending on your definition of when life begins you may agree or disagree with my views and this is probably the most significant moral debate in this case. Moreover, in light of what we have learned thus far in this class even our great supreme court cannot define when life begins, so that is a separate argument altogether, and who am I to make this determination. I believe that there is much to be gained in stem cell and gene research and that the destruction of human embryos is acceptable when the lives of numerous human beings could be prolonged and with fewer co-morbidities. Additionally, such embryos are cultivated for these purposes, and in keeping with my pro-choice beliefs, I believe that if a couple decides to use their embryos for such purposes, that it should be allowed. On the contrary, my major moral concern with this case is that Javier was genetically selected and conceived for the purpose of matching his brother close enough genetically to serve as a donor for Andres (as the article portrays). Another moral issue here is that such technologies are only available to those whom can afford to pay for such technologies, thereby, creating inequity in those able to utilize these services.
The decisive factor in this case for me is that—on a global level—it is known that Javier’s sole purpose in existence is to serve as a donor for his brother, if I were Javier and read this article in the future, I would be devastated, so I think this is the first moral issue in this case. The article portrays that Javier is a scientific creation/project for this couple in their quest to obtain compatible cord blood for Andres…and as a bonus; they get another son as well. However, as a parent, I would probably do just about anything that I could think of to save the life of one of my children. That is the thing about ethics, we offer input regarding cases that are important, and this really gets us to think about important issues; however, should the tables turn and we find ourselves facing difficult situations—in which there are no right answers—who knows what decisions we would make. I find it difficult to judge the actions of others as moral/immoral or right/wrong not having experienced what they have endured.
This case about Javier who was genetically selected because of his parents hoping that he will be able to provide cure for his chronically ill brother, I agree with the parents trying to help their child cure by using the cord blood of the other child. I do not agree though for Javier to be used as spare parts to get his brother cured because a parent should always love both of their children equally you should not treat one child better than the other. I agree with the parents as long as they are using Javier for his Cord blood but other than that he should not be used for anything else. If the cord blood happens not to work for Andres anemia and more procedures are required than i think the parents should let Javier make his decision whether he wants to help or not and should not be forced. Its his body and he has the right to say NO! Javier deserves as much love as his brother Andres. I personally believe that everyone is born with some kind of a condition no one is perfect and i see it as messing with Gods creation, all of us are created differently. I as a parent will go far to save my kids lives but i would never want to harm one of my child to save another because when it comes to death there is not anything anyone can do to stop it. I can not judge Javier parents for their decision but i hope that i never end up in a situation such as this one.
In this situation I believe that a parent should try to do everything they can to save their child’s life. As a parent it’s your responsibility to do whatever you can to protect your children, but I believe there are limits to that too. In Javier’s case I honestly believe that it would be quite sad and unfair to use him just to specifically aid his brother. There for, I don’t agree with the parent’s decision. I understand core blood can play a significant role in saving lives and become necessary for future medical aid to their family. I believe that core blood would be the safest and fair way to go about helping Andre’s condition
One thing for sure to consider is what kind of a life will little Javier have if his parents are successful in going through with their plan to use him for spare parts. Javier’s quality of life is as equally as important as his older brothers is. Javier has yet to go to school or enjoy any normal child activity yet. If he starts providing the basic stuff first like, blood transfusion, bone marrow transfers and etc., who knows if that will be enough to save his brother’s life or even make the condition more livable. Not to mention, the needs may be greater than that; putting Javier at a much greater risk for health problems of his own and lessening his chances of being a normal child.
Personally as a parent I could never imagine putting my child through so much just to save my other child’s life. As a parent to a minor, I believe that parents are in most cases their child’s voice. With that being said, I think waiting until Javier actually gave his consent to help his older brother, would be more ethical, but until he did so; the core blood could be used until Javier was fully aware of the situation and knew exactly to what extent his family needed him to provide for his brother. I know that death can be a hard thing for a parent. I lost my first son and it was very hard for me to deal with, but I view death as god’s will.
Yvette Ferguson
I do not agree with the parent's decision to create a stem cell baby specifically to save his brother's life. I find this to be despicable and inhumane. The mere idea of creating a life to use it for spare parts is morally wrong, there has already been a predetermination made for the person before that life ever exists, a decision that should be left to the freewill of the person. I do not agree with this decision because if we as human beings, intelligent and moral, are capable of this, what other things are we going to allow? Is it really considered to be okay to create and dissect someone for their fluids, blood, bone marrow, etc? This life does not have much of a chance of just that-life.
What about the emotional abuse and strain that is being afflicated upon this life? I refer to this created being as "this life" because he was thought of and brought into the world for the sole purpose of being a survival kit to save another's life. He surely was not created and brought forth out of love and to have the chance at life for himself.
Will this created being go on wondering if he was ever really loved or just needed for the purpose of salvaging to save another's life? Will his own body ever be healthy to live a happy normal life, after all of the cutting, poking and draining of his life force? Yes, one would say, but that answer would come from someone who has not thought this out all of the way.
So, okay let us weigh the pros and cons. The chronically ill son will probably only live until age 35. He will experience constant hospitalization and surgeries. His heart and lungs most likely will fail. He will probably develop hormone problems which will cause more stress on his system. The donor son will start at birth experiencing poking and prying. He will be donating immeditately all to grow up feeling unhealthy and living a caution and stressful life. Which in turn will probably shorten his life as well so where is the win they both lose. I apologize just cannot seem to discover any pros for this situation. The donor son loses with the uncertainty of how he is really loved and cared for. The chronically ill son just eventually loses the battle.
Regarding Javier, the Spanish boy that was born through embryonic stem cell selection, I agree with his parent’s choice to do so. I agree with decisions like these so long as the parent(s) in each case will raise the child in a loving environment and care for the child in the same manner as the one born under natural conditions. I feel this is the case with the daughter being used for “spare parts” in the movie My Sister’s Keeper. I feel that she wasn’t truly being loved by the entire family in the movie. The mother lacked compassion for this daughter and did not care to consider her in the decisions being made using her body and it’s parts. This is where I feel to ethically bring a child into this world (for the specific reason to assist in the health of another child), then that child must be loved and considered. If the case came to a point that was similar to the one in the movie, then I would try to encourage and help the (donor) child understand the ramifications of this situation. Regarding the movie, I am one that would compel her to give up her kidney if legally allowed. Additionally, if the state did not prevent me from doing it there are a lot of medical procedures I might consider compelling my (donor) child to do. I had a major life-altering event personally happen to me (my family & other loved ones). Two men brutally and heinously murdered my brother. The reasons that I would now hypothetically support compelling my (donor) child to give up their body parts, is that if I could have given up any part(s) of my body to have my brother back I would. I understand that not everybody may feel this way for his or her siblings, but I would do my best to help both of the children understand the perspective that I come from. The case with the Spanish boy only involves cord blood at the moment, and I do not know how Spanish laws are concerning more intrusive procedures. However, I feel that if the parents are loving and considerate of the (donor) child, they should be allowed legally to do medical procedures beyond cord blood related ones like organ/tissue transplants. Of course there is the fact that some of these procedures may render the (donor) child unable to play sports and other similar activities, but these would be facts I could live with and hopefully be able to convince others to my persuasion.
As for the significant moral considerations in this case, I feel that the parents are acting within ethical boundaries. However, since they live in Spain, a predominantly Catholic country, the mores of Spain and the Catholic Church should be addressed. First, I do not know whether Javier’s parents are Catholic or not. If they are, they must be prepared for some, possibly even a lot of backlash upon them. Hopefully there would not be violence toward them, however they must take it into consideration. Also of course, because embryonic selection is considered killing by Catholics, they must consider the possibility and effects of being excommunicated from their church. Even if they are not Catholic, they still must consider the societal aspect of their decision. Another consideration is the medical aspect of their decision, i.e. are the procedures they are doing really going to help the sick child and how much is it going to hurt the other one. This final aspect is the one that is decisive for me, there is a lot I would be willing to do for the health of the sick child.
In the United States of America, it is a Constitutional right to life. “Life” is the very first Natural Right addressed in the United States Constitution. It simply says that every person is entitled to personhood by others, by not being killed, injured or abused. It is every parent’s duty to ensure this right for their children. That being said, I find it unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving treatments for their minor children.
I find this especially true for the case of eleven year old Daniel Hauser. Daniel Hauser’s parents refused chemotherapy for him, even after being told that his (Hodgkin’s) Lymphoma could be treated (and most likely cured) with a survival rate of 95%. They were also told that if he did not receive treatment, his odds of survival were only 5%. They based their decision to deny him treatment on their religion. Their religion (Nemmenah) was founded in 1990 by a man who has been convicted and served time for fraud. They have to pay dues (money) to be a part of. Daniel was deemed an elder and a medicine man (for which he has no understanding, let alone an educated idea of what this is and/or why he holds such positions) in this religion. Daniel’s parents were unable to see the long-term, positive effects of the chemotherapy, which would increase and better Daniel’s overall long term quality of life.
With the Kara Neumann situation, I feel that her death was a result of her parent’s outright medical negligence. Kara could have gone on to live a much fulfilled, very prosperous life, had her parents gotten her the medical treatment she needed. Because the parents didn’t know what to do, they hid behind their religion, and sat there on the floor & watched their daughter die. Any parent, religious or not, can tell when their child is ill enough to need medical attention & most would not have the fear that God did not properly train the medical staff that would be working on their children. Most would put their trust into the medical staff to save their child. Even those who just follow the Bible know that God works in mysterious ways, like those ways that produce life saving doctors.
Children put their trust and faith in their parents with the mindset that their parents will never do them wrong and always do anything to maintains that child’s well-being. This was the case in Daniel’s situation. Daniel didn’t really know what was going on so he trusted that his parents knew best. This also appears to be the case for Kara.
In both these cases, it’s not like there was borderline decision (20% chance to live vs. 80% of not surviving). Both of these cases could have had much different and healthier outcomes if their parents had not medically neglected their children and had made a valiant effort to save their children’s lives. Proper medical attention could have ensued adulthood and livelihood for these two children.
I think that it is hard to take sides in a way i think that the parents were wrong for haveing another child just to save the first childs life i think that it was ok for them to make shure that he dident have the same condition as the first boy i also dont think that takeing the cord blood for the second child is wrong because that doesent hurt him but there is a diffrance between taking cord blood from a child and useing him for his organs i understand the parents because it is one of the worst pains ever to lose a child but that doesent make what they are doing right we should always love all our children equal its like if hes not gonna be their child its like their useing him as a storage unit to hold the organs untill the first child needs them if the second child is lucky the first one wont get to the point in his condition to where he needs a vital organ because then what will the parents do will they take his organs to save the first child
The situation Javier parent found them is a dilemma. On terns of choosing sides, to certain extend I agree with the parents decision. The fact that Javier will live as a healthy baby without any birth defects like his brothers is a good thing. He gets to help his sick brother with the stem cell and will live with the hopes that it will cure him. It would have been a bad idea if Javier was to lose his life in the process of Javier donating his organs to his brother. This would be a violation of the right someone to live but that didn’t happen in Javier’s situation. Therefore there was no bad decision made by his parents
Financially and socially, I agree with the decision made by his parents. Many researches show that the costs of transplants are sky rocketing. It’s very difficult now days to find an organ donor and if one is found, it’s very rare and could cost the child’s parents a whole lot of money. So the best decision was to reduce the cost of transplants and the stress of searching an organ donor that have the same DNA type and other organs to help genetically engineer like Javier. Although it might not be 100% successful Javier, will always be a good thing to help his elder brother incases his brother needs assistant with anything. As long as the parents show love and treat Javier as a normal baby, everything should fine.
There are a lot of moral issues that can be raised in this kind of situation however Javier was born to assist his brother to live. Therefore there is a concern about the love and treatment Javier should get just like any other human being since he is a genetically engineered baby. It becomes a sad situation when his parents use him for further researches.
One has to further make sure that Javier gets to become an ordinary baby. In the sense that Javier shouldn’t been considered as a (spare part baby). On biblical allusion, it is good to make sacrifices of the greater good of another need. But no human has the right over another human’s life.
Post a Comment