Sibling Saviors : A Child Suffering From A Disease

If I was in the same position as Baby Theresa’s parents, I would agree to donate my child’s organs as well. Baby Theresa did not have any use for her organs and many infants could have used them. It would be selfish of me to decide not to donate the organs and let them go to waste. Many would argue that taking Baby Theresa’s organs is wrong even though she would die soon. In my opinion I feel the exact opposite of those people. Baby Theresa was going to die soon and it does not make any sense to let her organs deteriorate and another child dies because doctors decided not to take the organs from a dying infant who wouldn’t have any use for the organs. Some people may say the doctors made a good decision because they did not kill to save, but I disagree.

There are people who think that if the organs donor is dying and the family wants

The older a child gets the more they are able to understand certain situations. Referring back to Cassandra, she knew that she had to go through chemotherapy. Although doctors told her chemotherapy was her only option to live she wanted to find a healthier alternative. Cassandra felt as if she would be poisoning her body.” The patient with capacity has the right to all information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the treatment you propose.”(N. Lee,1).Everyone has all rights to know everything about their diagnostic and anything thats helps it. Cassandra should have been allowed to seek other options. Another case is a young man named Luke, him and his parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. “ They confirmed that they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and said they would not want any blood transfusions for their child. But they also voiced great confidence in his ability to think for himself, and said they would abide by whatever decision he made.” (Spike, Jeffrey 1).The parents religion did not allow him to receive blood transfusions but since there son is capable of making his own decisions it is up to him. “ True, this treatment would help him, almost certainly saving his life. He understood that, but chose a different course based on his own values”(

Critics have argued that the lack of autonomy of the savior sibling has led to the child being harmed. It is not until the age of eighteen that the child is no longer considered a minor, and therefore, able to make independent medical decisions. However, because of the rigor of unwarranted medical treatments, there have been arguments about the morality of allowing parents to be in full control of the medical decisions for a child whose purpose is keeping alive an ailing sibling. Does the parents’ conflict of interest make making rational decisions impossible on their part? Or simply, their focus is the sick child so everything revolves around that.

Due to the family members being tested an having a transplant that was not successful allows the process of creating a savior sibling to be completely covered. The medically funding would cover the genetic modification of the savior sibling so that it is one less thing that the family has to worry about. If the family members refuse to get tested and did not attempt a transplant them they wouldn’t be eligible for the medical funding. Without the medical funding assistance the families would have to cover the cost of the genetic modification and the in vitro fertilization of the savior sibling. With this regulation implemented by the government it can help the family with the medical costs. This regulation also has the family attempt all

There had been questions as to whether the savior sibling is treated fairly and if they are being given the same rights as any human being

Supporting premise and reasoning summary: According to virtue ethicists, the moral thing to do is to act virtuous, or have a disposition to act a certain way. Parents who choose to have another child, that is genetically compatible are acting selfless, which can be considered a virtue. Using a savior sibling is a financially stressful, emotional, and not to mention expensive, but most parents would sacrifice it all to save their child. This doesn’t mean they would love their savior sibling less as they would probably care for it more. For example, you wouldn’t discard an item in your pantry just because you don’t use it all the time and only need it for special items, just like you wouldn’t discard a savior sibling child or love them any less.

At the same time, one cannot be naïve and fail to think that there are real issues that are morally questionable lurking with the possibility of allowing savior siblings. In the following section, I will look at the question of what

Hello, Matthew! Although ethical principle one, the protection of a life, take precedence over every obligation, the social worker should choose options that cause the least harm or the least permanent harm to a client (principle four). Arguably, saving the life of the infant is ethical; however, it would not cause the least harm or less permanent damage because the child suffers from terminal conditions of brain damage, kidney failure, and multiple obstructions in its gastrointestinal system that requires long-term continuing care. Medical interventions may alleviate the suffering for the child, but sustaining the life of the child could promote depression and anxiety because of the long-term distress that the family will encounter while trying

Who makes the call to say it is okay or worth the risk to allow a minor child to become a donor? Do the parents make the decisions, the sick child, the donor child, or the healthcare professionals? What if the sick child refuses? Even if that sick child is a minor they may refuse treatment. It is not a question of age, it is a question of competence. Competence is the ability to understand the nature of the proposed procedure and its possible consequences. If a child is competent, no matter the age, they have a legal and ethical right to refuse treatment. The competence of an individual should be determined by the clinician who is doing the purposed treatment. However, when children refuse treatment their parents may consent on their behave (Cornock). This is if the child does not have medical emancipation. Medical emancipation of a

If you had to decide now, would you pay for their operation, or will you let them die? What is the right thing to do in this situation? What does the moral code say?

Just like every medical procedure, there are many conjectures about how exactly everything is taken care of. The majority of people believe that if they become organ donors, then the doctors will not try as hard to save them. This idea, of course, is irreconcilable in the medical community, as doctors must take an oath that states they will administer any treatment necessary to save a patient's life. An additional presumption is that a patient can be too young or too old to donate their organs. In reality, any organs can be harvested from the time the patient is born to their death, health, not age determines the organ’s viability. meepThe patient's family will never be charged if the patient chooses to donate his or her organs, the bill goes

Instrumentalization of human beings refers to the act of using humans as a means to achieve a greater purpose. This is evident in the case of savior siblings as a new child is conceived solely for the purpose of helping their sick sibling. The first part is the donation of stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of the savior sibling. However, there is no guarantee whether this will succeed and if it fails, the savior sibling may need to donate other body parts such as bone marrow or their organs.(Zion) The extent to which the sibling may have to donate his tissues is unimaginable. Furthermore, the child may be considered just an “organ bank” for the older sibling and have no status of his own. Also, the savior child might be forced to donate vital organs such as heart or bone marrow. Bone marrow transplants are dangerous as they are “intrusive and more painful at an adult age” (Madanamoothoo 293). A process painful for adults is bound to cause unimaginable amounts of pain for a young child. Since most savior siblings may not be able to voice their consent, these siblings could be easily exploited for their organs even though they are also children of the same parents and have the same rights as everyone else. The reason this argument is important is because it raises a controversial question, would parents ask the savior child to give his

Kant claims that the human should “act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means”. Critics of savior sibling have argued that the procedure violates this concept. They argue that there is something fundamentally wrong with parents having children for the wrong reasons. In the case of a savior sibling, the parents are acting unethically by having a child for the purpose of saving the life of a second child and not for the sake of the child being born. This raises concern for the welfare of the child being created. One must agree that conceiving a child can be wrong or done for the wrong reasons. Thus, first, it must be firmly established that the creation of a savior sibling would be a wrong reason because the child will solely be treated as a means.

| In this option Michelle’s parents are not presented with a lot of options. There would be a lot of stress involved with not being able to donate and trying to find a donor for Michelle. If she dies they are basically left with nothing but grief and a hefty hospital bill.