Can God Fill Teeth?

[cyrano]

Once again, double-sized issue of IFIAYAQD!
With the recent vote in the House of Commons, I've been poking at the concept of 'Saviour Siblings' (wow, there's a loaded term to frame the debate...).
What are your thoughts on the idea of fertilising embryos and then chosing one for genetic compatibility with a person who has a disabling illness or genetic defect?

Comments

[9thmoon.livejournal.com]

Sort of the same stance I take on abortion... you (in the generic use) do what's right for you, and I won't do what's wrong for me.

[cerulean-me.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm torn. I find the idea distasteful, but I would do it to save my child, especially of the plan to have another kid anyway.

Just so long as you aren't putting the kid up for adoption after you get the kidney. ;-)

Saviour Sibling is better than Spare-parts Sibling

[amanda_lodden.livejournal.com]

If the embryo remains an embryo for the process (say, to harvest stem cells), then I'm pretty well okay with it, because I do not believe that an embryo is a human with full rights.

If the embryo is brought to term, then the baby does have rights, and it depends on how much of an effect any procedures would have on the baby. If it's a small, non-life-changing effect, I'm still good with it. If it's a major or life-changing (or life-ending!) effect, then I'm not okay with it-- until the child reaches maturity and can make their own decision.

But the basic question about choosing based on genetic compatibility-- I don't see any real difference between that and choosing to end a pregnancy after discovering that the fetus is abnormal, nor is it that much further down the path than just choosing a mate based on whether they have strong genes. I'd certainly rather see desperate parents choose one embryo to bring to term than to see them keep trying until they get a kid that's the right match.

In a BBC News article about the vote, I found this quote:

But Tory David Burrowes said it was wrong to create a child for the benefit of another, regardless of "the need".

I disagree with this on pretty much every level. First, lots of people have a second child to provide a companion for the first, which qualifies as "creating a child for the benefit of another". (Not that I think *that's* a good idea, or even an effective one, but it happens.) So does creating a child because the parents long for one, because fulfilling the longing is a benefit for the parents.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that it's EVERYONE'S responsibility to provide a benefit to others, related or not. The idea that a person can be a part of a society without having to do anything to benefit that society is idiotic, self-centered, and downright dangerous. (However, I do believe that the child has a right to refuse to help the person [s]he was created to help, and should not be forced into anything without [his|her] consent-- just because I believe that child should provide a benefit to others does not mean that I believe anyone other than the child has the right to determine the hows, whys, and whos of those benefits.)

The opposite side of the debate is that there's a moral imperative to save lives, and I disagree with that as well, not in the general sense (i.e., I do think you should be calling for an ambulance if you find someone bleeding to death on the side of the road) but in the specific "at all costs" sense. Sometimes, it's better to let a life end than to allow people to suffer. "Suffering" isn't just for the person with the illness or the defect, either-- it's for every unpaid caretaker, every parent who watches their child suffer, and everyone around the sufferer who can do nothing but watch. Creating a 'saviour sibling' for the express purpose of increasing the quantity of life but not the quality of life is morally reprehensible in my book. Then again, anything that extends the quantity of life at the expense of quality of life is reprehensible in my book.