by Nurse Jenna
Suppose your only child is diagnosed at 4 months old with a fatal genetic disorder, one that will require life-long blood transfusions and has a current life expectancy of about 35 years old. The only possibility for a cure would be to find a suitable bone marrow donor, which despite lengthy efforts searching the 11 million world-wide donors, have been fruitless. This was the Mariscal family’s story until they went to extraordinary and controversial lengths to save their son, Andres, who suffered from Beta-Thalessemia Major.
The Mariscal’s decided to have a second child in order to save Andres life, so that they could finally have a compatible donor for him.
They underwent in vitro fertilization with subsequent genetic analysis of the embryos to make sure the chosen embryo did not also carry the same illness as their sick son. Once the embryo was given a clean bill of health, they carried what would become Andres’ younger brother to term and collected the blood from his umbilical cord at birth, which has become a more and more popular practice.
The stem cells from the umbilical cord were then used for a transfusion for Andres, which has a 70-90% success rate and if all goes as anticipated, Andres will be completely normal in 5 years, as is his little brother who also leads a normal life after having given his big brother a new chance for his own life. It is a heart-warming story and a testimonial to what science can do to not only enrich, but to save lives.
So where is the harm? Where is the foul? If you ask me, there is none. But of course, the experts at the Catholic Church have decided to step in saying “You cannot kill one human being to save another,” which is what they believe happened in this situation. Unless this was taken out of context, I see no relation--where is one human being killed?
As you may recall from an earlier post, I am currently in Ecuador, reading about this in the local paper, where such embryo selection is prohibited and abortion is illegal. The popular sentiment here calls for conservative, though questionable decisions. It is a story being viewed through the lens of a country where taking birth control makes you “mala chica” or a bad girl, just to put in perspective the overwhelming national sentiment on these delicate topics.
The Mariscal's story is from Spain, one of the European countries where embryo selection is legal. In several progressive countries, such as Germany, the process is not just regulated, but acutally illegal. The surprise to many may be that despite George Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, genetic analysis of embryos and selection for implantation is permitted in the United States. It is often used for diseases such as Beta Thalessemia, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cystic Fibrosis, or yes--even to choose the desired gender of the child. But let it be clear that embryo selection is not the same as manipulation of DNA and is not the same as cloning.
Do you think there are lines that have to be drawn with embryo selection? Would you have another child if it was the only way to save your other child's life?
Recommend
Comments (117)
yes, i wold do watever it takes to save my child's life.
Having a second child to save the first... That's a really hard question... and I think that there is no solid answer that stands for every situation.
For instance, I read a news story a while back about a family with this similiar problem. Technology wasn't as advanced back then, however, so they couldn't do the embryo selection. Instead, they had the second child to help the first. That second child had to endure many painful bone-marrow transfusions. The kicker behind this is that the second child had essentially no say in the matter.
I think that that is wrong. In my eyes, it is exploiting the second child to save the first.
In the instance in this entry, however, I this it's fine. The second child is not harmed; his/her stem cells from the cord were used. I think that's perfectly okay. No one suffers; it's a win-win.
The embryo selection thing is hard... I think it's more than okay if it is used to select embryos that do not have genetic disorders. That is preventing suffering. When it gets down to picking things such as gender, though... I don't know about that.
It's a good thing to ponder...
I would not even have to think twice about this. I would do whatever it took to save my child's life.
In nearly every post you write, you wear your political and religious sentiments on your sleeve. It's not attractive.
have you read "my sister's keeper?" it kind of deals with this issue. i took a class in undergrad about the ethics of reproductive technology and think it's so interesting. i think this issue is a little more morally ambiguous than you make it out to be, especially if the cord blood isn't the only reason the parents are having a child. what if the child has to make other donations, like marrow or a kidney or something? i feel like there's a danger that the child will feel like the only reason they were born was to save their sibling. but i can't say i wouldn't do the same thing.
@Amarisa@xanga -
I agree.There was a show on private practice last week about something similar, except in the show the lady broke her bag to have the baby premature and save her dying son. She put her unborn child's life at risk to save another, saying she didn't know the child she was carrying, but the one she already had she knew.
I think this is where it becomes controversial. If you are willing to risk one life for another, I am not so sure. The lines become blurred-- and moral, not to mention, ethical issues come into play.
I don't understand what is wrong about using cord blood or stem cells if those are things that can be used to save a life. If there is no harm being done to an unborn child or any life, why not? It is such an iffy topic though.
One thing I am not so sure about is having a child for the reason of saving another child. It makes it seem like you didn't want to have another child to begin with, but instead becomes a "donor". When I saw that episode of private practice, I couldn't believe that the lady could do that.
The problem with embryo selection is that, while it may start as something "harmless" for good, it has too many negative implications. Where do we draw the line on the selection? What prevents the process from parents simply choosing which gender to have to the government stepping in and saying which gender you should have? I do not support anything which so clearly fringes on humans playing God.
i really cant say what I'd do without being in the situation. I can say from the outside I wouldn't want my second child to suffer so that my first child could thrive, but then again I wouldnt want my first child to suffer either.
its a tough choice that I'm glad I don't have to make.
But I would love both children equally.
I hope they don't just fling their other son to the side.
If it would help save my childs life without harm to my other child, I wouldnt think twice about it.
I also know that beyond the shadow of a doubt, no matter the outcome I would love any of my children with all my heart and sould.
I would do it assuming my child won't be put in harm's way and I think if I was born in order to my one of my sibling's life...I would feel pretty honorable.
I think there should be some lines on embryo selection, but I don't know what those lines should be. Personally, I wouldn't use embryo selection for something as trivial as gender selection.
And if it were the only way to save my child's life, then yes, I would have another child. But I would love and cherish both of my children all the more for it.
Okay, first of all, are you reading over my shoulder? I was attempting to post a similar story last night, but chaos began to reign and I gave up for the evening.
I would do whatever was in my power to save any of my children. When E was born with CHD I got to know several other children born with similar problems. One of those boys has had to have a valve replaced twice; he is only two. Research is beginning to show that it might be possible to actually grow a valve for him with the use of stem cells. It was in learning that and knowing that while E is fine now, things could change down the road that made me a supporter of stem cell research using embryos.
Gender selection is another story, however.
What about the whole issue of having a baby not because you want one or have the time and energy for one but simply to save the life of your child? I get the issue here and I can see the moral dilema and honestly, if I had a sick child I would probably be tempted to get pregnant for this reason. But NOT through in-vitro or embryo selection. It would kill me to think of selecting my next kid simply for it's genetics and discard those that don't measure up... It makes me sick just to think of it!! This is playing God and I would never be able to live with myself if I put myself in His place. Not that I think it should be illegal to create embryos. I just think it should be illegal to destroy them. Create them and implant them all. I don't agree with selective abortion either!! Taking away any person's right to a future is just wrong. I think woman should have the right to choose to use a condom, or birth-control, or abstain. But I don't think any person should have the right to kill an embryo's chance at life and humanity! And embryos should not be used in stem cell research. Killing living human embryos is destroying life. Cord blood is saving lives!! Keep working on that!! The possiblilities are endless!!!!
@pEnSaMiEnToS_pRoFuNdOs@xanga - I'm with you. I saw that episode last week.
I'm not sure how I feel about having a child to save a child. I suppose if it were a reality my first instinct would be to do whatever I can to save my child's life.
As for using in vitro to choose things like gender and to rule out disease I don't agree with that. No parent wants their child to be sick or suffer but I really think it's selfish of the parent to make sure they're not burdened by a sick child. And doing it to choose the gender is complete BS. In vitro should be for people who are having trouble conceiving, not for making designer babies. A child is a miracle, no matter the gender or health of the child.
@Amarisa@xanga - I totally agree. Nurse Jenna is very opinionated, even about things she has no experience with (i.e. motherhood). I don't mind hearing people sharing their opinions but when they are in-your-face judgmental, it's disturbing.
Um, the Catholic stance makes perfect sense. Life begins at conception, therefore killing several embryos while choosing your "perfect" one is effectively killing one (or more) human being(s) to save another. If you don't believe that's wrong, you're entitled to your opinion, but so are the Catholics and their statement makes perfect sense in light of their beliefs. I agree with them.
One of my (online) friends is doing IVF with embryo selection. She's had something like 5 losses, and this is her best chance to have a healthy baby. I don't have it in me to judge that.
I can't see harming your second child to save your first, but like this situation where no one was harmed-I don't see how you can help but love baby #2 for saving baby #1. And who said they weren't planning a second child-it's just most people wouldn't ttc again at 4 months unless there was a big reason.
to me, I have no problem with embryo selection.
However I think its wrong to have another child just to benefit the first.
The case mentioned isn't so bad at all. I don't think Id have raised any objections.
But I gotta say, when I read the first paragraph I thought "Oh no, this kid is gonna have to be giving up his healthy blood to keep his brother alive."
and I don't think that's right at all. I wouldn't have thought it was right to have a kid and have him born with this great responsibility and weight on their shoulders.
But whatever.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Both children are now healthy and no one had to die. No harm in my opinon.
Hands down, no doubt, no question I would do whatever it took to save my childs life.....as long as I were assured that I wasn't causing my second child any harm or pain.
I do not agree with having a baby basically to be an organ donor, whether it is for the umbilical cord blood or something else. Children should be conceived because they are wanted for them, not for what they can do for someone else.
It is unfortunate if you have a child with a terminal illness. Very unfortunate. But manipulating human embryos to ensure you have a viable donor is basically saying the only reason you want the second child is to save the first. That not only screams of genetic selection, which was what Hitler was trying to do, but also there are sure to be issues once the child was born. All the focus will be on saving the first child.
It is unfair to bring a life into this world if you really do not want to love and care for that child soley for the sake of having the child. It's REALLY unfair to ask such a huge thing of someone who has no say in the matter.
It crosses boundaries that should not be crossed. As a mother, I would do just about anything to save my daughter. I would not however conceive another child JUST to save her life. I would look for other options. IF we chose to have another child because we WANTED another child and that child happened to be a match, that is something else. But I still wouldn't ask that child to donate anything until they could fully make the decision for themselves. I would never make that choice for a young child.
@trulytaken@xanga - I just want to say that I agree 100% with you. SEveral people have commented "what's the harm? no one died" .........except for the few embryos that were not chosen and therefore were destroyed. Indeed, a few souls DID die. Humanity will go to whatever lengths their brains take them without regard for God.
@full_of_contradictions@xanga - I loved that book. That's exactly what I thought when I read this post.
I think it would come down to an attitude that "I love my first child because it is my first child. I love my second child because it is keeping my first child alive." That is not a situation any child should be in. Even in the case you mention, there's no guarantee that the second child would not be expected to donate organs later.
However, I have no experience in this situation, so that factors into my answer *.*