24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The subject of savior siblings is a complicated issue that encompasses numerous concerns. Is it ethical to have a kid in order to conserve another? Is pre-implantation genetic screening ethical? Can moms and dads make the choices for their kids about organ contribution? In order for this ethical predicament to be dealt with these concerns need to be responded to. When it comes to Molly Nash, the household was not ethically culpable for their choice to have another child to save Molly’s life due to the fact that Adam was not born solely to conserve his sis’s life and since the techniques utilized to save Molly’s life had no unfavorable impacts on Adam.
Utilizing preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to get a healthy embryo to be used as a rescuer brother or sister raises the ethical issue that the baby will be utilized solely as a method to save another kid and will not be valued in his or her own right.
This would directly break the Kantian principles which mentions that people are valuable in themselves and need to not be used solely to serve the will of others (Johnson, 2004). Nevertheless, in this particular case, the Nash household clearly revealed that they were currently preparing on having another child and that saving Molly was not their only motivation for desiring to do so.
Since the family did not use Adam solely as a stem cell donor, they did not breach Kant’s initial concept. The Nash family did not utilize Adam to save Molly and after that desert him when he served his function; he was rather liked and dealt with as a human.
If the household were intending on taking an organ or bone marrow from the newborn, the argument that the kid was produced exclusively to serve the express requirements of his/her brother or sister would have more weight. Given that all that was taken from Adam were stem cells from the umbilical chord, he was left untouched and no ethical wrongs were carried out.
The parents viewed PGD as a method that could potentially give them a healthy child, while saving the life of their other child. Because it was considered moral to use Adam as a savior sibling, it is now important to address whether PGD is an acceptable practice to obtain healthy embryos. There are two main ethical objections that make PGD a controversial technique (Robertson, 2003). The first issue with PGD involves the discarding of embryos that are deemed useless because they are afflicted with a genetic disorder or are non-compatible tissue donors.
This issue draws many similarities to abortion and embryonic research debates in that it is primarily concerned with embryonic status. A widely accepted judgment on what constitutes embryonic status may never be reached, but it is important to note the circumstances in which PGD was used in this situation. The Nash family never discarded healthy embryos; instead they saved the embryos so they could have another child in the future, which they eventually did.
It is also important to note that both parents were carriers for fanconi anemia, which means if they had another child via a natural pregnancy, the child have would have a 25% chance of being afflicted with the genetic disease. The end result of using PGD (two healthy children) seems to be a clear justification of using the method and in this case the ends certainly justified the means. The second issue that PGD raises involves speculation that it may result in increased genetic selection and manipulation of offspring.
This slippery slope argument arises from the fear that increased genetic screening will eventually lead to genetic engineering and drive us into an eugenic world where “designer babies” will be valued for their DNA rather than their innate characteristics (Boyle and Savulescu, 2001). To disprove this argument, it is essential that a distinction be made between using PGD to obtain a healthy embryo that can be used to save another child and using genetic screening to create designer babies. In the case of savior siblings there is an important reason for using genetic screening that does not apply to designer babies– saving a child’s life.
Therefore, the slippery slope argument fails to justify a ban on savior siblings because there are important differences between savior siblings and designer babies (Sheldon and Wilkinson, 2004). Nonetheless is important that the practice of PGD is properly regulated so that its abuse can be prevented. In the case of Molly Nash, PGD was ethically acceptable because it was done for the right reasons and had no negative consequences. The question of whether parents should be allowed to make decisions for their children about organ donation is difficult to answer.
The family is normally responsible for making decisions for those who are judged too young or incompetent to do so, but should they be able to elect for organ donation while the person is still living? It is clear that in this specific case nothing serious was taken from Adam Nash to donate to his sister. Because the transplant did not directly affect him, his parents were justified in using his chord blood to save Molly’s life. However, the situation changes when parents wish for their child to donate something more serious like bone marrow or a kidney.
In this case, the savior sibling is being put at risk and is making a huge sacrifice for their brother or sister. The parents should not have the right to make this decision for their child because of potential risk that is involved with these procedures. Only the person donating the tissue or organ should be able to make the decision of whether they want to do so or not. Savior siblings is a relatively new and controversial topic that needs further investigation to determine whether methods like PGD are completely safe.
If PGD is deemed harmless it should be considered an acceptable way of finding a healthy stem cell donor that can save the life of another child. The family of Molly Nash faced a serious dilemma and ultimately made the right decision to resolve it. They ended up with two healthy children and avoided losing one of their children to a horrible disease. Why should we prevent such procedures when no harm was caused? We must be reasonable and consider the positive outcomes that come with a practice that allows one to bring a new person into the world to help save another’s life.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment