Savior Sibling Argumentative Analysis

Imagine being the parent of a sick child dying of a curable disease and the only chance of survival is to find a near perfect-matched donor for blood and possibly bone marrow transplantation. After exhausting all the possible searches for a usable match and being unable to do so, you are told by the physician that there is a procedure that would be helpful. But this procedure would involve the conception of another child that would be the donor, starting at birth, for your dying child. What would you do? What would you expect any good parent to do? Would you consider it morally justifiable?
This was the situation faced by the Nash family who had the first largely publicized case of a ‘savior sibling’ (Steinbock 544). In 2000, Lisa and Jack decided to create a savior sibling for their daughter, Molly Nash, who at the time was six years old. She was born with multiple birth defects due to Fanconi anemia, a deadly genetic disease that causes bone marrow failure, eventually resulting in leukemia and other forms of cancer. The couple had planned on having more children, but was scared
These arguments are; (i) the child is treated as a means to an end and therefore violates the Kantian principle of treating people as ends, (ii) its inconsistency with the idea of familiar relationship, (iii) the violation of the autonomy of the donor sibling and the right not to be harmed, and (iv) the slippery slope argument, which states that it will lead to ‘designer babies’. It is worth noting that I will not be discussing the ethics of PGD, rather, I will consider that it is accepted for its original purpose, that of eliminating life-threatening diseases. A purpose that is morally accepted by many. It is from this point of view that the morality of ‘savior sibling’ will be argued- acceptance of PGD should automatically eliminate any objection to the procreation of savior