Savior Siblings
Savior Siblings
The subject of savior siblings is a complex dilemma that encompasses multiple issues. Is it ethical to have a child in order to save another? Is pre-implantation genetic testing moral? Can parents make the decisions for their kids about organ donation? In order for this ethical dilemma to be resolved these questions need to be answered. In the case of Molly Nash, the family was not morally culpable for their decision to have another child to save Molly’s life because Adam was not born solely to save his sister’s life and because the methods used to save Molly's life had no adverse effects on Adam. Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to obtain a healthy embryo to be used as a savior sibling raises the ethical concern that the baby will be used exclusively as a means to save another child and will not be valued in his or her own right. This would directly violate the Kantian ethic which states that people are valuable in themselves and should not be used solely to serve the will of others (Johnson, 2004). However, in this specific case, the Nash family clearly expressed that they were already planning on having another child and that saving Molly was not their only motivation for wanting to do so. Because the family did not use Adam solely as a stem cell donor, they did not violate Kant’s original principle. The Nash family did not use Adam to save Molly and then abandon him once he served his purpose; he was instead loved and treated as a human being. If the family were planning on taking an organ or bone marrow from the newborn, the argument that the child was created solely to serve the express needs of his/her sibling would have more weight. Since all that was taken from Adam were stem cells from the umbilical chord, he was left unaffected and no moral wrongs were performed. 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
The subject of savior siblings is a complex dilemma that encompasses multiple issues. Is it ethical to have a child in order to save another? Is pre-implantation genetic testing moral? Can parents make the decisions for their kids about organ donation? In order for this ethical dilemma to be resolved these questions need to be answered. In the case of Molly Nash, the family was not morally culpable for their decision to have another child to save Molly’s life because Adam was not born solely to save his sister’s life and because the methods used to save Molly's life had no adverse effects on Adam. Using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to obtain a healthy embryo to be used as a savior sibling raises the ethical concern that the baby will be used exclusively as a means to save another child and will not be valued in his or her own right. This would directly violate the Kantian ethic which states that people are valuable in themselves and should not be used solely to serve the will of others (Johnson, 2004). However, in this specific case, the Nash family clearly expressed that they were already planning on having another child and that saving Molly was not their only motivation for wanting to do so. Because the family did not use Adam solely as a stem cell donor, they did not violate Kant’s original principle. The Nash family did not use Adam to save Molly and then abandon him once he served his purpose; he was instead loved and treated as a human being. If the family were planning on taking an organ or bone marrow from the newborn, the argument that the child was created solely to serve the express needs of his/her sibling would have more weight. Since all that was taken from Adam were stem cells from the umbilical chord, he was left unaffected and no moral wrongs were performed. 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