Part 1: Case Study: Jack and Lisa Nash’s Dilemma
This case study investigates the moral dilemma of whether or not parents should create a child to preserve the life of an older sibling. Molly Nash, the child of Jack and Lisa Nash, was delivered with Fanconi anemia, an uncommon and fatal genetic disorder that prohibited her system from creating enough blood cells. Finding a bone marrow donor, ideally a sibling, was Molly’s greatest hope for survival. The diverse terrain of reproductive ethics is explored, including the tension between the urge to preserve life and the ethical considerations of generating a child for a particular reason.
Molly’s parents, Jack and Lisa, were carriers of the trait that causes Fanconi anemia; hence she was their sole offspring. Jack and Lisa chose to have Molly via in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) because they were eager to give their child a chance at life (Rivard, 2013). The plan was to pick an embryo without any Fanconi anemia corresponding to Molly’s HLA genes. Adam was born on the 29th of August 2000, after four unsuccessful tries.
A bone marrow transfusion rescued Molly’s life using cord blood taken from Adam’s placenta soon after his delivery. A month after undergoing chemotherapy to obliterate her bone marrow, Molly got umbilical cord blood cells from her newborn sibling, Adam. The transplant effectively cured Molly’s stem-cell failure, but she proceeds to struggle from Fanconi anemia, necessitating regular medical visits for testing for solid-tumor malignancies. Even though her bone marrow functioning has stabilized, Molly’s state stays precarious, as even a common illness could have dire consequences. Intricate ethical issues are raised regarding the ethical consequences of conceiving a child purely to save the existence of a sibling (Rivard, 2013). It examines the competing values and prospective consequences for individuals and society.
Part 2: Ethical Question
Is it moral for parents to conceive a child to save a sibling’s life?
The ethical question’s core moral argument rests at the intersection of parental independence, the welfare of current and prospective children, and the probable implications of selective conception. The moral and social principles at issue involve the value of life, empathy, familial duty, and the principle of beneficence, which compels individuals to make decisions in the best interests of others. The primary persons affected by this moral conundrum are the parents, who have to choose whether or not to have a second child to preserve their firstborn.
Additionally, a prospective sibling produced to be a donor will be saddled with a distinctive set of obligations and duties from infancy, which may raise questions regarding their autonomy and assent in being a life-saving instrument. This moral dilemma also compels us to consider the limits of parental autonomy and technology for reproduction. Conceiving an infant to save another kid’s life poses intricate concerns about the importance of life, the boundaries of reproductive autonomy, and the risks of altering a child for its medical usefulness.
Part 3: Position Statement
It is moral for parents to conceive a child solely for the purpose of saving the life of a sibling.
Supporting reasons:
The primary obligation of parents is to safeguard and secure the well-being of their current offspring. This obligation includes doing everything possible to save a kid’s life in an emergency. The use of reproductive procedures such as IVF and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to generate a prospective bone marrow donor expresses this parental responsibility. It demonstrates their dedication to their kids’ existence. Secondly, choosing to have a child to save a sibling’s life is motivated by a profound sense of altruism and kindness (Kuek, Gurmukh & Tay, 2021). The guardians’ solitary intention is to ensure the health and longevity of their existing offspring. This course approach is based on the moral tenet of beneficence that prioritizes advancing well-being and avoiding damage.
In addition, the likelihood of success related to IVF and PGD offers a rationale for having a child. Those reproductive technologies can produce a genetically compatible sibling who may act as a bone marrow donor. Considering the severe consequences of the sibling’s situation, the possible advantages of a compelling match supersede moral issues regarding the process of pregnancy. Furthermore, preserving a sibling’s existence via conception and following bone marrow transfer can strengthen the relationship between siblings (Grunert, 2018). The common genetic link and the understanding that one sibling was crucial in preserving the other’s life may encourage a profound feeling of affection, tenderness, and gratitude among family members. This enhanced relationship can contribute to a nourishing and loving atmosphere for families that will ultimately help all family members.
Part 4: Opposition Statement
It is not moral for parents to conceive a child to save the life of a sibling.
Supporting reasons:
Firstly, it violates the independence and right to the assent of the infant. This fetus is denied a chance to make a well-informed choice regarding its continued existence and meaning in life. This can contribute to feelings of alienation and a lack of power over one’s existence. As the conceived child ages, he or she may face mental and emotional obstacles. Learning that they were conceived expressly to safeguard their sibling can result in sentiments of anger and a crushing sense of obligation regarding their sibling. They might find it difficult to discover their unique identities and sense of self-worth apart from their potential rescue role.
Additionally, there are hazards associated with the medical treatments that accompany this procedure, such as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). There is no assurance that the kid who’s created will be a good fit for the ailing sibling or that the process will be effective (Grunert, 2018). This contributes to the ethical complication of the scenario because it raises worries regarding the life of the created child being predicated on ambiguity and probability.
Acknowledging the ethically permissible act of conceiving a child for the purpose of donating it creates a potentially treacherous ethical slope. It might open the way for more extreme situations in which people are created for other purposes, potentially in violation of their rights and dignity (Kuek, Gurmukh & Tay, 2021). This might give rise to a society in which kids are valued solely for their ability to fulfill the wants and requirements of others instead of for their inherent value as human beings.
Part 5: Application of Utilitarianism
As a consequence-based ethical theory, utilitarianism emphasizes on attaining maximum benefit for the greatest number of individuals. In this situation, one can contend that conceiving a child in order to save the existence of a sibling is consistent with utilitarian values since it optimizes overall happiness. From a utilitarian perspective, the family’s well-being is improved when the act of producing a child saves the life of a preexisting sibling (Molly). Any adverse effects or potential obligations on Adam may be outweighed by the parents’ and Molly’s joy and relief, as well as the possibility of an intense sibling relationship between Molly and Adam (Kuek, Gurmukh & Tay, 2021. On the other hand, certain opponents may contend that utilitarianism fails to sufficiently take individual rights and liberty into account. In this instance, the possibility of long-term psychological effects on Adam and the ambiguity encompassing his existence may be regarded as major adverse effects that must be evaluated.
In conclusion, conceiving a kid to save a sibling’s lifetime is a convoluted and delicate issue involving profoundly held principles, individual opinions, and societal factors. The opponents express worries regarding the potential exploitation of the infant and the moral consequences of such measures, while supporters argue that such actions are motivated by affection and an impulse to improve the well-being of many persons. As with a lot of ethical quandaries, there is no straightforward solution, and the choice must be made after weighing the best outcomes for all parties concerned.
References
Rivard, R. (2013). Case Study in Savior Siblings | Learn Science at Scitable. https://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/case-study-in-savior-siblings-104229158/
Kuek, C. Y., Gurmukh Singh, S. K. A., & Tay, P. S. (2021). Conception of Saviour Siblings: Ethical Perceptions of Selected Stakeholders in Malaysia. Asian bioethics review, 13(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-021-00166-2
Grunert, A. (2018). Malcolm K. Smith, Saviour Siblings and the Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology: Harm, Ethics and the Law.
write