In my opinion, the parents have the right to make the decision. It is hard for parents to witness their own kids dying without doing anything. Charlie is still young; he still has a long way to go. Without the blood transfusions, he could not do anything, he would just simply die. His parents cannot take care of him forever. There will come a day where he has to take care of himself. How can Charlie, who even has problems coping with his daily life, survive independently without a source of income? Charlie’s parents have foreseen this situation and made a move, in my opinion, a smart move to save the kids. This is by far the only solution that they could possibly come up with to save Charlie so that next time, he would be live without the aid of others. First, there is nothing wrong for having a test tube baby as the parents are getting old; there is a certain level of risks of having a baby in the mother’s embryo. Secondly, though the purpose of having the second baby is to save Charlie, this does not mean that Charlie’s parents would not love and take care of the baby as how they love and take care of Charlie. Having this baby is not only just giving a new life but at the same time, giving someone else another chance to have a brand new life. It kills two birds with a stone. If the baby could save Charlie’s life, Charlie, as the elder brother will definitely appreciate what his family had done for him, and I believe he will really take good care of the sibling who saved his life. As to who should make the final decision if the procedure is being paid for, in my opinion, Charlie’s parents will have the final right to make the decision as for, Charlie’s case, Charlie is not able to take care of himself yet. Thus I think it is best for his parents to make the decision and I believe that by having this baby, it will give Charlie hope for his future and also reduce his parents’ pressure. In conclusion, I strongly feel that the final decision should be made my Charlie’s parents as this is the only chance for Charlie to have a better life.

I agree with the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in England. This is due to the nature of the operation. The operation will bring a human being into life, with the sole purpose of being used to sustain another’s life. This is definitely against human nature, as the Whitaker family did not even consider the embryo as a human being, to them, he/she is just many blood making cells. This is cruel beyond belief as they are bringing a human being into the world, but not providing it with the chance to live life at all. I cannot believe that the Whitaker family would come up with such a request. Even though their son is suffering from a disorder, it is morally incorrect to save him through another’s demise. Also, for humanitarian reasons, this cannot be done as, it is simply not humane and the consequences of this operation being allowed to perform will change the way certain people view their fellow human beings. If this operation was to happen, many other people whom are in need and desperate to save themselves or their loved ones, will follow the Whitaker family’s example, resulting in a chaotic situation in which human rights is undermined, this is therefore the decisive reason why this operation should never be allowed. In the article, it is stated that in many other countries, this operation does not require a procedure in which the person must obtain government permission to perform the operation. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in England have done as great job in its reasoning and decision-making. It rejected this request by stating that it was not right to create a human life with the express intent of saving another life, in other words, you do not ruin a life to save another. Therefore, I strongly believe that all the countries should take up England’s stance on this situation, this is the morally correct path, and this stance will show that the country recognizes each of its citizens and every single individual in the world as a human being.

No one in individual should make the decision. Firstly, the government should establish laws on cases like this. They could do it in a way that is similar to treating euthanasia patients. The family of the individual propose their decision to the doctor, the doctor decide whether is it the only way to save the life. Then he proposes to the Authority and let them discuss and make the final decision by referring to the laws. No one in this chain should make the decision alone. However if one party is unwilling about the decision another party made, they could try to solve it in the court. In this case, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority do have the right to decide it but the Whitaker family could appeal it to court and let the jury make the last final decision. I believe that establishing a board especially for these cases is unnecessary. It is because cases like this are really rare. It would be a waste because the board does not really have work to do since cases like this might only happen once in a few years in the world. Lastly the insurance should not have the right to make this decision even if they are paying for this procedure. Because, under circumstances like this, there are no other ways to save the child, thus they should follow the decision made by the three parties and pay for the procedure if all three parties agree with it. Since the insurance is suppose to pay for the treatments that safe the individual’s life. If it is really a very serious case and the family is unable to pay for it since they do not have money and insurance, the government should see if it is necessary for them to aid the family by a certain amount to have the treatment.

Charlie, born with a disorder that prevents his body from producing red blood cells, lives with daily medication and frequent blood transfusions. In a bid to save Charlie from further sufferings, his parents have decided to make another child via vitro fertilization to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. However, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority of England have rejected their request on the grounds that it is not appropriate to create a human life with the express intent of saving another life.
I would like to express my disapproval of the Authority’s rejection of the Whitaker family. The disorder that Charlie was born with has unquestionably brought much suffering to the family. As Charlie gets older, his supply of blood transfusions might run out, thus killing him. To have the child born would not only ensure that Charlie does not die because of a lack of transfusions, it would also mean the start of another precious life. Moreover, with the advancement of medical technology and knowledge, it is now possible for gene therapy treatments. Indeed, if the Whitaker couple manages to find the embryo which would be the most able to donate blood making cells to Charlie, they could possibly save the newborn’s umbilical cord and use it to treat Charlie. This would mean the Charlie could be saved using a fairly non-invasive method, and that the child would be able to enjoy his/her life normally after being born.
The main argument behind this case study is the idea that the creation of another child should not be taken as a cure of the sibling’s disease. Some have voiced out concerns on how well the “saviour siblings” would be able to integrate into the family; whether their parents would be able to love them as much as their siblings; and that this particular mindset is inhumane. In most cases, families claim that they want the new sibling as a way of saving their other child’s life and to add a new member to their family. If the child is to lead a normal life no different from his/her siblings, then perhaps he is not being used solely as a means, he is in fact benefiting from the procedure meaning that it could be classed as fully humane, to both siblings. It is debatable to say that the “saviour siblings” would be less loved than their brothers and sisters, but I strongly believe that what really ties a mother to the child is the period of time when she’s carrying the baby in her womb. This can be proven by the problems that surrogate mothers face nowadays: the emotional attachment between the mother and the infant propels the surrogate mothers to keeping the baby as their own. As such, it is plain to see that gestation is a vital period where maternal-child attachment bonds are being formed. Thus, I foresee no problems as to why the families would be less loving towards the “saviour child”. Those against the creation of “saviour siblings” have also highlighted the possibilities of the psychological damages that could be inflicted to the newborn if he/she finds out that he/she’d been created for an ulterior motive. This is again, another debatable point, but from my point of view, it’d be pretty fulfilling if I found out that I saved my siblings life. In fact, given an appropriate environment to grow up in, the child would not feel violated or exploited, but in contrast have a sense of accomplishment and moral purpose.
Furthermore, I’d like to remind readers that Zain Hashmi, suffering from another rare blood disorder called Beta Thalassaemia was given permission to have a “saviour sibling” created so as to get cured. With both cases so similar to one another, I do not see why the Authority chose to reject the Whitakers.
In conclusion, I believe that the creation of a “saviour sibling” should be approved on a case by case basis, and only after the parents have been testified as being able and willing to treat the “saviour child” like any other child they had should, and perhaps by then, we would truly find out if allowing the creation of “saviour siblings” turns out to be a good decision.