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.