Article Text
Abstract
Conceiving a child by way of embryo selection and tissue matching to benefit a sick sibling is generally justified on the grounds that as well as the potential to save the sick child, there is a benefit for the new baby. The new baby is selected so he or she will not have the disease suffered by the first child. It is not possible, however, to select against conditions for which there is no test and Jamie Whitaker’s birth is a case where the process of in vitro fertilisation with tissue matching is viewed as being of benefit only to a third party—the sick child. Some people object to using the technology for this purpose. There are also good reasons to argue that the technology should be used to save a sick child, and that it would be morally remiss for Jamie’s parents not to consent to the use of his cord blood.
- designer baby
- saviour sibling
- IVF
- HFEA
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- “Saviour siblings”
- Preimplantation HLA typing: having children to save our loved ones
- Commodification of children again and non-disclosure preimplantation genetic diagnosis for Huntington’s disease
- Should selecting saviour siblings be banned?
- Establishing the role of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis with human leucocyte antigen typing: what place do “saviour siblings” have in paediatric transplantation?
- Children who benefit families
- Ethics of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person
- Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women?
- “Saviour sibling” is born after embryo selection in the United States