Article Text
PDFAuthor meets critics: response
Saviour Siblings: reply to critics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i My threshold extends beyond harm to address Kantian concerns about commodification.
↵ii Taylor-Sands M. Saviour Siblings: A Relational Approach to the Welfare of the Child in Selective Reproduction. Routledge, 78, 2013. Quote taken from Robert A Crouch and Carl Elliott, ‘Moral Agency and the Family: The Case of Living Related Organ Transplantation’ (1999) 8 Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 275, 283.
↵iii Gleitman v Cosgrove, 227 A 2d 689 (NJ, 1967).
↵iv Taylor-Sands, above n 2, 83–7.
↵v Ibid 87, 90.
↵vi Ibid 82.
↵vii Ibid 103.
Linked Articles
- Author meets critics: response
- Author meets critics: response
- Author meets critics: response
- Author meets critics: response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- Establishing the role of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis with human leucocyte antigen typing: what place do “saviour siblings” have in paediatric transplantation?
- Do we need an alternative ‘relational approach’ to saviour siblings?
- A relational approach to saviour siblings?
- Should selecting saviour siblings be banned?
- Children who benefit families
- Preimplantation HLA typing: having children to save our loved ones
- Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women?
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and rational choice under risk or uncertainty
- “Saviour siblings”