Linus

Hey, would like your opinions on this...

Here in Belgium, there is a university that is famous for a technique they have developped (or at least, I heard they were famous for it...).

The idea is that they use IVF to create several embryo's that are then scanned genetically. The one with the "good" qualities gets planted in, and results in a baby boy or girl.

Now, "good" does not have anything to do with high IQ, blue eyes or being a boy/girl. They use this technique to help children desperately in need of a donor, but with nobody in the family that is usable. On TV, I saw the story of a girl with leukemia (sp?). Nobody in the family could help. So, mother and father had a child the natural way, in the hope this one could be a donor. Didn't work. So they had IVF, and selected a child solely on the basis of "usable as a donor".

What do you guys think? On the one hand, a life is saved. On the other, I would not want to grow up with the idea that my sole purpose is saving my older sister.

Linus

Vorkosigan

In Mirror Dance Mark Vorkosigan, a clone developed for the sole purpose of assassinating his brother and taking his place, complains. And Cordelia, his mother, answers: "Take heart. Most people live for now reason at all."

"

Pomp

Interesting topic. Since I can't seem to sleep tonight, I'll take a shot at it.

First of all, the case seems a little odd to me. The victim's leukemia apparently isn't acute if the parents have time to conceive and bear two children in their quest for a donor. Wouldn't it be easier to find an unrelated donor in that time? Am I way off base here? Is it really that hard to find a donor?

Anyway, to my mind, the primary ethical question here isn't even about IVF or embryo selection, it's about consent. Presumably, the child will become a donor while still very young, and unable to give informed consent, correct? The question, which would be relevant even if the child conceived "in the natural way" had been a match, is "can we ethically harvest donor material from those who are unable to consent to having their bodies used in such a fashion?" How the potential donor in question was conceived is irrelevant.

As none of the literature I've come across implies that there are any long-term negative effects on the donor in a BMT procedure (medical professionals, help me out, am I wrong here?), I don't personally have a problem with it in this case. There is a danger of lasting harm to the donor is in the case Linus mentions, where the child is raised with the notion that he or she only exists as a marrow farm for the sister and, even in that case, I'd blame poor parenting, not the concept of embryo selection. I am prepared to say that I find the actions of the parents inseeking this procedure ethical.

Time to go off on a tangent:

In fact, to take my analysis one step further, I wouldn't be adverse to the notion of harvesting donor material in cases of specific nonconsent, again, provided that there is no lasting harm from the procedure. For example, I would find nothing unethical about a law requiring a donor to be picked at random from all citizens who were matches and for that donor's participation to be compulsory.

In cases where there is some lasting harm to the donor, I'm not sure how the ethics would play out. On the one hand, I can't see that harming A to benefit B without A's consent is consistent with the notion of individual rights. On the other hand, as a contractarian of sorts, I can see how an argument for compulsory donor participation might be constructed. The reduced risk of requiring a donor when one is not available might well be worth the chance of being forced to give up one's own organs to save others.

Just some thoughts...which may or may not be warped by my lack of sleep...proceed to demolish them.

tronvillain

Wasn't that case quite a while ago? Anyway, I seem to recall that it was successful. I'm going to guess you're way off base Pompous Bastard - if it had been easy to find an unrelated donor they wouldn't have resorted to such drastic methods.

I don't see anything wrong with the technique in this application, but then I wouldn't see anything wrong with applying it to eye colour or sex either.

Pomp

tronvillain,

I'm going to guess you're way off base Pompous Bastard - if it had been easy to find an unrelated donor they wouldn't have resorted to such drastic methods.

In that case, I stand corrected. Why the hell is it so hard to find a donor? Are there some negative consequences to being a donor that the literature doesn't talk about?

I don't see anything wrong with the technique in this application, but then I wouldn't see anything wrong with applying it to eye colour or sex either.

Neither would I.

tronvillain

Pompous Bastard:
It's not a matter of there being negatiev consequences for a donor, it's a matter of compatible donors being rare or nonexistent in some cases.

Viti

I don't know about BMT, but in th US it is illegal to donate a kidney to a stranger. My friend and I had to prove we had a relationship before I could even be considered. They claim it is to prevent "buying and selling" of organs.

In all transplants...compatible donors are difficult to find, and your body never stops trying to reject the foreign object....again I am not familiar with BMT, but kidney recipients must stay on immunosuppresent drugs for the remainder of their lives Too bad we can't clone specific body parts