Senorial

Excellent topic.

I would agree that the child has rights but that obviously, you can't really know whether a child would consent to something. I believe the question has been asked before, what age is a person able to give consent for something this major?

I hope Im not just repeating what other people have said, but what are the parents supposed to do if their child is dying. Are they supposed to just do nothing and let their child die when they have a chance to save him? I don't think it would be immoral to not have a second child. I don't know much about bone marrow transplants, but it seems to me like they have choices beyond "Having another baby to save the first" and "Not having another baby and letting the first die." For me personally, if those were my only two options, then I would absolutely choose the first. If I had the chance to have a daughter and to save my son, then the choice seems rather obvious.

Perhaps in addition to the question of a childs rights, we should ask what we would do in the situation. We can talk idealistically about a child's rights all day but when it comes down to it, I don't know how many of us would just let our child die because we didnt want to infringe upon our second childs rights.

What better way to come into life than to save another.

<fundie rant>
On a rather side note, let me just me say many points people have made in this argument have been a bit confusing. The same people who have made arguments that the baby has no choice in the matter are probably the same people who believe abortion should be legal. Does the baby have a choice in that? Perhaps Im making connections that aren't really there though.
</fundie rant>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

We have legal precedents in place for all of the above scenarios.

In the case of the parents having a second baby, in order to provide a donor to save the life of their first child, the parents (unless legal steps have already been taken to change this fact) are responsible and able to make medical decisions for their children.

If they decide to have a second baby, and use that baby as a donor for the first, they as the parents have the right to make that decision.

(There are probably legal steps that can be taken by private citizens or groups who wish to oppose the parents. There are legal procedures to determine who's will should be carried out...)

In the case of an older minor sibling (the example given was a 6-year old) the parents' rights to make medical decisions for their own children remain.

In the case of an adult, but mentally incompetant, sibling or relative, the state (or some other individual or group) will have been appointed as a legal guardian, with decision-making power for this person. It will be up to the guardian to make the decision as to whether this mentally incompetant person should donate bone marrow to save his or her younger brother--or not.

In the case of a comatose adult, the same is true. The state (or the person's will) appoints a guardian to be responsible for making decisions that affect this person.

It will be up to that guardian to decide whether or not the bone marrow may be donated.

Keith.

dk

There are the larger issues of a baby with Anencephaly used for organ or tissue transplant. Such babies are born without a cerebellum, are void of consciousness and don’t feel pain. It is feasible that the parents of a sick child with specific needs for certain genetic materials could genetically engineer the disorder, then harvest the material. The ethical issues remain undressed, much less the legal issues. I would point out that legal precedent generally makes the decision then ethics evolve to justify the outcome. This really isn’t ethics at all, but a rationalization for unacceptable procedures.

Amen-Moses

I can't see why this would be unacceptable, after all this sort of organ donar would never be nor ever have the possibility of being a person.

Of course why would we even bother to go to all that expense when we can just take stem cells and grow organs in a Pig, or would people have a problem eating bacon from such a pig?

Amen-Moses

dk

There are pathogen issues with harvesting organs from one species to another. I’m sure you’ve read about the avian influenza scare in Hong Kong back in 1999. Ethically to improve one person’s life to put millions at risk posses a significant obstacle.
-----
Zoonosis is a term that describes the passage of pathogens between species. (A pathogen is any infecting microorganism or virus.) Xenozoonosis is a fairly new term to describe the same passage, when it is caused by xenotransplantation. There are a lot of unknowns involved with this issue. Particular worries include diseases that are asymptomatic in one species (that is they do not make the original host unwell) but may be fatal in another, and types of viruses that lie dormant in the DNA of their host – endogenous retroviruses. Pig endogenous retroviruses have been shown to infect human cells in the laboratory, though the same has not been seen in life. The majority of discussion papers identify this issue as the biggest unknown and the biggest concern.
----- <a href="http://www.iob.org/editorial_display.asp?edname=926.htm&cont_id=29" target="_blank">Xenotransplantation - factsheet</a>
I suspect in the next century the use of genetically engineered uterus-like vats to grow clones, body parts and other forms of human recyclables will become a hotly debated ethical, scientific and legal concern.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

brighid

Dk,

I think we are stretching things just a bit from the original point of the discussion as to the rights of a child in regard to medical treatment, etc. A being born without a cerebellum does not have rights and effectively it is only tissue, organs, etc. It is dead, or will die shortly after being born. The organs of this being do provide potential, life saving options for sick and dieing human beings and therefore should be harvested to benefit the greatest good. The rights in question in your situation are not the rights of the product of the conception or genetic engineering, but whether parents have the right to make the choice to have a child either through natural means or scientific manipulation that isn’t a conscious or viable being for the sole purpose of providing organic and genetically compatible material for a living, but terminally ill sibling.

If you would, please present the moral argument against a) harvesting the organs of a baby born without a brain/central nervous system, etc. due to a naturally occurring birth defect and/or b) genetically engineering a fetus that will not have a brain/central nervous system, etc. that will be harvested for it’s organs.

Brighid

dk

Parents don’t need a sick child to procreate, and if conceiving a child offers a sibling a better life then I don’t see an ethical problem. I think growing up with siblings is a blessing many parents consider. Only when a child is conceived and killed to harvest genetic material, tissues or organs do ethical issues arise.

brighid

I agree. However that doesn't answer the questions posited. No child has been "killed" in either scenario you discussed, or in the ones I asked for clarification of your position on. A "child" (using this term loosely in reference to an infant that has no substantive brain matter or functioning ability) that has been genetically created for tissues, fluids, etc. is not an actual being with rights. A child that is born, through an unknown genetic defect or environmental event, that causes the aforementioned defect is also not a being with rights and therefore is the responsibility of the parents. Nor have you provided a moral argument against the natural or genetically engineered use of said "child."

Can a "child" that has no ability to have brain function beyond nominal control over reflexes and perhaps regulation of organs, etc. (for a short period of time) be killed? I believe in the instance such as this, a brain dead person (infant or otherwise) is kept "alive" by artifical means in order to create the best environment to harvest viable organs. What sort of ethical violations take place in any of the aforementioned scenarios?

You have not provided a moral argument against the natural or genetically engineered use of said "child." If you aren't interested in doing so, that is perfectly acceptable. But to say something is wrong, does not in fact make it so.

I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of a couple genetically engineering a "child" without brain function for the sole purpose of genetic material, but I have not examined the moral argument behind the discomfort that creates within me. I am not uncomfortable with the genetic engineering of organs, tissues, fluids, etc. I am not sure where I stand on the idea of incubators that grow human bodies (although not necessarily human beings that possess either the ability to be conscious outside of an animated state, or actual consciousness)for the use of organic material.

I think the ideas you have brought up are interesting and in lieu of the potential progress to be made in the field of genetic engineering I believe this is certainly a worthwhile discussion.

I will add that I do not feel it is proper, at least within the context of this forum to simply state "I don't like _____, said thing is wrong, or ____ makes me uncomfortable" without an attempt to actually construct and examine the moral/ethical principles that surround said event or potential event.

So, what are the ethical issues you feel arise from within the context of this discussion?

Brighid

dk

dk: Ok, let me start by saying I distinguish between morality and ethics. Morality orders conduct and is the antecedent of ethics, ethics being a science. I also think you’ve presented the moral and ethical questions quite eloquently.
dk: Anencephaly, encephalocele and spina bifida are three kinds of neural tube defects (NTD) diagnosed in the 2nd trimester. Often the diagnosis results in a voluntarily termination of the pregnancy. The most common form of NTD is called Spina Bifida Occulta and has no symptoms but may effect 1 in 10 births. Dietary supplements of Folic Acid can reduce the risk but nobody knows the cause. The # of children born with spina bifida has been reduced by 20-30%, and anencephaly by 60%. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038567.htm" target="_blank"> Surveillance for Anencephaly and Spina Bifida and the Impact of Prenatal Diagnosis -- United States, 1985-1994 </a>
Clearly there are moral and ethical concerns with the voluntary termination of NTD pregnancies.
First, abortions aren’t tracked as birth defect so abortion makes it impossible to calculate the affect of preventive measures (folic acid) or track any other environmental causes.
Second, the idea of curing a disease by killing the afflicted smells of eugenics.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

brighid

Dk,

This particular discussion is not about abortion or eugenics. I am very aware of the birth defects you have mentioned and those defects are some of the reasons I personally support abortion. I am not sure how your reply actually applies to the discussion at hand OR the other questions I have posted. If I am not mistaken, the procedures used late in pregnancy to abort fetuses with these and other sorts of defects don’t allow for the harvesting of fetal organs, except perhaps in the case of a D&X procedure. But I would have to research that further.

I asked what was the moral implication of a child BORN with (not aborted prior to birth) aforementioned birth defects should not have its organs harvested and what your moral argument is against the positive position. I do not want this thread to derail into a discussion of late-term abortion. If you are interested in discussing the morals of that issue please open a new topic.

You have still to provide a moral, or an ethical argument for your case even though you have provided some interesting facts. Perhaps I am missing something in your posts, but stating the birth defects that can cause a lack of brain function is not in fact supporting any moral argument. You stated “clearly there are moral and ethical concerns..” but did not state what they were. Again that does not address the issue of children BORN naturally or by genetic manipulation with said defects.

Brighid