April 16, 2002

12:47 AM

We only had you for the spare parts.A Melbourne couple have been given permission to have a genetically-modified IVF child to provide stem cells to cure their terminally ill daughter. Bad enough to grow up and discover you were an accident, or adopted, but to learn that you were engineered to supply your sibling with body parts? That kid's going to have low self-esteem.
posted by chrisgregory (27 comments total)

I disagree. That kid will be raised thinking he/she is a hero for saving his/her siblings life.

The parents will cherish the second child just as much as the first.
posted by Argyle at 12:52 AM on April 16, 2002

So long as it works. Can you imagine how bad it would be for the kid if it doesn't work?
posted by krisjohn at 1:17 AM on April 16, 2002

I think the way the parents rase the child would have a lot more affect on their self esteem then the method or reasons for their birth.

And it's not like they're taking an arm or kidney, but rather a replenishable type of tissue, like bone marrow. (bone barrow siblings have been done before).

Christ, some people are just unbelivably stupid around here....
posted by delmoi at 1:21 AM on April 16, 2002

Talk of "spare parts" is out of place. The procedure requires some of the stem cells from the blood from the umbilical cord of the child. That's all. That part (the donation of "cord blood") is a routine procedure.

Second,"genetically-modified" is just plain wrong. The embryo was not genetically modified in any way. It was selected on the basis of genetically matching the sister in the right way.

Now, we might have questions about this. I know I get uneasy with reproductive technology, starting at IVF, but it's much better for the debate if we get the terms straight.
posted by grestall at 1:24 AM on April 16, 2002

unbelievably stupid sometimes--Well, this may be true, delmoi, but take it from me--it's no contribution to the conversation to point it out (and always spell check before making so harsh an assessment). We all get on somebody's nerves sometime, offend someone's rarefied sensibilities, are ourselves at something less than our finest moment. Actual baiting is to be actively deplored, of course, but that's not the case here. That said, I think that, between you and argyle, and now grestall, the point to the contrary has been well and succinctly made. So all is well.
posted by y2karl at 1:34 AM on April 16, 2002

it's no contribution to the conversation to point it out

Suppose you stank. You reeked to the high heavens. No one ever told you you stank, because they didn't wan to offend you. You could never get a date, and didn't know why. In general, it would suck to be you. Perhaps if someone told you you stank, you might feel bad, but in the end you might take measures to reduce your aroma. And that would be good for everyone.

It does really bother me when people make these claims and generalizations that are totally bogus, or based entirely on an emotional analysis rather then an analytical one. Hopefully, by pointing it out maybe people will stop.
posted by delmoi at 1:42 AM on April 16, 2002

No, it is better to suffer fools in silence--sadly, a rule I often honor in the breech around here. Between controlling other people and controlling your reaction to other people, the second choice is always more cost effective and achievable.
posted by y2karl at 1:52 AM on April 16, 2002

Man, there's not many fans of irony around here. I don't think anyone would argue that, no matter how well brought up, kids who are aware that they were the result of a need rather than a desire can develop emotional insecurities. To be told you were the result of an accidental or unwanted pregnancy would be an emotionally charged issue. The same as discovering that you were adopted.



I don't think it's stupid to wonder if a child born in this situation won't grow up to feel less important than the sibling whose health problems are the only reason that they came to be born in the first place. That they were chosen from a number of other embryos solely on the basis of being compatible with their sibling's requirements I thought justified the use of the phrase 'spare parts'.



To claim I was being emotive and not analytical, or relying on emotive arguments, is I think unfair.
posted by chrisgregory at 2:06 AM on April 16, 2002

You misconstrue my ironic remarks quite undirected towards you, Chris--say, didn't I rent an apartment to you?--although the remarks contrary to your post have merit all their own without necessarily refuting your inital observation. There are always many variables and we have still to hear from clavdivs...
posted by y2karl at 2:42 AM on April 16, 2002

I don't think anyone would argue that, no matter how well brought up, kids who are aware that they were the result of a need rather than a desire can develop emotional insecurities. To be told you were the result of an accidental or unwanted pregnancy would be an emotionally charged issue.

I don't know if these sentences are supposed to be related, but wouldn't 'accidental pregnancy' imply desire rather than need? And given the number of people who deliberately have kids for bizarre or selfish reasons (not having anything to do with sibling health issues -- I'm talking about people who need to pass on the family name or people who live vicariously through their kids, etc.), I'm not sure that being the result of an accidental pregnancy is the more emotionally charged issue. I suspect that large numbers of kids, perhaps even the majority, are not 'planned' per se. And so what?
posted by Medley at 3:35 AM on April 16, 2002

Honestly, I'd prefer to live in a world where the appropriate cells from an unfertilised compatible embryo could be used to cure the child's disease. But to decide to have a child just so that you can use some of their physical material seems to be a complicated moral and ethical issue, if only from the viewpoint of the resulting child.
Imagine your parents told you that they only had you to solve a tax problem...
I used the word desire in terms of wanting to have a child. An accidental pregnancy can mean lots of things, either fortuitous or unpleasant (shotgun weddings and so on). I have a friend who is a single mother whose partner walked out on her when he learned she was pregnant. And I'm not saying that being a single mother is a bad thing: my own partner is a single mother.
But I think this is a complex moral and ethical issue, and as such I thought it deserved to be posted as a link to MeFi.
posted by chrisgregory at 4:17 AM on April 16, 2002

You've got a choice watch your only kid die or have two healthy kids....... what would you do?
posted by kramer_101 at 5:49 AM on April 16, 2002

They could name the kid "pep boy" (a chain of auto parts stores.)
posted by mecran01 at 6:07 AM on April 16, 2002

Bad enough to grow up and discover you were an accident, or adopted

There's nothing bad about being adopted. An adoptive parent not telling their child that they're adopted - that's bad.

Everything could be considered an accident. The fact that someone's arrival on the planet was unscheduled doesn't mean it won't be celebrated.
posted by groundhog at 6:17 AM on April 16, 2002

chrisgregory - I'd prefer to live in a world where the appropriate cells from an unfertilised compatible embryo

There's no such thing. An unfertilized embryo is an egg, which has only one cell and half a genetic code.
posted by NortonDC at 6:39 AM on April 16, 2002

HA! Low self-esteem? Speak for yourself. That kid won't just feel special, he'll know he's special.
posted by fleener at 7:10 AM on April 16, 2002

Bad enough to grow up and discover you were an accident, or adopted

There's nothing bad about being adopted. An adoptive parent not telling their child that they're adopted - that's bad.

I agree with you 100%, groundhog. There is nothing bad about being adopted. In fact, that is something to be celebrated.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 7:27 AM on April 16, 2002

Of course, those in favor of therapeutic cloning would note that if they just got the technology for being able to develop any particular cells necessary from a cloned embryo, then no sibling would need to be born -- they'd just have a colony of cells they could harvest from.

But that's the future.
posted by meep at 8:11 AM on April 16, 2002

People seem to be making some rather unpleasant assumptions about the parents here, give them some credit. It seems unlikely that they're having the new baby solely to save the other child, and even if they were, it seems more likely that they'll treat it exactly the same way as the first child than as some kind of living spare parts donor/second class citizen. The article doesn't tell us if they were planning on having another child regardless, and it doesn't seem at all morally questionable to me that they'd want their new baby to be compatible with the already-extant child in order to save its life (again, it's not like they're harming the new child, it's not like they're taking an organ, they're just modifying a particular embryo so that it's compatible...given that most of the resulting embryos are culled when IVF is used, what's the harm in adjusting a particular one instead of randomly selecting one?). The arguments thus far don't seem very convincing, they seem mainly based on assumptions about how the parents will treat the child, I think that if the parents are willing to go to these lengths to save their existing child, it's more than likely that they'll treat the new child at least as well.
posted by biscotti at 8:47 AM on April 16, 2002

People have always had second and subsequent children to provide their first child with something that he or she is missing, and will benefit from. That thing is, in most cases, a brother or sister. (Yes, I do support the idea that only children miss out on an important part of their childhood without siblings.) That medical technology makes the bond even more crucial doesn't cause me any concern.
posted by riviera at 8:50 AM on April 16, 2002

Being a "local", and therefore being able to see an interview with these parents, it makes me proud to live here.

Fact: These parents have a terminally ill daughter whose life may well be saved with the blood from a sibling's umbilical cord.

Fact: The technology exists (or is at least in the final stages of development) to make this possible.

Fact: There's no modification of the genetic code going on, only selection of ova in order to have an exact match of the sick child's DNA.

Fact: They WANT a second child, regardless. This baby isn't going to grow up under the impression that it's been "engineered to supply it's sibling with body parts" and ignored. It's going to grow up loved and cared for.

If I were this child donating the umbilical cord blood, I'd grow up being damn proud of the fact that I was able to save my big sister's life (at least, until she starts bringing friends over and making me up and putting me in dresses (for those of you without a sense of humor, that was a JOKE)).

The father had a wonderful soundbyte when asked : "Some may see it as unethical, but how can it be ethical to NOT do it?"

(None of the above is conjecture; it was all discussed on one of our nightly news programs)
posted by cheaily at 9:07 AM on April 16, 2002

"Imagine your parents told you that they only had you to solve a tax problem..."

I think the word "only" in the above sentence (and in the FPP) makes your analogy inaccurate.

Sure, I would feel bad if my parents told me they had me only to solve a tax problem. But what if they told me they had me because they wanted a physical expression of their love for each other, wanted someone to love and raise on their own, to imbue with their own ideas and ethics, and also to solve a tax problem? I can't say for sure, but I imagine this wouldn't bother me too much.

I think there's a huge difference between having a child only to save the life of another child, and having a child for many reasons, one of which is to save the life of another child. I see nothing in the linked story to suggest that the former is what is being does here.

"But I think this is a complex moral and ethical issue..."

It is indeed a complex moral and ethical issue, and it is an unwarranted simplification to suggest that saving the life of the first child is the only reason the parents are having the second.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:16 AM on April 16, 2002

We only had ours because we wanted to have an orgasm.

Does that make us evil?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:33 AM on April 16, 2002

As someone who's been lucky enough to have his life saved by bone marrow donated by someone I've never even met, I think this is the most beautiful thing in the world. The love in that family will be stunning.
posted by jgilliam at 9:39 AM on April 16, 2002

I think the word "only" in the above sentence (and in the FPP) makes your analogy inaccurate.

there's also a slight difference between solving a tax problem and saving the life of your daughter. If the kid grows up loving her/his big sister, I can't imagine how s/he'd feel that it was wrong of her parents to do...

Being an unplanned child myself, I really don't think the ideas parents have about their kids before they're born have much to do with anything. It's how they react to you in real life. A parent could have dreamt of a perfect child for years and carefully plan the pregnancy, and then be disappointed in the actual event and treat the kid poorly. Or the pregnancy could be completely accidental and initially unwanted but after the birth the parents could be completely committed and loving.
posted by mdn at 9:50 AM on April 16, 2002

I'm against it. Everything in fact. By the way, the earth is flat and non-believers should be set on fire.
posted by skinsuit at 4:58 PM on April 16, 2002

"kids who are aware that they were the result of a need rather than a desire can develop emotional insecurities."

All children are born out of a need of some kind. Even a desire is a need.

I don't see the issue here.
posted by lucien at 12:11 AM on April 17, 2002