Saviour Siblings - Right or Wrong?

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
BBC News

UK's first 'saviour sibling' treatment


A nine year old girl from Norfolk has had a life-saving transplant from a so-called saviour sibling.

Megan Matthews would have died but for tissue donated by her baby brother Max. It's the first time that the entire treatment has been successfully conducted in the UK.

Megan was born with Fanconi Anaemia, a rare inherited condition which can cause bone marrow failure.

Her body could not make blood and she needed transfusions every few weeks.

She was also unable to fight infections.

A worldwide search for a suitable bone marrow donor failed.

Megan's parents, Katie and Andy from King's Lynn, said they always wanted another baby, but natural conception would have given then just a one in four chance of having a child that was a perfect tissue match.


Medical teams in Cambridge, Bristol and Nottingham coordinated treatment to create a baby who was a perfect tissue match and then to use donated cells to treat Megan's blood disorder.

CARE Fertility in Nottingham carried out IVF treatment, taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant.

Two embryos were implanted and a single baby boy, Max, was born 18 months ago.

Max's umbilical cord blood was preserved and he later needed an operation to recover bone marrow.

The cells were used in Megan's transplant in July which was carried out at the Bristol Royal Hospital for Sick Children.

She used to require blood transfusions every three weeks and was unable to fight infections. Since the transplant, Megan has not required any blood products and now attends Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge for a weekly check-up.

Dr Mike Gattens, a paediatric haematologist said: "This has transformed Megan's life.

"Before she was a sickly child needing lots of medical attention - over the next few months and years I hope we will see less and less of her.

"She is a very active child and I hope she can just get on and enjoy her life."

Megan's mother Katie said: "This time last year Megan had been hospitalised for eight weeks and this year we are looking forward to Christmas.
"We are looking forward without dreading if we will be in hospital or not."

Saviour sibling treatment has been used before. In 2003 Charlie Whitaker, who had a rare blood disorder, was successfully treated after a transplant of cells from his brother.

But the family had to go to the US for treatment. The technology was later approved by the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, on a case by case basis.

But this is the first time that the entire procedure has been successful here.

Simon Fishel, managing director of Care Fertility, said: "This is fantastic and positive medial science.

"The ethical issues are in favour of doing this work. We are trying to save the life of a child and achieve a family without the enormous burden of a child with this disorder who would die."

But Josephine Quintavalle, Director of Comment on Reproductive Ethics said of Max: "He owes his life to his capacity to be of therapeutic use to his sick sister, otherwise he would not have been chosen in the first place.

"This is the big ethical problem."

Kate Matthews said: "Max is loved for being him and not for what he has done. He has completed our family and now I have a bubbly and healthy girl."

Megan's genetic disorder, Fanconi Anaemia, means that she may face long-term health problems. But her family say they will face those hurdles when and if they come to them
 

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
So long as both children can live good lives, why not.
It would be different if a child was being 'created' to only harvest a brain or heart or something, which would also kill the 'created' child to save the other child.
I can't see this as being anything but win-win.
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
So long as both children can live good lives, why not.
It would be different if a child was being 'created' to only harvest a brain or heart or something, which would also kill the 'created' child to save the other child.
I can't see this as being anything but win-win.


This is a very emotive subject indeed, but what about the embryo's that didn't "qualify" ?

CARE Fertility in Nottingham carried out IVF treatment, taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant.

Two embryos were implanted and a single baby boy, Max, was born 18 months ago.
 

pjjjjj

Veteran Expediter
IVFs are performed all the time for couples who can't conceive by 'normal means' for on reason or another. What happens to all those embryos when far too many are successfully fertilized than can be implanted? Or do they just implant all of them, no matter how many? (Aside from Octomom!)

And if an IVF ends up in a couple giving birth to quintuplets, is the government providing subsidies to help support them?

And if your first child has some horrible inherited disease and your chances of having a second child with the disease are 1 in 4, is it wrong to choose to have the second child by IVF, and choose only the cells which don't have the disease?

Aren't we already playing God when we do an IVF, since i)some of those merged cells can die anyway, and ii)the couple was unable to conceive via nature/God, and yet we're second guessing and making it happen scientifically?

At which point do cells become human life? As soon as an egg is fertilized? While cells are in a bowl? Once cells are transplanted? Once they attach to the lining? Once an embryo has a heartbeat? Once an embryo can breathe air?


This is a very emotive subject indeed, but what about the embryo's that didn't "qualify" ?

CARE Fertility in Nottingham carried out IVF treatment, taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant.

Two embryos were implanted and a single baby boy, Max, was born 18 months ago.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
This is all playing God in one form.

It isn't that we are saving one child, we are producing another to save that child regardless what care that second child receives.

Just the very thought of being conceived with a purpose outside of family love but to be a source could rather be a burden on that child. Like some children produced from rape, the justification of killing that kid has been made on the basis of the burden that child may carry for the rest of their lives.

It is part of the bigger picture which has that bad form of Eugenics under the surface and is compelling reason to stop a lot of this crap that goes on, like selection of children to fit the parents desires or fit their life style.

The other problem is illustrated in the right to have children with mentally unstable people like the Octo****. Those doctors should not allowed to practice because their obligation to the child is above that of providing a service to a mentally ill person who thinks it is a right to have more children.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Murder is the word you are looking for to answer what happens to the embryos not used and eventually discarded like so much refuse.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
If a couple can't conceive, outside of a need to prevent some serious health problems like Cancer (that is a fact) then that's too bad. This is one of those things that for many are unethical based on the facts that there are a lot of unwanted children in the world to adopt and by the fact that we are playing God.

BUT for those who want to reduce insurance cost, the processes that are used are expensive and many times paid for by insurance. The right thing to do is to limit the insurance to life saving issues, if in the case conceiving a child would prevent Cancer but outside of that, too bad.

Many have fallen into this trap that we must have our own child, we can't love or raise another. It is the same trap that a lot of parents get into when they try to live through their children, their failures become those that the child has to prevent in their own lives. Parenting is a twisted thing now a days.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
BUT for those who want to reduce insurance cost, the processes that are used are expensive and many times paid for by insurance.

You are seriously talking out of your arse. Many times paid for by the insurance companies????? Have you gone through the IVF process or has your wife had to take fertility drugs to help with getting pregnant? If not, then I would suggest you not comment on what the insurance companies pay for or not pay for.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Witness, ain't speaking out of my a** by no means.

My wife and I decided not to go down the path of playing God. We took a different approach to all of this, leaving vanity and the 'emotional' need out of the picture to decide what to do.

In our investigation of our options, we found out that our insurance company and our last insurance company (who are really cheap) pays for these procedures (IVF and related treatments) even though it was not a state mandate.

There are I think 14 or 15 states that mandate the coverage and those mandates vary from paying for a few things to footing the entire bill.

Because we have no choice but to pay for a lot of stuff we will never use through our premiums, we have a higher than normal monthly bill and if could take an ala carte approach to what the policy covers, we would save us and a lot of others a lot of money.

Insurance companies run on the same principles that other companies do - there is a limited amount of money. With state mandates and the need to fulfill a political need by covering things outside of the mandates, insurance companies do limit other procedures, like some cancer treatments.

If you don't believe me, go work for one in the department where they adjudicate claims or where they create their policies by the actuaries and accountants.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Witness, ain't speaking out of my a** by no means.

My wife and I decided not to go down the path of playing God.

Your sanctimonious attitude is something to behold.

We took a different approach to all of this, leaving vanity and the 'emotional' need out of the picture to decide what to do.

Vanity? Emotional need? What exactly does that mean?

Please share with us mere peeon's what approach you took.

In our investigation of our options, we found out that our insurance company and our last insurance company (who are really cheap) pays for these procedures (IVF and related treatments)

What insurance company(s) do or did you have that would pay for these procedures?
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Lets get back to the OP shall we.......


Having a baby for the only reason of saving a sibling - right or wrong in your opinion?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Sorry Sue, but it is wrong.

Your sanctimonious attitude is something to behold.

It takes one to know one.

Vanity? Emotional need? What exactly does that mean?

Well you don't know what vanity means?

How about putting another way - children as accessories. People having kids only to fit into a crowd that they hang with, a lot like when teenager girls have the urge to think they want kids because the 16 year old got knocked up in school so they think it is all the rage.

Emotional need?

You serious, you need that one explained ... I guess ... SO here it is (and this may offend others) "I'm not getting any younger so I need a kid" or "My motherly instincts make me want to have a kid" or the one I love is "I'm not complete until I have kids" ... in other words it seems to be the emotional drive that women and a lot of men for some reason have that compels them to have children - THEIR OWN - at any cost.

Please share with us mere peeon's what approach you took.

Look who's talking :D

Well the approach is simple, adoption.

Look it up ... better yet here is a good link to start with

AdoptUsKids - Children In Foster Care Awaiting Adoption

Oh and another...

National Adoption Center: Adopt a Child

What insurance company(s) do or did you have that would pay for these procedures?

Well we didn't choose this path, but here are the insurance companies I know pay for this ...

BC/BS of Michigan, New York, Illinois, California and a lot of others.
Aetna
United Health
Cigna
Guardian
Care Choices of Humana
Blue Care Network which is now owned by BC/BS
PHN
USHC
A large number of self-insured university health systems.
Medicaid in some cases where states mandate it.

The states that mandate IVF and other like procedures are ...

Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Mass
Montana
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas
West Virginia

Hope this answered your questions.

Sorry again Sue ...
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Agree with Pjjjjjjj - the second child will be loved as much as the first - the parents said they always wanted another, so it's a win-win scenario.
In a world where babies are conceived for many reasons [to nudge a partner into marriage, revitalize a tired marriage, prop a teen ego, obtain money from and/or emotional ties to a reluctant 'partner', and my favorite: ignorance of birth control] this one sounds like genuine love - for both children.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
I can tell you that if the doctors told my wife and I that this was the direction that would be needed to save our child, we'd be workin overtime to make babies.....
 

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
I can tell you that if the doctors told my wife and I that this was the direction that would be needed to save our child, we'd be workin overtime to make babies.....


But is it right?
Should we not let nature take its course in cases like this?

Is it right to bring a child into this world who's sole purpose is so that they can be used for the sake of another human being?

I use the phrase "sole purpose" because and I quote ...

"... taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant. "

What if treatment for the sick child, next time, is a prolonged treatment?

I am a mother of 3 healthy boys (for which I am thankful), and I have thought very hard on this subject today.

As much as it pains me to think one of my boys could die without "special" treatment, I could not go through a pregnancy knowing that I was carrying not a baby, but "the answer" to save my son.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
But is it right?
I think that is a question each individual would have to answer for themselves.

Should we not let nature take its course in cases like this?
At the most basic level the definition of being responsible for something is being willing to control it.

If you had it in your power to control whether a living children lived or died, would you be able to live with yourself if you didn't exercise that responsibility ?

Is it right to bring a child into this world who's sole purpose is so that they can be used for the sake of another human being?

I use the phrase "sole purpose" because and I quote ...

"... taking cells from the three day old embryos and testing each one for the disease and also checking if it was a suitable match for the transplant. "
That doesn't indicate a sole purpose - sole means the only one to the exclusion of all others.

One could always have it as their purpose to conceive another child not solely because one wanted to help their existing child, but because they actually wanted another child as well.

As much as it pains me to think one of my boys could die without "special" treatment, I could not go through a pregnancy knowing that I was carrying not a baby, but "the answer" to save my son.
That's an interesting viewpoint - but I'm not really sure I understand why it has to be an either/or proposition ..... :confused:

Would it not be possible to carry a baby that is also a potential answer to save your son ?

It doesn't seem to me that the two things are necessarily mutually exclusive ...
 
Last edited:

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
As I said in my opening post - this is a very emotive subject

I think that is a question each individual would have to answer for themselves.

Agreed

At the most basic level the definition of being responsible for something is being willing to control it.

In your opinion. Not everything can be or should be controlled.


If you had it in your power to control whether a living children lived or died, would you be able to live with yourself if you didn't exercise that responsibility ?

I answered this in my final parargraph - but answer me this .... What if it didn't work and the sick child died anyway, how would one feel toward the Savior sibling then?
This in itself could lead to more family misery.

That doesn't indicate a sole purpose - sole means the only one to the exclusion of all others.

Disagree - to have a baby at that time, in that way, was solely for the purpose of helping the sick child


One could always have it as their purpose to conceive another child not solely because one wanted to help their existing child, but because they wanted another child as well.

In all honesty I do not think, if a family had a very sick child, that they would even be thinking about having another baby at all - all their thoughts and time would be with the sick child

That's an interesting viewpoint - but I'm not really sure I understand why it has to be an either/or proposition ..... :confused:

Would it not be possible to carry a baby that is also a potential answer to save your son ?

It doesn't seem to me that the two things are necessarily mutually exclusive ...

Maybe you just have to carry life within you to understand that one
 
Last edited:
Top