Having another baby 'genetically designed' to help your child?

[bobsiesgal]

i don't have children and i think its wrong, people might say 'oh for a one off procedure i would do it' but what if that one procedure doesen't work? you have a perfect match in another child and i can see some people wanting to do whatever it takes regardless of the medical implications to the second child to save the first.

Personally i believe that it violates the human rights of the second child because no one in this world is obligated to do anything to save another persons life regardless of whether they are related or not, its why people are not forced to give blood or donate organs, and just because they are children i don't think they should be treated differently.

that being said i can understand that parents would want to do anything to save their children, which is why i think it should be up to ethics commitees and then a ban put on 2nd child donating until they are old enough to consent. that way it takes the burden off the parents because its not their choice and protects the child from abuse.

 

[lozzy21]

i don't have children and i think its wrong, people might say 'oh for a one off procedure i would do it' but what if that one procedure doesen't work? you have a perfect match in another child and i can see some people wanting to do whatever it takes regardless of the medical implications to the second child to save the first.

Personally i believe that it violates the human rights of the second child because no one in this world is obligated to do anything to save another persons life regardless of whether they are related or not, its why people are not forced to give blood or donate organs, and just because they are children i don't think they should be treated differently.

that being said i can understand that parents would want to do anything to save their children, which is why i think it should be up to ethics commitees and then a ban put on 2nd child donating until they are old enough to consent. that way it takes the burden off the parents because its not their choice and protects the child from abuse.

I think your missing the point. You have IVF to insure the 2nd child is a match in the first place, so you wouldent just keep having child after child untill you get a genetic match.

And as for waiting till the child is old enough to give their consent well you might as well not do it in the first place as in most cases then 1st child would have died before the 2nd child was 16.

 

[Mrs Mayhem]

The little boy on lorraine needs a one off bone marrow transplant, not ongoing treatment.

If it was a one off treatment then yes i would, the 2nd baby would be just as loved as the first.

Thanks, I missed what the illness was as LO decided to have a scream!

 

[kelly29]

i'm not sure ? it seems an awful thing to do, but tbh, i think anyone would do anything to keep there lo's alive, i'm pretty sure i would. it would be another child for me, which would't be a bad thing. and anyway i would love the baby as i do, just like all my others, but the sad part is seeing the new lo, maybe having to go through series of medical things to help the sibling, that would truly break my heart. part of me say's let mother nature do what's intended, how ever sad and emotional that may be. but the other part say's do what ever possible to help your child x

mayhem) sweet holly she's so gorgeous

 

[lozzy21]

The little boy on lorraine needs a one off bone marrow transplant, not ongoing treatment.

If it was a one off treatment then yes i would, the 2nd baby would be just as loved as the first.

Thanks, I missed what the illness was as LO decided to have a scream!

Snap lol, i think it was severe anemia because of a defective gene, he has to have blood transfusions every 4 weeks.

 

[Mrs Mayhem]

i'm not sure ? it seems an awful thing to do, but tbh, i think anyone would do anything to keep there lo's alive, i'm pretty sure i would. it would be another child for me, which would't be a bad thing. and anyway i would love the baby as i do, just like all my others, but the sad part is seeing the new lo, maybe having to go through series of medical things to help the sibling, that would truly break my heart. part of me say's let mother nature do what's intended, how ever sad and emotional that may be. but the other part say's do what ever possible to help your child x

mayhem) sweet holly she's so gorgeous

Ah Kelly, you always make me smile!

 

[xemmax]

Personally i believe that it violates the human rights of the second child because no one in this world is obligated to do anything to save another persons life regardless of whether they are related or not, its why people are not forced to give blood or donate organs, and just because they are children i don't think they should be treated differently.

I agree with this. Forced donation is surely a violation of your child's human rights.

 

[kawaiigirl]

I've never really looked into it but if "My sisters keeper" is anything to go by, it's awful. Although who can say what we'd do if our LO's were ill and could possibly die.. wouldn't we do everything in our power to help?

Totally agree!!

 

[Jox]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

 

[lozzy21]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

 

[Jox]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

 

[babyno9]

Speaking as a mum that has lost a baby due to serious medical conditions yes i would! I always wanted loads of children anyway so the baby would of been loved regardless, but if i was told there was a way to save my son and he didn't have to die then yes i'm sorry i would. Selfish as it sounds but when you are faced with your child dying you would do ANYTHING to save them.

It could end two ways.... the first child suffers for its short life and dies and you have no children until you conceive again (like me) OR you can go through IVF to have a child to help save the first child and at the end of it all have TWO beautiful children to care for. I know which ending i would choose if i had to do it again.

 

[I_AM_LIVID]

I'm with babyno9. Having also lost a child already, I too would do absolutely ANYTHING to save my babies' lives, including give my own life. It is selfish, I know, but please believe that if there was ANYTHING I could do to save the live of my children, that I would do it without hesitation. I won’t have a clear conscious for doing it, as I imagine watching my last born go through procedure after procedure will hurt me, but I would have spared a life (and conceived a new one!), so it’s a decision I would be okay living with.

 

[lozzy21]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

 

[Jox]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

ummm...

firstly, im not saying my opinion is the correct one, just MY opinion

I think to have IVF to stop a child being born with a condition that will effect its life on a daily basis is ok because its being done to benefit that child...

but the baby in this situation will actually not benefit in anyway it will suffer.

I too have lost a baby and never in a million years would want to go through it again. im human and cant say 100% that if i was in that situation that i wouldnt do the same thing but my opinion at this point in my life is that to create a baby to be a donor is wrong!

 

[LoraLoo]

I'd do it in an instant to save my child. I've lost one baby already and I know the pain, I'd do anything to have her back and I'd have done anything to have saved her. Anything. xxxx

 

[lozzy21]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

ummm...

firstly, im not saying my opinion is the correct one, just MY opinion

I think to have IVF to stop a child being born with a condition that will effect its life on a daily basis is ok because its being done to benefit that child...

but the baby in this situation will actually not benefit in anyway it will suffer.

I too have lost a baby and never in a million years would want to go through it again. im human and cant say 100% that if i was in that situation that i wouldnt do the same thing but my opinion at this point in my life is that to create a baby to be a donor is wrong!

Im not trying to argue with you hun im just curious and enjoy a civil debate.

Iv got to dissagree with you there as i think the baby who was born using ivf would benifit from the situation if the parents wanted more children anyway.

It would have two happy parents and a healthy sibling as apposed to having to watch its older brother or sister suffer and then pass away so not only will the child be greving, its parents and the rest of its family will too so it will have a massive affect on the child and their quality of life in an indirect way.

 

[Jox]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

ummm...

firstly, im not saying my opinion is the correct one, just MY opinion

I think to have IVF to stop a child being born with a condition that will effect its life on a daily basis is ok because its being done to benefit that child...

but the baby in this situation will actually not benefit in anyway it will suffer.

I too have lost a baby and never in a million years would want to go through it again. im human and cant say 100% that if i was in that situation that i wouldnt do the same thing but my opinion at this point in my life is that to create a baby to be a donor is wrong!

Im not trying to argue with you hun im just curious and enjoy a civil debate.

Iv got to dissagree with you there as i think the baby who was born using ivf would benifit from the situation if the parents wanted more children anyway.

It would have two happy parents and a healthy sibling as apposed to having to watch its older brother or sister suffer and then pass away so not only will the child be greving, its parents and the rest of its family will too so it will have a massive affect on the child and their quality of life in an indirect way.

how about if they never intended on having more children?

Nothing wrong with a civil debate....

 

[lozzy21]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

ummm...

firstly, im not saying my opinion is the correct one, just MY opinion

I think to have IVF to stop a child being born with a condition that will effect its life on a daily basis is ok because its being done to benefit that child...

but the baby in this situation will actually not benefit in anyway it will suffer.

I too have lost a baby and never in a million years would want to go through it again. im human and cant say 100% that if i was in that situation that i wouldnt do the same thing but my opinion at this point in my life is that to create a baby to be a donor is wrong!

Im not trying to argue with you hun im just curious and enjoy a civil debate.

Iv got to dissagree with you there as i think the baby who was born using ivf would benifit from the situation if the parents wanted more children anyway.

It would have two happy parents and a healthy sibling as apposed to having to watch its older brother or sister suffer and then pass away so not only will the child be greving, its parents and the rest of its family will too so it will have a massive affect on the child and their quality of life in an indirect way.

how about if they never intended on having more children?

Nothing wrong with a civil debate....

Im not sure on that one, if they dident plan on having another child but it would be just as loved as the others then im OK with that, many people dont plan on having more children but change their mind or have an "accident" and the baby is still loved. I think it just depends on what type of people the parents are.

 

[LoraLoo]

Im gonna have to agree that its unfair on the 2nd baby.

I dont believe a baby should be 'created' just to be a donor. i think its unfair.

The parents on lorraine said 'we know he'll get worse before he gets better because of the proceedure he will have to go thru'... what about what the baby/toddler would have to go thru?

I think if you have a younger/older child already who is a donor then yes... but if you are creating a life just to use that child.... then im sorry i dont agree with it.

actually (may be critised for this or said im being contracending (sp) ) but i think if you go on to conceive a child naturally and that child is a match then yes imo its ok for that child to be a donor for a one off treatment. I think its the IVF to 'create' the perfect match that i dont agree with. Its like them saying yeah we want another baby but only if its good enough to donate. at least if they are conceiving naturally it is a case of we want another child, if this child is a match then great but thats not the new babys purpose in life iykwim?

But if you want another child anyway whats wrong in making sure that is it a match?

because imo that means your not allowing the your next child to be who they really are and your not accepting them for who they are iykwim? match or no match!

How do you feel about people who allready have a child with a hereditory condition such cycstic fybrosis? (sp?) having IVF to ensure they dont have another child with it?

ummm...

firstly, im not saying my opinion is the correct one, just MY opinion

I think to have IVF to stop a child being born with a condition that will effect its life on a daily basis is ok because its being done to benefit that child...

but the baby in this situation will actually not benefit in anyway it will suffer.

I too have lost a baby and never in a million years would want to go through it again. im human and cant say 100% that if i was in that situation that i wouldnt do the same thing but my opinion at this point in my life is that to create a baby to be a donor is wrong!

Im not trying to argue with you hun im just curious and enjoy a civil debate.

Iv got to dissagree with you there as i think the baby who was born using ivf would benifit from the situation if the parents wanted more children anyway.

It would have two happy parents and a healthy sibling as apposed to having to watch its older brother or sister suffer and then pass away so not only will the child be greving, its parents and the rest of its family will too so it will have a massive affect on the child and their quality of life in an indirect way.

how about if they never intended on having more children?

Nothing wrong with a civil debate....

Its a good point, for me, i'd still go ahead because i'd still love the baby no matter what. I know its selfish, but i would xxxxx