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

[ttc_lolly]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

 

[lozzy21]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

The film was about lots of regular donations, the boy on tv this moring will just need one.

 

[ttc_lolly]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

The film was about lots of regular donations, the boy on tv this moring will just need one.

No there was a film about a ''saviour sibling'' being made to help the ill child. My sister's keeper (just googled it because couldn't remember the name!)

 

[flubdub]

If its a case of "Have another baby or your child will die." I would have another child. Why not?

 

[Murphy98]

I think in their position I would do anything to save my child so I can't judge. I pray I'm never in their position.

 

[mrsraggle]

Can't say what I'd do, but I'd like to think I wouldn't.

 

[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.

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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

 

[lozzy21]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

The film was about lots of regular donations, the boy on tv this moring will just need one.

No there was a film about a ''saviour sibling'' being made to help the ill child. My sister's keeper (just googled it because couldn't remember the name!)

Yes the child in the film had to have regular donations of its sibling, the boy on tv will only need a one off donation from its sibling.

 

[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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

 

[mrsthomas623]

TBH if the older child would require one or two procedures... absolutely I would. And I feel like it may actually give the children a special bond between each other and bond through out the family. Yes, we may have altered something in that child, but he/she would still be our and we would love them with all of our heart.

BUT if it was disease that required a life time of surgeries and procedures, it would break my heart, but I could not put that on a child. I would give my life to ANY of my children (present and future) but could never, ever make any of the children do that for another.

 

[ttc_lolly]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

The film was about lots of regular donations, the boy on tv this moring will just need one.

No there was a film about a ''saviour sibling'' being made to help the ill child. My sister's keeper (just googled it because couldn't remember the name!)

Yes the child in the film had to have regular donations of its sibling, the boy on tv will only need a one off donation from its sibling.

I wasn't comparing the amount of procedures needed I just pointed out that a film about a saviour sibling (wich is what this child being created would be) being made also!

 

[mrsthomas623]

My question is, can they prevent the disease in the child being born to help the other? I cannot imagine going through that, expecting a happy ending and ending up with 2 sick children. Ladies watching the show, what do they say?

 

[lozzy21]

Wasn't their a film made about this too?

It's a tough one - I'm sure if the parents are loving enough they'll love and want the 2nd child just as much no matter what anyway x

The film was about lots of regular donations, the boy on tv this moring will just need one.

No there was a film about a ''saviour sibling'' being made to help the ill child. My sister's keeper (just googled it because couldn't remember the name!)

Yes the child in the film had to have regular donations of its sibling, the boy on tv will only need a one off donation from its sibling.

I wasn't comparing the amount of procedures needed I just pointed out that a film about a saviour sibling (wich is what this child being created would be) being made also!

Yes and i was simply saying the differance between the film and the boy being talked about on tv.

 

[lozzy21]

My question is, can they prevent the disease in the child being born to help the other? I cannot imagine going through that, expecting a happy ending and ending up with 2 sick children. Ladies watching the show, what do they say?

Yes they check to make sure the other baby wont have the "faulty" gene.

 

[indy and lara]

This is a very hard issue and I am not sure that you would fully be able to say what you would do unless you were in that situation. If you were already planning on having another child then it may be a more staightforward decision. However, if your family was complete or you did not plan on having more children I would imagine it is a lot more complicated.

You would never want the child to be in a position that they thought they were 2nd choice or just born to save a more favoured elder sibling. I would imagine that it would be important to choose the language you use to tell the child about this, very carefully. For example, ' we were so lucky when you were born that your x matched so you were able to help your brother/ sister' rather than, 'we had you so that you could save x'.

 

[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.

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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

i've taken this from a website which provides information for people who donate bone marrow

"you may be asked to donate on a second occasion for the same patient if the first transplant did not engraft, or if the patient relapses. Other types of blood products may also be requested for that patient such as whole blood or donor lymphocytes (white blood cells)."

they do not force mentally able adults to donate to other people, you can't be legally compelled to donate your kidney or your bone marrow, even if someone else might die without it and i personally think its disgusting if they would force people with learning disabilities to donate, but that being said if it has happened i would be very interested to read about the cases if you would'nt mind pointing me in the right direction.

 

[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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

i've taken this from a website which provides information for people who donate bone marrow

"you may be asked to donate on a second occasion for the same patient if the first transplant did not engraft, or if the patient relapses. Other types of blood products may also be requested for that patient such as whole blood or donor lymphocytes (white blood cells)."

they do not force mentally able adults to donate to other people, you can't be legally compelled to donate your kidney or your bone marrow, even if someone else might die without it and i personally think its disgusting if they would force people with learning disabilities to donate, but that being said if it has happened i would be very interested to read about the cases if you would'nt mind pointing me in the right direction.

Since it refers to white blood cells im gessing the website refers to donating for some one with cancer where there is a chance of relapse, thats different to the conditions that were being discused.

Im not sure where on the internet you would find them, i got informed about it in a training sesion in work, I think you might find them if you search in google

 

[xemmax]

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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

i've never heard of the high court forcing organ donation on people without the capacity to consent. can you provide a source which explains it in more detail? i find it very hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

 

[indy and lara]

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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

i've never heard of the high court forcing organ donation on people without the capacity to consent. can you provide a source which explains it in more detail? i find it very hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

I find this really disturbing too. When I was pg with Emma a child in my class had suspected slapped cheek. I had a high risk pg and was pulled out of class. The only way it could be confirmed was if the child had a blood test and his doctor would not give permission for this as it was not in the interest of the child. If a blood test can be refused I find it horrifying that adults who are not able to understand are used as donors.

 

[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.

i am well aware that you have IVF to ensure that the child is a match, i am also well aware that not all treatments are effective first time round, for example there is no guarantee that a bone marrow transplant will take the first time, so how many times do you make the child donate if it dosen't work the first or even second time?

and as for waiting until the child is 16, i personally don't believe that parents should have the power to force a child to undergo painful medical procedures when it has no medical benefit for them. no adult can be forced to donate anything from their body that they don't want to, it would be a violation of their human rights, so i don't see how it is ethical to force a child to donate.

its sad and its a difficult decision, but i don't believe that the rights of the first child out weight the rights of the second child, and the rights of the second child need to be protected.

With things like bone marrow transplants if they dont work first time they arent going to work at all so you wouldent keep doing it. And as for adults being forced they can and do, especialy when that person as some form of learning disability. They have been cases in the past that have gone to the high court where a family member is sick and the adult with a learning disability is a match and they judge has rules that the person will be donate a kindey or whatever even if they dont have the capacity to consent or understand what will happen because it is in their "best intrest"

i've never heard of the high court forcing organ donation on people without the capacity to consent. can you provide a source which explains it in more detail? i find it very hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

So your basically calling me a liar lol If you dont belive me thats fine. Im not sure where on the internet it would be as we were informed about it in a training session in work. (I work with adults with learning disabilitys)

ETA, cases like this are not usualy made public but get filterd down to staff in the "industry"