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

[bobsiesgal]

ok, so from a quick bit of research i've found that bone marrow transplants can be used to treat the following:

* Chronic myeloid leukaemia
* Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia
* Acute leukaemia
* Myelodysplasia
* Myeloproliferative disease
* Multiple myeloma
* Hodgkin lymphoma (disease)
* Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
* Severe aplastic anaemia
* Renal cell carcinoma
* Paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria
* Immunodeficiency diseases
* Fanconi’s anaemia
* Inherited metabolic disorders
* Marrow Failure syndromes of restricted lineage
o Pure red cell aplasia (Blackfan Diamond Syndrome)
o Congenital dyserythropoietic anaemia
o Sever inherited platelet function disorder
* Thalassaemia major
* Sickle cell disease
* Osteopetrosis

i assume the disease the child in question has one of these? because again it says that you maybe asked to donate more than once if the first transplant dosen't 'take' (i'm assuming this means that i could work just didn't this time, i am no medical professional) and i can imagine that if this is the case it would be very tempting for the parents to consent to multiple procedures being done if the first ones didn't work, so where do you draw the line?

and i've had a quick google and all i'm getting is information saying that no one can legally force anyone else to donate any body part without your consent. i'll try some medical journals though and see if i have better luck there. Although i suspect it may be a case of something like this happening and then being followed by a lawsuit clarifying the right of people to their own bodies such as the legal case which followed women being forced to have c-sections (womens right won out as i'm sure you all know), but again i haven't found it yet so am just specualting.

anyway i came across this in my search and it's quite an intersting and unbiased for the most part read

Altruism By Proxy: Volunteering Children For Bone Marrow Donation Author(s): Linda Delany, Stacy Month, Julian Savulescu, Peter Browett, Stephen PalmerSource: BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, No. 7025 (Jan. 27, 1996), pp. 240-243

finally, i by no means see this as black and white (as in everyone who thinks its ok is evil or vice vera or that all cases are the same) but personally, i don't think its the right thing to do. there probably is no real harm in having a second child and using the cord blood to donate to the first, my issue comes because there are no set limits and that worries me for the second child. Because the reality is they will be under pressure from everyone around them to donate and in many cases not even given a choice, which i believe violates their rights to their own body, and while a lot of people will say that they may feel special, that is not going to be the case for everyone and its for those children i worry.

 

[lozzy21]

Their was a case just the other week of some one going to the high court to have her daughter who has learning disabiltys steralised against her will, im not sure how they ended. There was another case of the high court giving doctors permision to "use force" to treat a woman with learning disabilitys with cancer.

All because they are seen to be in the best intrest of the person. They can get away with anything if they use the best intrest clause

 

[xemmax]

lozzy i'm in no way calling you a liar, just saying that i find it incredibly hard to believe and am inclined to think there must be some misinformation out there regarding this. my mum is an approved mental health practitioner under the mental health act so she has to implement the mental capacity act within her job, and she too finds it incredibly hard to believe that it could be 'proved' to be in the best interests of a person to force them into donation. would just be very interested to see some case law to support this, that's all. i'm not calling you a liar, just questioning what you have been told.

 

[lozzy21]

Im not sure where it would be found as i dont think it was made public but the training session was carried out by a social worker and one of my managers so i have no reason to doubt them.

 

[bobsiesgal]

Yes, i read about both cases, they have yet to make a decision about the sterilization of the woman and the hearing has been rescheduled for April this year.

i don't think that these cases are entirely relevant though given that they are basing their decisions on what is in the best medical interests of each of these people and not the best interests of others, and the reason that they have to go to court to decide these things is because if it were a mentally able person involved it would be considered a violation of their human rights, which is why the case has been rescheduled, they are unsure of whether their are sufficient medical grounds to overrule her basic human right which they would only consider doing anyway due to her disability and therefore inability to make the informed choice herself.

forcing children to donate to save someone else is not in my mind on the same level as forcing life saving, or life improving treatment on someone who does not have the capacity to consent. There is no medical benefit for the child, and no proven mental benefit either especially since the child won't be old enough to have an emotional connection with the sibling.

 

[Mrs Mayhem]

Some really interesting points have been raised!

Though I have to say, that you can't use the law of 'best interests' to force someone to donate. Those who are classed as not having the capacity to consent to donation cannot ever be considered as being viable for donation. This is different to people going to the high court for sterilisation etc. It would never be in someone's best interests to donate an organ/bone marrow etc if they lack capacity, they would never be able to understand the life long effects which something like organ donation could have.

 

[lozzy21]

Some really interesting points have been raised!

Though I have to say, that you can't use the law of 'best interests' to force someone to donate. Those who are classed as not having the capacity to consent to donation cannot ever be considered as being viable for donation. This is different to people going to the high court for sterilisation etc. It would never be in someone's best interests to donate an organ/bone marrow etc if they lack capacity, they would never be able to understand the life long effects which something like organ donation could have.

But they did. They said because loosing her sister would have had such an affect on her life as they were realy close and the care her mother would be able to give would have been affected that it was in her best intrest for her emotional wellbeing to donate.

 

[Jox]

its such a tough subject. a position none of us ever want to be in.

Im definitely pulled towards it being wrong but i know the heart ache of losing a child and not sure i could go thru it again, so who knows what i would actually do in that situation. i genuinely believe i wouldnt have another child just to create a donor tho... but again, im not in that situation.

change of subject but regarding the mums wanting to have their daughters sterilized. it was on this morning. one mother wanted it doing because her severly disabled daughter suffered alot each months as she had her period, emotions, hormones, bleeding etc.... fair enough. BUT..

The other was because her daughter had had 2 kids and was pregnant with the 3rd and she was left looking after her grandkids because her daughter isnt capable.... WHY/HOW IS SHE HAVING SEX (AND WITH WHO) IS SHE IS INCAPABLE OF LOOKING AFTER HER OWN CHILDREN?? Sorry... went off abit there.

 

[bobsiesgal]

Some really interesting points have been raised!

Though I have to say, that you can't use the law of 'best interests' to force someone to donate. Those who are classed as not having the capacity to consent to donation cannot ever be considered as being viable for donation. This is different to people going to the high court for sterilisation etc. It would never be in someone's best interests to donate an organ/bone marrow etc if they lack capacity, they would never be able to understand the life long effects which something like organ donation could have.

But they did. They said because loosing her sister would have had such an affect on her life as they were realy close and the care her mother would be able to give would have been affected that it was in her best intrest for her emotional wellbeing to donate.

i'm inclined to believe that it could and probably did happen, however that does not make it ethically right.

and Jox i know! if shes incapable of looking after her children, and so disabled that they are considering forcing sterilization on her then surely she is too disabled to consent to sex given they are implying she can't comprehend the consequences.

 

[annawrigley]

I would. It wouldn't be an ideal time for it to happen but I'm only young and only have 1 child and definitely want more in the future, so yeah I would. I am torn though cos I do agree its not fair and taking away the child's rights :/ But if I knew it could save Noah's life.... I'd have to

 

[marley2580]

Remember that there is no age of consent for a medical procedure, it's up to the doctors to decide if a child is old enough and understands enough to consent or not - that can often be as young as 8 or 9.

 

[Jess137]

When people were talking about My Sister's Keeper, if you remember, early in the book they said that they were only going to need to do one transplant from the new child, but it turned in to more. Once you have that second child you may end up in that circle of repeatedly putting the second child through more procedures. I do not have any children yet so I cannot say what I would do in that situation personally.