You're Not Just His Baby Brother; You're His Body Farm
Richard P. Grant blogs at The-Scientist.com about a mother who had IVF to give birth to a baby to be used as a marrow donor for her 11-year-old with leukemia:
The mother went through standard IVF, and ten fertilized embryos were cultured and biopsied three days after insemination-at the 8-cell stage. The embryos were genotyped using nested PCR of of HLA-DRB1 alleles. Then,Two embryos identified to be HLA identical to the patient were transferred 6 days after fertilization to the mother's uterus and one singleton full-term pregnancy resulted in the birth of one healthy male sibling.-from Goussetis et al., 2011
As Stefan (Bielack) says, this is not the first example of preimplantation genetic diagnostics used to select donors for transplants. And of course, we're not (quite) at the level of cloning humans. But it does focus attention on the ethics of breeding humans as organ donors. Stefan has a number of questions: is it acceptable to expose putative donors to the extra risks associated with IVF? What psychological consequences arise when a donor learns that his reason for existence as a spare parts depot? Will the designated donor be called upon to sacrifice a part of their body if the recipient requires a solid organ donation?
But wouldn't they have to wait until the kid was 18 to consent? By then, the older brother might already be dead.
NicoleK at July 6, 2011 8:57 AM
I understand the desperation of wanting to save one's child, but this is really creepy.
ahw at July 6, 2011 9:07 AM
Isn't this sorta what "My Sisters Keeper" was about?
Sabrina at July 6, 2011 9:15 AM
If you could create a human like organism that only had a brain stem to control the autonomic systems, with no way of becoming conscious, that seems all right to me. But a sentient being?
Ick.
Steve Daniels at July 6, 2011 9:18 AM
Parents have been doing similar things since the late 80s. Typically, the odds of a marrow match is about one in four for a sibling (IIRC, may be wrong). There was a famous case of a couple reversing a vasectomy to try and conceive a donor for their daughter - which worked. However, I don't think they used IVF or preimplantation diagnosis. It's been discussed in Time magazine (preimplantation screening used to determine who would be the best person to help treat their other child's kidney disease).
CSI, Jodi Picault, and the lifetime show Strong Medicine all dealt with the ethics of this, but in the context of kidney donation (sibling conceived to be a bone marrow donor, ended up being expected to be a kidney donor as well).
As with ahw, I understand the desperation, and I can't say I'd do differently, but there are ethical implications. It's basically telling a child from birth that their main function in the family is as a spare part for their original wanted child. It's one of those family secrets that can't really be kept, so the kid is going to know, and probably young. I wonder about the effect it has on the kids.
Janie4 at July 6, 2011 9:19 AM
It is purely unethical to do this on the part of the parent [prolly the doc too] That person that they made has their own free will and should be secure in their own existance. IFF they were old enough to consent, as often happens in families, then fine, but producing them specifically for this act? So what would be the potential that this new person could have the same disease for which they were made? would you bring another person to this world in misery?
You cannot save one person by damning another against their will. Any parent that would do this is blind to the ramifications. Sacrificing self for another is noble, sacrificing someone else, even if it doesn't hurt them much is a crime.
SwissArmyD at July 6, 2011 9:45 AM
But wouldn't they have to wait until the kid was 18 to consent?
No. The parents could consent on behalf of the child. QEF'n'D
Also, I came across this from Wikipedia tantalizing quote: In newborns, stem cells may be retrieved from the umbilical cord.
As for the kid in question and how he'll feel about his "spare parts" designation, it comes down to either spare parts or not at all.
I can only speak for myself, but I'll opt for existence over not at all, even if I'm designated as spare parts. And it isn't like I won't be able to regrow bone marrow. Especially if they don't take any if they take the stem cells from the umbilical cord.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 6, 2011 9:51 AM
Parents used to try the old fashioned way. I think the odds of a match were about 25%? I find it hideous. One of the many reasons I am not an IVF fan. It encourages the "child as consumer good" mindset.
And no, I don't think all "natural" parents are good ones.
momof4 at July 6, 2011 10:40 AM
This is going to make for some tense holiday gatherings in the future.
Assuming they don't slaughter the younger sibling to harvest organs for the elder child, of course.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 6, 2011 11:15 AM
The sad part of this story us that this entire situation may have been avoidable if more people would register to be bone marrow donors. Yes, the actual donation process means some side effects for a few days, but these are generally mild. This is such a huge gift, and it's one we can give while we're alive and well. If more people would just take the time to get tested and register with the National Marrow Donor Program, parents may not find themselves faced with horrible choices like this.
As for the baby's reason for existing, how many people are aware that the only reason their parents got married was because of their impending birth? I know a few. Or how about the families where the youngest kid is 12 years younger than their closest sibling and quite obviously an "accident"?
UW Girl at July 6, 2011 1:17 PM
Depends upon how the child learns of it and is treated.
A parent that goes to such lengths to save their child's life is, at a guess, probably very good at parenting a child in the first place. A little one that grows up learning that they had saved their elder siblings life is not likely to feel bad about it. Especially if they love their elder sibling and their parents.
Maybe they'd wish they had been planned for other reasons, but come on now, the reason they exist will not likely matter more than how they're treated as they grow up.
Robert at July 6, 2011 2:40 PM
Ever read any of Lois Bujold's Vorkosigan novels? I think it started in 'The Warrior's Apprentice', talking about a system called Jackson's Whole where the big industry was genetic engineering; including(if you have the money)growing you a new body to replace yours. Slight problem: when the clone was of sufficient age, they just removed its brain to transplant yours in.
Over time, some things are starting to get nasty close...
Firehand at July 6, 2011 4:26 PM
Let's imagine, for a moment, that the selling of blood and tissue was completely legal. There's no way we would ever allow a parent to sell their child's bone marrow or kidney or a lobe of a liver or lung. Why should we allow as a "donation" what we we would never allow as a commercial transaction?
It's plainly unethical. The donor does not have the capacity to consent to the procedure. No doctor should do this.
Tyler at July 6, 2011 4:55 PM
I would do it in a minute to save one of my children. And being the positive thinker that I am...I would tell the child how important his/her existance is and how he/she has already done amazing things in such a short time. If I found out I was put into existance ot save a sibling, I would be proud! And with my personality, I'd jokingly hang it over my siblings head for life...aye bro...can I get $20 from ya? You kinda owe me, ya know! There's more than one way to look at this...I don't think a family member would feel victimized...there is this thing called love and all, which is at the core of a decision like this.
kg at July 6, 2011 5:20 PM
"Isn't this sorta what "My Sisters Keeper" was about?"
You beat me to it.
And, I totally second what Tyler said. It's just wrong. I feel sorry for the kid already.
Daghain at July 6, 2011 5:22 PM
This was the subject of the Michael bay sci-fi action movie "The Island," where people paid big money for clones of themselves to be created for harvesting organs when they needed it, with the clones clueless about their fates until called upon.
Richard at July 6, 2011 9:52 PM
Didn't one of the characters in Drop Dead Gorgeous casually shrugged that her parents had her so she could give her brother a kidney?
Bill at July 6, 2011 10:32 PM
Eh. People have kids for all kinds of reasons, and largely for some kind of self-gratification. That's no better or worse than having a kid to save another kid's life, and I agree that whether this is damaging depends on how it's handled.
MonicaP at July 7, 2011 6:31 AM
This was also the topic of a pretty good novel by Kazuo Ishiguro called "Never Let Me Go". Raising children whose sole purpose is to eventually supply organs to a designated person they didn't even know.
Jill at July 7, 2011 11:06 AM
There's a big difference between donating marrow and donating a kidney: your body can make more marrow.
Now, if the parents were going to have a baby, take some of his marrow and leave him on a hillside, I'd be against it. But if they'll the child and spend the resources raising him, why not?
Lori at July 8, 2011 6:40 PM
Are there any news on this already?
Cuc Rempe at August 15, 2011 2:56 AM
Leave a comment