Not only do you save your child's life, but you bring another baby into the world.

Hell, I think if I pulled this off, I might knock up my wife again as a sort of endzone celebration.

Does the savior sibling get to choose to be a savior? No one should be forced to donate any of their organs/tissue against their will. And let's face it, a baby's or very small child's will is impossible to reasonably determine. Essentially you are bringing a child into the world for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and unnecessary procedures on them. Yes, very pro-life indeed.

Instead, there are two better options:

In the short term, the government needs to implement a better public education campaign on organ and tissue donation. Maybe spend less on those ridiculous anti-drug ads that do nothing. Increasing the number of able-bodied adults willing to donate is better than forcing siblings to donate.

In the long term, the growth of tissue and organs in the lab is a much more ethical option. There have been great strides made in this area, but research is hampered by politics. We need to put policies in place that help the researchers in this area to receive the funds and freedom to do their jobs.

Because for some reason, even though we have kids to keep marriages together, or make us happy, or give us someone who won't leave us, or provide a means to continue our family names, or make our parents happy, or find a mini-me that loves and adore us-- having a child to use for "tissue donation" seems clinical and icky. In fact, I hate the term "tissue donation". It sounds like something Pentagon would have come up with to describe combat wounds.

fwiw

guaca.

You should read My Sister's Keeper. It is heart wrenching and accurately shows both sides of the issue. Mostly is takes in to consideration how the "savior child" views themselves and their place in this world, and it isn't pretty.

atanos:

Does the savior sibling get to choose to be a savior?

Parents make medical decisions for their children becuase children aren't capable of thinking everything through. If you asked a kid whether he wanted a shot, the answer would be no. So I do not see why it is perfectly find to not give children a choice in all these other cases, but then claim they should have a choice in this.

atanos:

Essentially you are bringing a child into the world for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and unnecessary procedures on them.

How hysterical. You can't claim that it is the "sole" reason the parents have brought the child into the world. It's never that simple. For instance, they may have planned on other children prior to finding out the medical condition of the first child. Even if they didn't, the parents aren't going to simply throw away the child after the procedure is done. They're going to raise both children. Stating that they're only bringing it into the world to "inflict pain" ingores the fact that there is a specific reason for "inflicting pain". Another issue is that you've arbitarily decided which procedures are necessary or unnessary based on your personal preference. There isn't one right answer in this case.

atanos:

In the short term, the government needs to implement a better public education campaign on organ and tissue donation.

Which would be small comfort to the parents of a child waiting on the donor list. I agree that people should be encouraged to donate more, but this won't help those who are sick now or those who have a really rare blood type.

atanos:

In the long term, the growth of tissue and organs in the lab is a much more ethical option.

I agree. However, that won't be any comfort to parents whose children are dying now.

PhysicsGirl:

Parents make medical decisions for their children becuase children aren't capable of thinking everything through. If you asked a kid whether he wanted a shot, the answer would be no. So I do not see why it is perfectly find to not give children a choice in all these other cases, but then claim they should have a choice in this.

Yes, parents make medical decisions for their children, but those are for the child's benefit. The parent is usually acting in the best interest of the child receiving the treatment.

PhysicsGirl:

How hysterical. You can't claim that it is the "sole" reason the parents have brought the child into the world. It's never that simple. For instance, they may have planned on other children prior to finding out the medical condition of the first child. Even if they didn't, the parents aren't going to simply throw away the child after the procedure is done.

It may not be the "sole" reason, but it certainly is the primary one, or they wouldn't be going through so much trouble to sort out incompatible embryos. And of course they aren't going to throw the child out, because legally they can't.

PhysicsGirl:

Stating that they're only bringing it into the world to "inflict pain" ingores the fact that there is a specific reason for "inflicting pain". Another issue is that you've arbitarily decided which procedures are necessary or unnessary based on your personal preference. There isn't one right answer in this case.

They are being brought into the world to suffer pain for unnecessary procedures. It's not my preference. They are unnecessary for the health of the child. They are specifically being done for the benefit of someone else. Where exactly is the line drawn? What if the parent needs the donor tissue/organs? Is it OK then to bring a life into the world for your own spare parts?

I'm having a third kid just so I can spike the ball (metaphorically)!

My post was really not meant to be totally serious. I just didn't get how the pro-life people couldn't possibly like...more babies! Yay, babies!

I, personally, don't like babies. But if you're going to start cranking 'em out, you might as well make them do something useful, you know?

Like I said to atanos above, why not put your kids to work a little? I mean, you think it's tough being a baby, toddler, teenager now, go back 50,000 years! If you didn't die by starvation or some horrible infection you couldn't possibly understand, you were fighting off monkeys with one hand while eating rotten fruit and wiping your arse with a palm frond.

Now, I'm not advocating child abuse or neglect. I'm just saying if those little buggers weren't tougher than we give them credit for being, none of us would be having this discussion!