Breeding children for spare parts??!!

Storyline of a new movie starring Cameron Diaz....

A couple has a child who ends up with childhood leukemia. The parents do all they can to find a treatment, as you would if your child was potentially going to die. They decide to have a second child (via invitro fertilisation) specifically chosen to be an exact genetic match for their sick child. The second baby's cord is used to help the older sick child, and throughout her childhood this second child shares bone marrow, blood, cells, etc that her older sibling needs. The second child was basically 'created' for this purpose....and she is in and out of hospital as much as her sick sibling.

Apparently in the movie, when the 2nd child reaches 13 her sick sister needs one of her kidneys...but she decides to sue her parents for the rights to her own body.

Just curious as to everyone's thoughts about this kind of stuff.

I've seen this story portrayed a few times over the years in Hollywood. Various tv shows and the like.

I think it's hard to judge. It doesn't feel right to me, but I have never been in that situation.

I want to see this movie. I was told I would cry through the whole thing. Based on what you have said, I don't think it's a wise decision.

Iv read a story about this. Basicly I think in their aspects that the child when she is a teenager has her own right to her body but now Im thinking, hey when the childs 20 they can decide to take the matter to court and fight against it. Dont want to see the movie but something about the story makes me think, the child has a right to decide whether they share a kidney or not, same with cord blood. They are 13 but they still have a right to decide whether or not they can share their body parts. I think that is the right descision in the adult and the childs case ... let it be as the girl wants it to be

HazelAngel

__________________
(Note from Hazel's Mum ~ Hazel wants to be involved with people but often struggles because she is Autistic. Please be understanding if she writes or says unusual things. Feel free to remind her or point out if she oversteps social boundaries as this helps her learn. Her heart is genuine and she will never mean any offence.)

This situation sounds pretty unlikely but not entirely implausible. Personally I think it would be morally wrong to bring a child into the world merely to provide the right genetic material so another could be saved. The reason this is wrong in my view is the child is not being 'created' as a person for their own worth, but is made, like an object, to satisfy some need, in this case to supply genetic material. It is, as Kant put it, 'making a person a means, not an end.' If the supply of the genetic material was the sole or primary purpose for making the child, I think it would be wrong. It would at the least, make the child ask some difficult questions when they grew up, and how would the child feel, knowing it was brought into being to be a donor? Saving a life is a good thing, but do the ends justify the means?

On the other hand, if the child came into being and was suitable, I don't think it would be wrong to obtain genetic material from the child to save the life of a sibling. Just so long as the reason for conceiving the child is not only to just be a source of suitable genetic material.

seems kinda sick on its face... plus there's yin and yang you know; whatever they hope to gain they will lose somewhere else... any relief they will provide for one girl will be compensated for by pain they create in another...

__________________