The Pros And Cons Of Savior Sibling

The Ethics of Savior Siblings

With scientific and technological breakthroughs come new ethical dilemmas. Stem cell research and the almost common practice of organ transplants have brought new complexity to the debate of when life begins and the sanctity of life. Among these debates, the notion of “savior siblings” has surfaced. A “‘savior sibling’ refers to a child who is able to provide a bone marrow or other hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) to their sick sibling in order to treat his/her serious genetic or malignant disease” (Strong 188). This new type of organ donation has raised a new conversation between philosophers, doctors, and lawmakers on the ethics of these procedures. As these conversations arise and countries create

In France, under the 2004 bioethics law, savior siblings are described as a double hope. The first hope is that the parents who have a genetically sick child will be able to have a healthy child through IVF. The second hope is that the new child will be able to treat the sick child (297-298). The first hope, however, should not be considered in this ethical decision. For example, with Fanconi Anemia, a disease treatable by a savior sibling, if both parents carry the gene, there is a 25% chance that the child will be born with the disease (“Fanconi Anemia”). Therefore, the chance of having a second child with the disease is very real, making a savior sibling still unethical. If the parents would not otherwise have to use IVF to have a healthy child, they are again just using the IVF to create a sibling that would match their sick

One of the proposed solutions to the ethical problem of savior siblings is that we should limit the use of them to only very “serious” and “life-threatening” cases (Smith 159). While this limits the amount of unethical savior siblings it still does not fix the problem. In fact, it worsens the problem. If a savior sibling was allowed because the sick child had a “life-threatening” illness the new child is definitely being treated unfairly. The sole purpose of that child would be to save their sibling. This definitely does not comply with either of Kant’s rules. In some cases, the sibling continues to be a donor for the majority of his life. For example, if a sick child has a bone marrow deficiency, they may need multiple bone marrow transplants throughout their life. This would really ensure that the only purpose of a new child would to be to save their sibling, so they would continue to be treated as a means at birth and throughout