« Crosses back at Iona | Main | In Contempt »
May 05, 2004
Making Babies
Designed to provide stem cells for their siblings
In a growing practice that troubles some ethicists, a Chicago laboratory helped create five healthy babies to serve as stem-cell donors for their ailing brothers and sisters.The made-to-order infants, from different families, were screened when they were embryos to make sure they would be compatible donors. Their siblings suffered from leukemia or a rare, potentially lethal anemia.
This is the first time embryo tissue-typing has been done for common disorders like leukemia that are not inherited. The results suggest that more children than previously thought could benefit from the technology, said Dr. Anver Kuliev, a Chicago doctor who participated in the research.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834570ed169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Making Babies:
» Saving Lives? Yes, but What Else? from Dust in the Light
Frankly, I'm not optimistic that our society can mature quickly enough, and bolster its ethical demands enough, to counter or even significantly mitigate the emotion-drenched choices that technology will allow: In a growing practice that troubles some ... [Read More]
Tracked on May 7, 2004 9:30:57 AM
Comments
I sometimes shudder to think how this type of technology is going to have unintended consequences that we can't yet think of. Although not a scientific advance, look at the consequences of the sexual revolution and birth control.... rampant abortion, AIDS, divorce, etc. Every time we stray from the culture of life there are horrible consequences. I can't imagine what will come down the pike because of this.
Posted by: Kathleen at May 5, 2004 7:30:57 AM
It's not just aborting the ones that don't match.
Sibling rivalry, in its more intense manifestations, is hard enough psychologically. To be created as an "it," a medical-supply machine for a sick brother or sister already soaking up parents' attention, is a developmental nightmare. The reason the law permits parents to make medical decisions for a child is its assumptions that they have his best interests at heart. In the case of this "second" one, by definition they don't.
This makes me think of God and humans and the necessary gift of free will. To give generously to our fellow man is beautiful. To be forced to "give" or to "love" in this invasive way sets up a hideous and toxic family agenda. A particularly subtle child abuse.
I pray for these "designed" children, that they will find God's love to heal the results of this horrible family structure.
Posted by: bc at May 5, 2004 7:58:18 AM
I heard this story on NPR last night, presented in the most matter-of-fact manner. Within my memory the notion of creating children in the laboratory for the sake of their spare parts would have been found only in the most horrific visions of the future depicted in science fiction. But now it is supposed to represent compassion. The world's virtues are more dangerous than its vices.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at May 5, 2004 8:39:35 AM
You said it well, Henry. Every few weeks, it seems, I read or hear a matter-of-fact report about "advances" in fetal stem cell research, "therapeutic" cloning, etc. that make my skin crawl. Truly, if something CAN be done (regardless of whether it should be) SOMEONE will find a way to do it.
What is it they say about the banality of evil? And this is the world my kids are growing up in...
Posted by: Cheryl at May 5, 2004 9:58:47 AM
Are they killing these children, or do they get to live?
Why can they not use autosomal stem cells from the sick child? There is even less risk of rejection with that than with stem cells from close relatives.
Posted by: Puzzled at May 5, 2004 10:03:07 AM
We are growing human beings for parts.
How long till we find a way to sell them for scrap?
I tremble for my society.
Posted by: Pro-life liberal at May 5, 2004 8:01:47 PM
p.s.
Is there any question, that had the technology developed more rapidly, and our society progressed a bit less so, that we would harvest tissue from the living human beings we could legally own? from our slaves?
I am an organ donor.
I don't mean I have a little writing on my license indicating my future willingness, I mean I gave a stranger one of my kidneys a couple years ago.
The screening they do for "altruistic" donors is pretty extensive (to make sure they are not either crazy, or illegally selling their organs, etc.,) but the doctor who did my psychological evaluation told me that the process is, if anything, more rigorous for a related donor.
It is, it seems, horribly common that a reluctant blood relative is coerced by the family into donating marrow (very painful,) kidneys, etc.
I guess these doctors don't worry about little children being put through painful medical procedures -- it's not like they are "persons" with rights of their own, right? I mean, they weren't a few months earlier. were they? Their parents could have had them killed and just harvested all the parts they wanted, right?
Whe difference does a few weeks one side or the other of birth make?
Hell, until they can talk, why worry about what they want, or what's right for them?
They're just chattel.
Calling Dr. Peter Singer....
Posted by: Pro-life Liberal at May 5, 2004 8:18:01 PM
Kathleen,
Here's one next-step: just change the recipient from a sibling to a parent.
Posted by: Justin Katz at May 5, 2004 8:31:14 PM
What is going unsaid is how, in the public discussion (as it were) of cloning, "reproductive" cloning is viewed as worse than "therapeutic" cloning.
Both are horrors. But therapeutic cloning of a new person is even worse because that person is only being used to serve another, and not even given his or her innate right to life.
Posted by: Liam at May 5, 2004 9:02:35 PM
