This essay will evaluate the moral principles which are engaged in the creation of compatible sibling donors specifically for providing treatment to existing children. I will explain why using reproductive technology as a means to this end has no ethical standing. In order to achieve this, I will use deontological moral theories to defend the medico-legal principle of personal autonomy, and to rebut that of procreative autonomy. Compatible sibling donors, hereafter noted as ‘saviour siblings’, not only lack legal definition, but also cause a deep divide between members of Parliament and the Courts.
This is because the concept of them causes a struggle between two substantial principles: procreative autonomy and personal autonomy. I will argue throughout this essay that while there is no doubt that the creation of saviour siblings can bring about a positive end result by helping existing sick children, this utilitarian argument cannot trump the serious ethical issues which simultaneously arise.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Procreative Autonomy vs Personal Autonomy
3. The Principle of Beneficence: A Utilitarian Argument
4. The Welfare Principle: Commodification of Saviour Siblings
5. The Principle of Autonomy: A Deontological Approach
6. Relational Approach - A Collective Interest?
7. Physical and Psychological Harm Suffered by Saviour Siblings
8. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay evaluates the ethical and moral principles surrounding the creation of "saviour siblings"—children conceived via reproductive technology specifically to act as compatible donors for existing, ill children. The research questions whether the utilitarian benefits of saving an existing life can ethically justify the potential infringement on the autonomy and bodily integrity of the new child.
- The conflict between procreative autonomy and individual personal autonomy.
- The application of utilitarianism versus deontological ethics in reproductive decision-making.
- The moral risks of commodifying children through preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
- The psychological impact and long-term consequences for children created as donors.
Excerpt from the Book
The Principle of Beneficence: A Utilitarian Argument
Beauchamp and Childress introduced what they believed to be the four main principles in medical ethics as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice. The principle of beneficence refers to a series of positive actions intended for the purpose of benefiting others. It therefore reinforces a strong utilitarian argument, like that presented by John Stuart Mill: ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness’. If we quantify the proportion of happiness caused by saviour siblings, we can arguably reach a pleasant conclusion.
Burns argues that the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis technology along with HLA tissue typing brings about more than one ‘good’ ending: a new healthy child is created, who otherwise could not have existed, guaranteed to be free from the genetic disease which burden their sibling. In addition, the use of these reproductive technology methods have led to new treatments being available for the older ill child, by way of sibling tissue and stem cell donation. Therefore, the creation and use of saviour siblings can almost be seen as hitting two birds with one stone; saving an existing child and bringing another into the world.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the moral conflict regarding the creation of saviour siblings and posits that utilitarian arguments do not sufficiently address the ethical issues involved.
2. Procreative Autonomy vs Personal Autonomy: Examines the tension between a parent's right to reproduce as they choose and the duty to protect the welfare and autonomy of the child to be born.
3. The Principle of Beneficence: A Utilitarian Argument: Discusses how proponents use utilitarianism to argue that saviour siblings provide a "greater good" by saving sick children.
4. The Welfare Principle: Commodification of Saviour Siblings: Argues that treating children as instruments for donation constitutes a form of commodification that violates their intrinsic value.
5. The Principle of Autonomy: A Deontological Approach: Applies Kantian ethics to argue that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end.
6. Relational Approach - A Collective Interest?: Critically analyzes the proposal to prioritize family interest over individual rights in medical decision-making.
7. Physical and Psychological Harm Suffered by Saviour Siblings: Details the potential physical risks and long-term psychological burdens placed on children created for donation purposes.
8. Conclusion: Summarizes the argument that the ethical shortcomings of using reproductive technology for this purpose outweigh the potential utilitarian benefits.
Keywords
Saviour siblings, reproductive technology, medical ethics, procreative autonomy, personal autonomy, beneficence, deontological approach, utilitarianism, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, HLA tissue typing, bodily integrity, commodification, welfare principle, informed consent, psychological harm.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental ethical problem discussed in this essay?
The essay explores the moral legitimacy of creating "saviour siblings"—children specifically conceived to provide genetic material or organ donations to an existing, terminally ill sibling.
What are the primary theoretical frameworks used to analyze this issue?
The author contrasts utilitarian approaches (which focus on the positive consequences of saving a life) with deontological theories (which focus on moral duties and the intrinsic value of human beings).
What is the core argument regarding procreative autonomy?
The author argues that while reproductive freedom is a right, it is not absolute and must be balanced against the welfare and autonomy of the child being brought into existence.
How does the author utilize Kantian philosophy?
The author employs Kant's "Categorical Imperative," arguing that using a child as a donor treats that human being as a "means to an end" rather than an "end in themselves," which is morally impermissible.
What does the "relational approach" suggest?
The relational approach suggests that we should view the interests of the family unit collectively rather than individualistically, a view the author critiques for potentially sacrificing the child's rights for the "greater good."
What are the main risks identified for saviour siblings?
Risks include physical trauma from medical procedures, the psychological burden of knowing one was created for a specific donor role, and feelings of guilt or anger if the donation does not result in a cure.
How does the author address the "sanctity of life" argument?
The author acknowledges the view that life is a gift, but emphasizes that being created with the secondary purpose of acting as a donor fundamentally changes the nature of that life, potentially leading to exploitation.
What is the author's final conclusion?
The author concludes that despite the idealistic goal of saving a sick child, the ethical violations of autonomy and the commodification of the child make the creation of saviour siblings morally unacceptable.
- Quote paper
- Sara Vincenzotti (Author), 2020, An Ethico-Legal Evaluation of the Moral Principles Involved in the use of Reproductive Technologies in the Creation of Saviour Siblings, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/903671
