Should Parents have a Another Child to Save the Life of Another Child Research Paper

Should Parents have a Another Child to Save the Life of Another Child - Research paper ExampleLong term repercussions have not been determined as of yet because most of the barbarianren born are st tribulation underage. Society may not disclose the negative effects that this process can have on the child until several more than years from now, when the child is an adult. As a child, he or she has no choice to donate or not, it is up to the parents. It is definitely heart wrenching to see your child die a little more each day, but parents and society must learn the effects that having another child to save the sick one impart have. The opposition is just as outspoken. If a childs life can be saved, then anything should be done to save it. The opposition has appealing concepts and qualities. No one wants to see a child die, especially the parents of that child. Everything that can be done should be done. Keeping that humane value in mind, during 2002 the Human Fertilization and Em bryology Authority (HFEA) in England laid the basis for an outrageous debate not only in media, but in the ethical circles too, when they allowed a family to have a baby that will be genetically selected to cure the chronical disease of its sibling. A group of medical and scientific researchers fully supported the idea to have a baby as a savior for its sibling. It is ethically acceptable to create an offspring to save the life of a desperately ill sibling. ... al., as cited in Pentz, R., et. al., 2008). They also fight that life is a precious thing and it is obligatory for us to save each and every life when we can do it with available technologies in twenty-first century. It is better than seeing a child dying with Fanconi anemia. It is heart rendering as a human to see people losing strings to life with peeling mucous membranes, sloughing skin and mouths with pouring bloods. No question, whatever it takes but lives should be saved (Belkin, 2001). Aulisio, May and Block (2001) indicate that as a matter of social policy there is no justificatory ground for prohibiting parents from having a child to save a child. They see it quite ethical if a child is brought into existence for specific reasons. Whatever happens next to the donor child is the area of main concern while rest lies with the decision of donation that is taken both by the donor or parents. If the minor donor is involved and is not able to take decision then the donation should be done in the best interest of the donor. For me, infact the idea to create a child as a donor for bone marrow transplant for curing a medically vulnerable sibling, seem awful to all acceptable ethical standards. This is a fact that lot of children born, are from unplanned pregnancies and after the initial shock of the parents, tempestuousness ensues. The baby is born and the parents are happy, proud, and full of love and hopes for the future. Other children are planned and parents experience the same feelings. What ha ppens when that child that is so loved and nurtured becomes so ill that he or she needs a bone marrow transplant in order to survive?