The case of «saviour babies »
A recent decision by the British House of the Lords has liberated the last obstacle on the road of the creation of what one calls commonly « saviour babies ».
In the case, this is of interest for families where one of the living children presents a genetic nature deficiency, or a sickness necessitating a transplant of marrow (for example to treat a leukaemia) and where there are no genetically compatible donor.
In Belgium, the VUB ( secular Flemish University) announced the birth of the two first « saviour babies ».
In these cases, using in vitro fertilization, physicians have conceived the idea to create embryos, and then to select those that, genetically, would be the closest to the sick child, to implant it and continue a normal pregnancy. On its birth, marrow is taken from the baby to cure the sick child. These are especially families originating from the Mediterranean basin who may use this technique, because they have a higher occurrence of these types of problems.
Two techniques are used : the in vitro fertilization and the diagnosis prior to implantation. Legally, the two techniques pose few problems, in general, because they are accepted in two circumstances: firstly, infertility of the couple, secondly, a strong probability of a genetic sickness occurring in the offsprings. Here, nevertheless, the two techniques are diverted their original goal so as to be used not for the well intrinsic of the child to born - what in itself raises already ethical problems - but well for the purpose to assist an other child. The changes in legislation are that the use of IVF is reimbursed by Social Security for this use.
The question that appears then is the bioethical analysis of the situation. We know that the first duty of the physician is summarized by the Latin formula primum non nocere. In this case, we have the subordination of a being yet to be born, to its usefulness for another, that is to say, its brother or its sick sister. Indeed, this child would not see life and would not be implanted if its genetic character is not strictly compatible with the sick child...
Can one then say therefore that primum non nocere is respected as regards the « saviour babies »? A reply in two moments is required. 1° It is not nocive, to strictly speak, to the saviour babies to be given life, but the creation of life for the simple goal of curing another child is disputable. 2° It is nocive, on the other hand, to the child to the extent that its existence is all ordered to its utility for the sick child. On the other hand, the punction of marrow inflicts to the « saviour baby » useless discomfort, or risks without any benefit for himself.
From a philosophical point of view, the question becomes more delicate: how to conceive this subordination of the individual to its usefulness for another? It is here that Paul Ricoeur, the great Christian and French philosopher who is deceased this weekend, had well pointed out the danger for the « I » of subordinating the ye to its interests, instead of trying to favor its autonomy.
In this context, it is not surprising that the first saviour babies have been born in Belgium: this country, by adopting a legislation authorizing euthanasia, has already sufficiently made clear its contempt for the protection of the most vulnerable beings...
In the case, this is of interest for families where one of the living children presents a genetic nature deficiency, or a sickness necessitating a transplant of marrow (for example to treat a leukaemia) and where there are no genetically compatible donor.
In Belgium, the VUB ( secular Flemish University) announced the birth of the two first « saviour babies ».
In these cases, using in vitro fertilization, physicians have conceived the idea to create embryos, and then to select those that, genetically, would be the closest to the sick child, to implant it and continue a normal pregnancy. On its birth, marrow is taken from the baby to cure the sick child. These are especially families originating from the Mediterranean basin who may use this technique, because they have a higher occurrence of these types of problems.
Two techniques are used : the in vitro fertilization and the diagnosis prior to implantation. Legally, the two techniques pose few problems, in general, because they are accepted in two circumstances: firstly, infertility of the couple, secondly, a strong probability of a genetic sickness occurring in the offsprings. Here, nevertheless, the two techniques are diverted their original goal so as to be used not for the well intrinsic of the child to born - what in itself raises already ethical problems - but well for the purpose to assist an other child. The changes in legislation are that the use of IVF is reimbursed by Social Security for this use.
The question that appears then is the bioethical analysis of the situation. We know that the first duty of the physician is summarized by the Latin formula primum non nocere. In this case, we have the subordination of a being yet to be born, to its usefulness for another, that is to say, its brother or its sick sister. Indeed, this child would not see life and would not be implanted if its genetic character is not strictly compatible with the sick child...
Can one then say therefore that primum non nocere is respected as regards the « saviour babies »? A reply in two moments is required. 1° It is not nocive, to strictly speak, to the saviour babies to be given life, but the creation of life for the simple goal of curing another child is disputable. 2° It is nocive, on the other hand, to the child to the extent that its existence is all ordered to its utility for the sick child. On the other hand, the punction of marrow inflicts to the « saviour baby » useless discomfort, or risks without any benefit for himself.
From a philosophical point of view, the question becomes more delicate: how to conceive this subordination of the individual to its usefulness for another? It is here that Paul Ricoeur, the great Christian and French philosopher who is deceased this weekend, had well pointed out the danger for the « I » of subordinating the ye to its interests, instead of trying to favor its autonomy.
In this context, it is not surprising that the first saviour babies have been born in Belgium: this country, by adopting a legislation authorizing euthanasia, has already sufficiently made clear its contempt for the protection of the most vulnerable beings...
posted by dawnofeurope | 5:07 pm
<< Home