Should we create a life to save a life?

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is considering an application from a couple in Leeds who want to have a genetically selected test tube baby to save the life of their two-year-old son.

The baby would act as a bone marrow donor for the boy, who has a rare genetic disorder.

A bone marrow transplant from a genetically-identical sibling could spare him a lifetime of blood transfusions, or even prevent an early death.

However, opponents say that the procedure would create a designer baby produced for spare parts.

Should creating a life for the purpose of saving another be allowed?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

If it were simply a matter of selecting a particular egg and sperm for the parents, that would be one thing. However, it sounds as if this "selection" process involves the creation of an unlimited number of embryos, until a "suitable" one is found, with the "unsuitable" ones presumably being destroyed. Even then, the odds are against the "chosen" embryo surviving the whole process. This strikes me as going much too far towards the notion of killing unwanted people for me to find it at all acceptable.
T. Reynolds, USA

I think that in this particular case, the dilemma is just on an academic level. In my opinion, whether this procedure should be allowed should not be questionable at all. Those who oppose that should have a moral strength to tell this sick boy: Your life could be saved, but that simply cannot be done because of our moral questions. I can only say that I pray God that this new baby will be born healthy and that will be able to save the life of the older brother.
Ivan Skelin, Croatia

With such a situation as presented here in this distressing case, it seems so easy to say yes. If yes is said in this case, then what about the next one - just as tragic and imperative - but just that little bit towards a "spare part" baby. So say yes by all means but please let's have a clear line defined at this time - this is acceptable and this is not.
Reynard Owen, UK

I wonder how the child will feel when he or she finds a newspaper report stating "Child created to save the life of brother". The psychological implications of such a horrible act could be enough to cause the 'donor' child to commit suicide.
Steven, UK

I find it abhorrent that human life has been cheapened to this extent

John B, UK

Is creating one life to use its tissues to save another really any better than leaving the existing child to die and replacing it with another? Giving your life to save others is fine as long as you make the choice to do so. The second child in this case (assuming it is created) is having its entire fate forced upon it. I do not hold any particular religious views but still find it abhorrent that human life has been cheapened to this extent.
John B, UK

The tissue to save Zain's life will not come from the baby, but from the umbilical cord - an organ usually discarded. Maybe better use could be made of these organs in hospitals after birth, and then such heartrending decisions may not be necessary in the future. Those of you who believe it to be morally wrong - would you have put forward your own child's placenta and cord to be used? Maybe this is another good reason for an 'opt-out' organ register, rather than an 'opt-in' one.

The tissue to save Zain's life will not come from the baby, but from the umbilical cord

Catherine Cox, UK

I was completely overwhelmed with the feeling that I would do anything for my son the minute he was born, and although I hope I am never faced with a similar dilemma, I would at least know that I would love a second child just as much. IVF is not a pleasant or comfortable experience - it involves injections and procedures that are not performed under anaesthetic. Even after all that it is not guaranteed to work. Zain's parents are at least willing to try for the sake of their son.
Catherine Cox, UK

Life is sacred, yes. I believe that this is a solution purely as a last option, but it must be monitored by the social services. This child's life (should it be allowed) must be on an equal footing. Bone marrow may be taken, but only once and no more without the child's own consent.
Graham, UK

I agree that having a child to save the life of another is the right thing to do. It has long been claimed that one of the most noble acts is to give life to save another. These parents are only helping to bring the process forward.
Shaun, Teignmouth, UK

Shaun from Teignmouth says 'It has long been claimed that one of the most noble acts is to give life to save another'. Surely this is only if the life is your own, not somebody else's.
Simon Gathern, UK

If a child needs a bone marrow donor and no one else is able/willing to do this then why not bring a human into the world that can. As long as the parents will love it then that's OK.
Rachael Walker, England

A child should be wanted for its own sake

David Hazel, UK

For how long will this genetically selected baby be used as a source of bone marrow for its brother? If it is just a case of taking cells from the umbilical cord, I would have little problem, although I am slightly uneasy at the manipulation of its genes for this purpose.

However, if this baby is to be permanently co-opted into being a donor, then this is worse than being born into slavery. If a child is being planned, it should be wanted for its own sake, not for the convenience of others, even if part of the reason is to try to save another child's life. You cannot trade one child's life for another.
David Hazel, UK

God created Eve using part of Adam, and that was the beginning of life. This procedure could be the beginning of the end of disease. To say "yes" is a step forward in the evolution of man
Stewart, England

To refer to "spare parts" in this context is the most disgusting emotional blackmail. Unfortunately, only too typical of the anti-abortion / religious-bigotry alliance. My message to the parents is that these arguments are morally destitute. Having your second child gives hope for all your family. Make your decision and good luck and love to you all.
Andrew, UK

This really is nobody's business but the parents'

Paul C, Scotland

No surprise to see the moral-minority, led by the so-called pro-life movement, attempting to get some cheap publicity on this. Like so many things in this world, this really is nobody's business but that of those directly involved. I sympathise greatly with them, and their ailing child, because of this unnecessary furore. Leave them in peace, allow them to come to a decision which is good for their family, and let's get on with our own lives without sticking our noses into what does not concern us.
Paul C, Scotland

The creation of a test tube baby is not the creation of life by humankind; the life still comes from powers inexplicable to us. If there is no danger for the new baby throughout the process, I would support the parents' decision.
TJ, USA

I feel that if a second child is created to save the life of his brother, he will end up having emotional problems as he gets older: "I was not wanted, just made so mum and dad would have spare parts." Maybe the child would feel less important to the parents. And how would it affect a new child if he or she couldn't help? I know lots of children are brought into the world with worse emotional problems, but we must try. They do not ask for the baggage they're given at birth!
Becky, Washington

Designer babies are the stuff of science fiction and an irresponsible media

Zoe, London, UK

People have very odd objections and a low understanding of the science involved. Designer babies are the stuff of science fiction and an irresponsible media. The parents' decision to have another child is something that will come about by perfectly natural means, and maybe they would have had another child anyway. I can only hope that they are provided with counselling and support so that they are prepared to take on the responsibility and love the other child they are bringing into the world. Nothing unnatural is taking place here, unless any medical interference or healing is considered unnatural.
Zoe, London, UK

At least in this case the child will be wanted. As for any "moral" argument, what are morals anyway? A few years ago homosexuality was a criminal offence, unmarried mothers were sent to mental institutions, etc. No doubt in few years time all will change again.
Barry P, England

Jesus Christ himself was a human life created to save the lives of many others. The issue here is that for humans to create a particular life with the right genes they must firstly kill off many other lives that don't have the correct genetic information - that is where the problem lies in this type of science.
Pauline, London

We should not "play God" and create a life to use as spare parts

Michael L Littleton, Montana, USA

In reply to Pauline. I accept the fact that Jesus was put on earth to save us all. He was also put here by God. We should not "play God" and create a life to use as spare parts for another. The emotional scarring for the child ceated will be too much to bear as he or she grows older. Just knowing you were created to be used as spare parts for a sibling could be really hard to live with. On the positive side, there is a possibility that both children will grow up in a loving atmosphere and become extremely close to one another. It is just the idea itself that is morally wrong. Creating a life to be used as spare parts, it is just wrong. Place more faith in God, he will deliver!
Michael L Littleton, Montana, USA

What is the problem? People who oppose this are a bit selfish. Whatever way we create a life shouldn't matter. We don't live in the middle ages anymore.
Volker, England (ex-Germany)

Creating a life to save another is completely out of the question

Bob, UK

I feel sorry for the parents but at the same time, creating another life to save another is completely out of the question. The poor baby would be subjected to operations at such an early period of its life that he/she could be left traumatised or even worse, dead. I doubt the parents of the sick child would permit such an operation to be carried out on their own offspring to save another.
Bob, UK

Yes. And the icing on the cake is if both the lives could be saved. Eventually this is what this research will lead to. Finally there will be no need for creating a whole life at all. The organs and other tissues will just as easily be cloned. However to reach that stage one has to start somewhere.
Nilay K. Roy, USA

For thousands of years man has asked himself, 'Why am I here?' Now one lucky child will have an answer.
Chris, UK

This is a very dangerous precedent. How far into the abyss is it from 'selecting' a baby to be a bone marrow donor to 'selecting' one for (say) a kidney donor to save the life of a sibling. It is then only a small ethical step to create a baby purely for their spare parts benefit. Procreation is all about adding often unexpecte diversity into our gene pool - what diversity is being added here. Also I think that these parents believe that they have the 'right' to have a child. Children are not a right, they are a reponsibility.
James Tandy, UK

What happens if this doesn't work and the child dies anyway? Or if the procedure fails and the new baby is born with the same condition? What would happen then - yet another baby? Can doctors guarantee success? That's not to say that I'm necessarily against this. Babies are born for a wide variety of reasons, not just love. They can be born in an attempt to fix broken marriages, to replace grown-up or lost children. I don't think having a baby to save the life of its sibling is wrong. But the family have to have thought it through and not have gone for this option in a moment of understandable desperation. The consequences may not be as positive as those experienced by the American family who went through a similar situation.
Helen, London, UK

To Helen from London: I'm guessing that the couple have "thought it through" as you say. I Imagine they have thought of nothing else recently. If there is a way of preventing their second child having a the same genetic disease the first then they should do it. Can't you understand that they would still love their second child just as much as if he or she had be conceived naturally ? And that he or she could save young Kain's life?
Rob Spruce, Birmingham, UK

This strikes me as a complete non-issue

Alexandra, USA

This strikes me as a complete non-issue. People have babies all the time for far stupider reasons than saving their first child's life. Some families will have six girls until they get a boy, or other such foolishness. Presumably, these parents will love and care for the second child just as much as they do for the first. I see no moral problem at all.
Alexandra, USA

The idea that these people would consider engineering a child, a human being, essentially for spare parts, makes me feel so sick that I can't even describe. Never mind all the people who say that this is nothing like cloning: this is the thin end of the extremely arrogant wedge along which the human race is travelling in order to cheat nature. If the treatment had arisen as a natural consequence as I have heard about previously with foetal stem cells from placenta that's one thing. What they are talking about is treating a life like a chemical, a drug. The whole idea is depraved.
Zoe, Wales

It's interesting that so many people find it immoral, horrific, unethical, or whatever, that anyone should be born solely to save another's life. I wonder how many people are born for no other reason than their parents omitting to use a contraceptive. Isn't that unacceptable too? Or does unacceptability only come into play when the word "scientist" is involved?
Simon Moore, UK

Genetically selecting an embryo is a totally different procedure to cloning

J, UK

Genetically selecting an embryo is a totally different procedure to cloning, so the child will not be at any more risk than one born after usual IVF screening procedures. The child is also not being born for spare parts - taking a few cells from the umbilical cord will not affect the child at all. If the parents are prepared to accept that the procedure will not work in the sense that the new baby may not be a perfect tissue match for their sick child, and will not blame the baby for the failure, then I think the procedure should go ahead.

This is not playing God anymore than administering drugs or performing operations. We have the knowledge and skills to help this child. We should use it. To object on religious grounds would be as bad as a Jehovah's Witness allowing a child to die from the lack of a blood transfusion.
J, UK

In this case I see no sensible reason for any group or organisation to object. If they do, it's either incredible mean-mindedness or just to get some airtime. If the couple concerned have no moral qualms themselves, they should go ahead. If the situation were reversed and it was the first child to act as a donor to the second child, this issue would not have gotten into the news.
Andrew Cover, UK

The only people who are in a position to comment on this are the parents of the child. It's all very well getting on the moral high horse about designer babies, but I'd like to see how any of you objectors would react if it was your own child at stake. Somehow I doubt you would simply stand by and allow them to die for the sake of your 'morals'.
Gillian White, UK

Ask me if I would be prepared to do the same thing for my seven-month-old son, the answer would be a very strong yes

Christopher Laird, Japan

Ask me if I would be prepared to do the same thing for my seven-month-old son, the answer would be a very strong yes. Ask me one and a half years ago when I was merely a husband, the answer would be a resounding no, with a lot of disgust thrown in at the mere thought of such an outrage. A parent's love is so strong that I believe I would support them. If the new baby is brought into the world and given the same amount of love as the poor victim, then it may be a good idea. But this is a very close call and I'm torn deciding.
Christopher Laird, Japan

We should really be waiting for advances in medical science so that lives can be saved without others having to be made. I don't have a problem with 'spare parts' being created using an individual's genetic code, but when they come housed in the body of another serious ethical questions are raised.
Henry Coleman, UK

I cannot think of anything more disgraceful than creating a baby just to save the life of another. It is better to spend the money finding ways to cure the diseases that have made this suggestion spring up in the first place.
Lou, UK

First of all, do they want another baby? If they do, why not make sure this baby does not have the genetic disorder suffered by his sibling, thus ensuring he can give life to his sibling?
Pascal Jacquemain, UK (French)

This is not about creating a "designer baby"

Adric, UK

In this particular case it is right to "create a life to save a life," if that is the course the parents want to follow. This is not about creating a "designer baby", the idea of which most of us would have reservations about. It's not about picking and choosing your future child's physical appearance, intelligence or personality. The aim is to dramatically improve the prospects of this baby's life. The fact that another life will be created in the process, almost as a "side product", is something I feel a certain amount of unease about. Nevertheless, the events which would have led to this child entering the world would not mean that it was of any less intrinsic value, or would be loved less than any other child. To the contrary, the hope is that its entry into the world would create even more happiness than would usually be the case when a child is born.
Adric, UK

It won't matter to the world what people's opinions are. Scientists and doctors will use genetically modified DNA in the name of science for their own reasons and beliefs, and they will not accept the responsibility when the clone asks why? Personally I wouldn't like it if I was told my only purpose of being born was to save another. I don't think that would do much good for my self-worth. As for the scientists, they would blame it on my parents for making the decision in giving me life.
J Dougan, Scotland

I feel very sorry for the parents, but at the end of the day, time and time humans have found out that if you mess with nature that's exactly what you get - a mess. It is time things like this were stopped.
Terry Williams, UK

No human life should ever be created for the benefit of another

Paul Rossi, Philadelphia, USA

No human life should ever be created for the benefit of another. Once again, the slow but consistent drift toward the left is eliminating one moral bulwark after another. If anyone cannot see this slippery slope towards degrading the value of individual human life you are either completely blind or totally immersed in a cultural selfishness that Western society has constructed to replace right and wrong, moral and immoral.
Paul Rossi, Philadelphia, USA

What do they tell the second child? You weren't so much an afterthought as a set of spare parts?
Bob, UK

The choices open to the parents are:

1) Have another child which is genetically selected and should save their son's life.
2) Watch their son undergo many blood transfusions and possibly die.
3) Keep having babies normally until one matches their son's tissue.

As a mother I prefer the first option as it ensures their son will live. Hopefully the baby will be a welcome addition to the family. Or if the baby is unwanted it could be put up for adoption, hence helping a childless couple. Over the years babies have been used for much worse things than saving another child's life, for example: to get on the housing list or force a man into marriage. Finally this is not producing a baby for spare parts, as the baby itself is not harmed.
Caron, England

Why not use new technology to save a life if we have that choice?

Jen, UK

I see no reason why this couple should not have another baby who could save the life of Zain. As long as the second child was wanted, why shouldn't he or she be used to help the older child? If the couple in question were only thinking of another child for this reason alone, then accusations of needing 'spare parts' would be justified, but why not use new technology to save a life if we have that choice? I think it is sad that people are even debating this.
Jen, UK

This is a challenge. Do we design a baby to help someone else, and potentially reduce the cost to the NHS? Or is it morally and ethically wrong? We cannot play God, we are each individual. Will the "designer" baby have the same problems that befell Dolly the sheep? Possibly, and it may take decades for us to realise our mistakes.
David Lane, Leeds, UK

One can only sympathise

Jane, Cardiff, Wales, UK

One can only sympathise with the dilemma of the parents and up to a point creating a life in order to save one should be allowed. However there must be a line drawn somewhere. What if it was a kidney that was required rather than a few blood cells which can be painlessly removed from the umbilical cord? Would it be acceptable to create a baby and subject it to a painful and invasive procedure which was not for its own good and to which it was not in a position to give consent? And what if it was one of the parents who required the blood transfusion rather than a sibling? What if the mother was unable to carry a pregnancy and a surrogate mother was required? Should we allow this as well?
Jane, Cardiff, Wales, UK