Should a life be created to save a life?

A couple trying to create a baby to save the life of their two-year-old son have been given fresh hope by a change in the rules.

Raj and Shahana Hashmi feared that their son Zain would die from a rare blood disorder without a perfectly matched bone marrow transplant.

However, there was no suitable donor in the family so his parents, who live in Leeds, campaigned for permission to "design" a baby by IVF who will provide the life-saving cells Zain needs.

Now the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has ruled that couples will be allowed to select test-tube baby embryos whose tissue matches that of a sick sibling.

The HFEA has stressed that applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and subject to strict conditions.

Have we gone a step too far? Do we risk creating children as a medical commodity? Could it ultimately lead to parents demanding genetically-engineered offspring with good looks, intelligence or sporting prowess?

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

---

Your reaction:

If the first child is treated successfully but incurs further complications at a later date, will the second child not feel obligated to provide a spare kidney, part of his liver or undergo other invasive procedures? After all it will be a perfect match for his or her elder sibling. At the moment donors choose to donate. Once you create people as donors then those people lose their right to choose. The HFEA is staggeringly short-sighted in its decision.
Pauline, London

Life or death. That seems to be the choice. What would you choose?
Niky Philpot, England

It is in the interests of the child to be created at all, no matter what the motivation

Kath, Bristol, England

I would like to congratulate the HFEA on this very sensible decision, and I am overjoyed that the Hashmis have been given an opportunity to save the life of their son. I also applaud the measures being taken by the authorities to ensure that this is done very carefully, by using tissue that would otherwise be discarded, without causing harm to the child. If only these so-called 'pro-life' groups would get their heads out of the sand and realise that this prospective child will be loved just like any other - after all, only loving parents would be willing to go to these great lengths to save their child's life. Their argument that it is not in the best interests of the child to be created as a tissue match for someone else is total hogwash: can they not see that it is in the interests of the child to be created at all, no matter what the motivation? My children were not planned (unlike the Hashmi's next baby) yet they are adored and nurtured as if they had been my life's only goal. 'Pro-lifers' indeed - how can they call themselves that when they would happily condemn Zain to death for their woolly views?
Kath, Bristol, England

It brings us one step closer to the nightmare world which sci-fi writers have been warning us of for decades

Godfrey Bartlett, Brentwood, England.

The HFEA decision has set an alarming precedent. I am not a pro-lifer but I believe this decision is the thin end of the wedge. It brings us one step closer to the nightmare world which sci-fi writers have been warning us of for decades: - a society which creates a sub-class of genetically engineered or cloned beings to be treated as a collection of spare parts for transplant or donor surgery.
Godfrey Bartlett, Brentwood, England

Obviously I'm a traditionalist. I believe that you bring a child into the world to love and care for and not for its spare parts. Silly me!
Jason, Manchester, England

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were a question of selecting one sperm and one egg to make one compatible embryo. What I do have a problem with is that the process will inevitably involve the creation of several embryos that will be unsuitable and will therefore be discarded. Human life should not be disposable in this way.
Jane, Wales, UK

I think that in principle it is a good idea. It is a good way to help another of their children. I would draw the line when parents jump on this bandwagon to design the way their child would look. I find that more worrying than parents wanting to produce a child to help a child.
Mohamed Kamal, Queensland, Australia

It's only giving nature a helping hand

Jo, UK

Presumably the pro-lifers wouldn't have had a problem with a couple having lots and lots of extra children to achieve the same goal? Why object to speeding up the process so that only one more child is born? It's only giving nature a helping hand, and I'm sure the parents will love this next child as much as they obviously love the one they have already. It's only natural to try to save the life of your child by any means possible. Is this not what pro-life means? However, I am totally against designer babies in terms of predetermining looks, gender, intelligence etc. This procedure is only justifiable for medical reasons, when all other options have run out, as in this case.
Jo, UK

The only cure for my eldest daughter's hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis was a bone marrow transplant and we were very lucky; an unrelated donor was found and she had her transplant at three months of age. She is now in excellent health, Anybody who does not agree with creating a baby to save another child's life has never sat in a hospital ward week after week just waiting to hear if a donor has been found. If I could genetically design a baby I would have as it would also ensure my future children were also free from histiocytosis because it is hereditary. I have had 3 more children and so far all are healthy but as no test is available for histiocytosis this ruling might just be my insurance policy
Sam, England

It completely devalues the wonders of childbirth and makes human beings little more than cattle

Anthony M, UK

This isn't a simple question. Did the parents want another child in the first place or will the foetus be aborted after the necessary genetic material is gathered? Would the parents love the child as much as the one who was created to save? If they wanted another child anyway, and their love for the child wouldn't be diminished by its 'other purpose' then I can't see the problem. But babies as a medical commodity? That should be avoided at all costs - it completely devalues the wonders of childbirth and makes human beings little more than cattle.
Anthony M, UK

There is nothing nobler than to save a life, regardless of how that is done

Shaun, Teignmouth UK

In my opinion there is nothing nobler than to save a life, regardless of how that is done. I don't believe it will inevitably lead to a whole range of designer babies, if sensible legislation is put into place. We have the technology available to save a life by creating another one. It would be a crime not to take advantage of this knowledge.
Shaun, Teignmouth UK

My wife and I want a second child. If our daughter had such an illness that she needed a bone marrow transplant and we could not find a donor, we would do what the Hashmis are doing. I have also decided to join the bone marrow donor register and I hope many readers of this page will do the same. If people are against producing a child with a secondary purpose of giving bone marrow to his sibling, let them try to help that child and see if they are compatible.
Pascal Jacquemain, UK (French)

If death is too unpleasant to accept then why create another life and then impose death on it?

P, UK

I can't see the logic of artificially creating a life and then destroying life in an attempt to prevent a death, which would (before this technology) have been natural and inevitable. Sometimes life does unpleasant things to us, why can't we just accept it? If death is too unpleasant to accept then why create another life and then impose death on it?
P, UK

As long as the parents are thoroughly evaluated and can satisfy the authorities that they will love, care for and financially support the donor child, and that the medical treatment this child will support will not harm the child, then I have no problem with it. It's only when medical reasons are replaced by selfish reasons for selecting the genetic make-up of a child that objections should rightly occur.
Sarah T, UK

The unborn child is being created as a commodity

Neil Galbraith, Scotland, UK

Why doesn't the HFEA, and other health bodies, encourage the wider population to enrol on the bone marrow register? This might permit a consenting donor to be found. The unborn child is being created as a commodity, whilst the rejected embryos are being denied their right to life completely. This is not the way of a humane society.
Neil Galbraith, Scotland, UK