Posted by: createtosave on: June 21, 2009
The factors that we take into consideration for choosing our final solution, are the cost, the short term impacts, the long term impacts and also if there are any negative impacts. Therefore, our group had came up with our final solution – that is Charlie Whitaker have a bone marrow transplant.
Bone marrow transplant requires a lower cost, as compared to the other solutions. Since a transplant is a one-time process, the money is just spent on the operation and the hospitalisation fee after the operation. After which, Charlie only had to visit the hospital to few times for checkup. Other solutions such as the transfusion and medication, it is daily and life-time, therefore in the long run, the money spent would be much more than the transplant itself. If Charlie’s parents were to give birth to a child using IVF, the cost would be very high also, since they are able to choose which embryo they want. Also, when the child grows up, the parents need money to take care of the child, therefore in the long run, the cost would be very high.
Moreover, as I had said just now, bone marrow transplant is a one time process. Therefore, after the transplant, if there are no signs of rejection, Charlie would not have to worry anymore and he can live a normal life like other children. However, methods like transfusion and medication is very troublesome and it takes up a lot of time. So Charlie may even spend more time going to and fro the hospital and have transfusion, then doing his personal stuff. Also, if Charlie’s parents were use the IVF method, in the future, they would still have to take care of the child.
The bone marrow transplant also has less negative impact. The only negative impact would be rejection of the bone marrow by the body. However, other methods that we had listed have a more negative impact than bone marrow transplant – giving birth to child using IVF method. If the child does not agree to donating his/her bone marrow and blood making cells, they would have to think of another solution. Also, if the child were to sue their parents for making important decision without his/her permission, that would be a big problem too.
Lastly, conducting a bone marrow transplant is the most efficient method compared to the other solutions listed. Since it is the best method and have the highest chance that Charlie would live if he were to have a bone marrow transplant. Therefore, our final solution is to let Charlie have a bone marrow transplant.
Posted by: createtosave on: June 16, 2009
The issue about Charlie’s body being unable to produce red blood cells has led to his parents’ decision of having another child but using him/her to donate blood making cells to him. However, the fact that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority has rejected the request by the Whitaker family has suggested that there are actually several other solutions to this problem without having to create another human life.
Firstly, as the case study has stated, Charlie will not die if he undergoes frequent transfusions and daily medications. With close medical care, Charlie will continue to live. Of course, this will be a hassle for both Charlie and his parents and it is not a long term solution as the medications and frequent transfusions will cost a bomb but this is a recommended solution as Charlie’s parents can consider asking for financial help from the government.
Another solution is to try to keep the red blood cells in his body alive after having transfusions. To produce red blood cells, the body needs many nutrients and the most important one being iron, thus the Charlie’s parents can try feeding him food rich in iron like chicken and tuna to aid in red blood cell division from those present in transfusions.
Next, a bone marrow transplant may also be helpful. The bone marrow produces new blood cells and if a matching bone marrow is found, a transplant when Charlie is still not too weak may help to allow his body to be able to produce red blood cells again.
One last solution which is not highly recommended, is to create a child using the in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) method. By doing so, the parents of Charlie would be able to create an embryo which is most suitable to donate his/her blood making cells to save Charlie. However, there would be some moral values that are related.
Posted by: createtosave on: June 15, 2009
I feel that I had been brought to this world, just only for one sole purpose, that is — to donate my blood making cells and to save my brother Charlie. Sometimes my parents are so nice to me, that I feel that they do so just so that I would agree to donate my blood making cells to my brother Charlie. But I believe that I have the rights to agree or to object to the decisions that had been made by my parents on donating my cells, since I am a human being on my own and I am old enough to think and make decisions myself.
-IVF-born Child of Whitakers
Posted by: createtosave on: June 15, 2009
I am very sure nobody in the world would want to be struck with a rare disorder such as mine. It is certainly unfortunate, but I am still able to survive through daily medications and frequent blood transfusions. When my parents proposed to attempt vitro fertilization with new screening techniques to produce another baby – my sibling – so that he or she is able to donate blood-making cells to me, I am very glad that I can finally be saved.
The cost of daily medications and frequent blood transfusions will definitely serve as a financial burden to my parents in the long run. With a bone marrow donation from my new sibling, the situation will certainly be better. I am in no place to worry about future insecurities and unexpected defects from the new technology. Whether successful or not, I really appreciate the effort and will be indeed indebted for life to my brother or sister for granting me a life. No words or actions can express my gratitude.
However, I do hope that my parents will not make the decision themselves, but will respect my future sibling’s decision whether he or she is willing do donate the bone marrow. Even though my parents created another life with hopes of saving my life, I believe the decision still lies with my sibling. Without his or her consent, I will be most unwilling to accept the donation as the bone marrow belongs to him or her, not anyone else. He or she has the very right to agree or object.
Even though this issue has raised many controversies, I feel that the act of creating a life should not solely just to fulfill the purpose of saving another life. I am very sure my parents will love my sibling as much as they love me. He or she is not something that is created just to save my life – He or she is no different from me; we have the same parents and we are a family, and my sibling is a God sent angel that brought me hope.
- Charlie Whitaker
Posted by: createtosave on: June 14, 2009
Our son Charlie suffers from a rare disorder resulted from genetic mutation that prevents his body from producing red blood cells, causing him to rely on daily medications and frequent transfusions. And even though Charlie could live during such close medical care, he would not be able to lead a normal life like other children of his age.
Therefore my wife and I proposed using vitro fertilization and screening techniques to select and implant an embryo which would be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. However the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority rejected our request, saying that it was not right to create a human life with the express intent of saving another life.
We are unable to accept their decision. They are considering this issue only from their own point of view and making judgments about the morality of it. Have they put themselves into the shoes of us parents who have seen Charlie suffer through transfusion and daily medications? Indeed, part of the reasons for having this other child is to make him/her a suitable donor for Charlie, but why is it not right to create a human life with the intent of saving another? Of course I would understand if the context is that we create a child to save Charlie and abandon him/her after the purpose is fulfilled, but this is not the case! This child, donor to Charlie or otherwise, is our own children and we would love the child as much as we did of Charlie. It does not mean that screening for genetic match would make this child any less than ours. If the authority would allow bringing to term of any child we made using vitro fertilization, why refuse our request to simply carry out a screening that would not only bring us a new child but also save the brother of this child?
There will absolutely be no physical harm to this child and the possible psychological harms of the child feeling subordinated to Charlie of unwanted because of this situation is minimum if not non-existent as we have repeatedly stated that if we love Charlie we would love this child just as much because we are parents and they are all our children, there is no difference in that. And if this child is able to help Charlie, I’m sure he/she will benefit from the presence of a healthy brother, knowing that it is him/herself that brought about the possibility of a happy family.
-Mr and Mrs Whitaker
Posted by: createtosave on: June 14, 2009
Creating a baby using in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to save the life of another, definitely has both its advantages and disadvantages.
Because IVF is a reproductive technology in which the egg is taken out of the woman’s body and joined with the sperm outside, thus the advantages of using this method, is that the parents are able to choose what kind of baby that you are going to give birth to. With IVF, Charlie’s parents would be able to screen the embryos to see which would be most suitable to donate blood-making cells to Charlie and thus, which would be the embryos that would be chosen to be implanted, brought to term and save Charlie’s life.
On the other hand, this method would lead to a few moral issues. Firstly, who would be the ones who would make the decision, is it the parents of the child or is it the child that has been born using the IVF method? Some people may think that it is the parent’s decision since the parents are the ones who gave birth to the child and thus have the rights to donate the blood making cells to Charlie. However, some people may think that the blood making cells belongs to the child that has been born by the IVF method, thus he/she has the rights to object to the donation. In my opinion, this decision should be made by the child himself/herself. If he/she agrees to donating his/her blood making cells to Charlie, that would be great. But if he/she objects, then the parents should respect the child’s decision and perhaps wait for people who are kind enough to donate their cells to Charlie.
Posted by: createtosave on: June 14, 2009
The decision that Charlie’s parents have come up with to use in vitro fertilization to have another child but use new screening techniques to see which embryo will be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie has brought along many implications of moral values. This decision of creating another human life with the express intent of saving another life is unethical. The life that is created is just to save another life. How will the child react if he finds out in the future that his role of coming to this world was just to save his brother’s life and that he was not welcomed at all? Think of how he is going to look at Charlie, and how worthless and not respected he may feel all his life.
This has also shown how simply Charlie’s parents treat life and death. Their precious son would simply die from the rare disorder if nothing was done, and so they decided to have another child to save his life. Does it mean that if this second child has another type of rare disorder that no one in the family can save him from, his parents would have to have another child with the required elements to save him then? There is no respect for life at all. This should not be a world whereby humans can just create another life whenever they want to.
The fact that there is genetic manipulation involved and the choosing of desirable characteristics in the embryos is against natural evolution. There should not be any of these in childbirth and if Charlie’s parents truly want another child not just for the sake of saving Charlie’s life, they should not be doing a “trial and error” test to see which embryos turn out desirable and give up those that are not. By doing this, they are indirectly killing the other embryos that already have a life.
Posted by: createtosave on: June 14, 2009
In order to produce an other child with desired traits just to save Charlie, the Whitaker family will have to undergo IVF , which indirectly produces a designer baby.
The term IVF refers to in vitro fertilisation, which is a process where the egg cell are fertilised by sperm cell outside the womb. The fertilised egg is than transferred to the uterus of a parent for it to further develop into a baby to maintain pregnancy. Such technology is usually implemented to overcome infertilisation. For the Whitaker family case, the main purpose of undergoing IVF is so that their desired child can be produced only after undergoing screening tests to see which embryo would be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. However, the IVF technology brings about complications as well. It contains risks of multiple births, which may further lead to other complications such as prematurity, increased risk of pregnancy loss and potential long term damage such as defects in the child.
In the Whitaker family case, their second child will be considered as a designer baby as it is only produced after embryo selection, being the most abled embryo that is able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. A ‘designer baby’ refers to a child whose hereditary makeup had been purposefully selected or modified. The gender, and other physical traits such as eye colour can be determined through the technology named pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.
The use of IVF technology and the production of designer babies raises many ethical issues. The case of the Whitaker family is a good example as to whether it is right to create a human life just to save another.
Sources of information:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_babies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF
Posted by: createtosave on: June 14, 2009
1. Is it right to create a life to save another’s life?
2. Should the decision be made by the parents of the ill, or the child born by IVF?
3. Should such technology (IVF) be legalised in every country?
Posted by: createtosave on: June 13, 2009
Case Study 6: Creating a Live to Save a Life
In England, the Whitaker family faced a terrible situation: their son, Charlie, suffered from a rare disorder that prevented his body from producing red blood cells. Without daily medications and frequent transfusions, Charlie would simply die. With them, he continues to live, but under close medical care.
For a while, it looks as though Charlie’s parents had figured out an answer to this dilemma. They proposed to use in vitro fertilization to have another child, but with an added twist. They would, as is usual in this procedure, have the eggs fertilized outside the womb in a laboratory dish, but they would then include an additional step. Using new screening techniques, they would screen the embryos to see which would be most able to donate blood-making cells to Charlie. That would be the one that they would choose to implant and bring to term.
In contrast to the United States and many other countries, in England someone proposing such a procedure must obtain government permission –in this case, from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. The Authority rejected the request by the Whitaker family, saying that it was not right to create a human life with the express intent of saving another life.
This case raises two kinds of questions.
First, do you agree with the Authority’s decision? Why or why not? What are the significant moral considerations in this case? What consideration is decisive for you?
Second, who should make these decisions? The United States does not currently have such a board, nor do most other countries. However, something similar is currently under consideration in several countries. Leaving aside financial considerations about who should bear the cost for the moment, who should have the right to make the final decision in such cases? Who should make the decision if the procedure is being paid for by federal health insurance? Private health insurance? The individual patient or family?
