Hirschi 1

Amy Hirschi
English 1010D.03
Sean M. George
6 December 2015
Genetics, Is it ethical to play with our genes
Or should we keep them the way they were always intended to be.
Advancement in medical technology is paramount in treating and possible curing of
certain types of diseases that plague us today or different medical conditions. It is very important
for the field of medicine to continue moving forward, the issue is that the movement forward
whatever that is, may be done in an ethical way putting the patients needs first and what is best
for them or whomever may be assisting the patient in their path to getting better improving
their outcome in life.
I have chosen to discuss the topics of genetic altering of embryos whether that be for a
Designer Baby or Perfect Baby where parents go in to have their embryo altered so that they
may have a boy or a girl with specific hair color, eye color, increasing the possibility of greater
intelligence, athleticism, or musically inclined,etc. A Savior baby or Savior sibling, on the
other hand, is a child who is born to provide an organ or cell transplant to a sibling that is
affected with a fatal disease, such as cancer or Fanconi anemia, which can best be treated by
hematopoietic stem cell transportation. Lastly, I want to discuss the possibilities of instead of
having a Savior sibling to help these family members with the sick child, to rather find a living

Hirschi 2

organ donor who wishes to help instead, of making a young baby who has no decision in the
matter and just has to do it.
It is completely and unequivocally unethical to mess with embryos to try to make a
particular type of baby, for a particular type of purpose. Where will it stop with Human Genetic
testing? As time continues I believe it will become more appalling at what scientists and doctors
are trying and willing to do with genes and embryos.
Designer Babies is a term used for those parents who are wanting to have a child but not
just any child, they want the Perfect child meaning being able to choose traits such as gender,
eye, and hair color. Anything that is cosmetic. How far will they take this technology when its
not even for someone who is sick or in need of medical health? In doing a process such as this
Doctors use multiple embryos before selecting the perfect embryo for the perfect child this
couple is trying conceive. What is done with the left over embryos (babies)? They are destroyed
or killed in other words because they didnt meet the perfect match.
From an article titled Designer Babies from Opposing View Points Online Collection.
It states, as a genetic and reproductive science march steadily forward, private fertility
clinics are also pushing the boundaries. In 2009, the Fertility Institutes in Los Angeles
offered to let parents select their childrens hair and eye color. Given that the fertility
industry brings in Four Billion in a year, it is easy to see why the institutes Jeff Steinberg
would be eager for his clinic to be the pioneer of human genetic modification in America.
(Par. 9)

Hirschi 3

Its makes a person wonder, are physicians that specialize in fertility using
procedures such as (PGD). Are they in it for the health of their patients, or for the money
they receive from doing the procedure.
The four billion dollar industry of being able to design babies has extended to what is
referred to as Savior Siblings.
A savior sibling refers to the creation of a genetically matched human being, in
order to be the savior of a sick child in need of a donor. This requires creating
human embryos in vitro, which literally means in glass (i.e. a test tube), using
the egg from the mother and fertilizing the egg with the fathers sperm. Then using
pre-implantation technology, the embryos are tested, and the one deemed
genetically compatible is implanted into the mothers womb in order for the
embryo to grow and develop. Once that baby is delivered, the cord blood is often
collected because it provides a perfect match for sick sibling. Later on, bone
marrow, blood, or even organs, can also be taken and used for transplantation for
the sick sibling. (Lahl 116)
In the year 2000 the first savior sibling was created and born right here in the United
States. His sister had been diagnosed with Fanconi anemia and she would have died had it not
been for her brother who was born to be her perfect match. It was a success for the Nash family
due to Adams unconsented donations as he was a newborn baby.
Adam was lucky in the fact that all his sister needed was that of his cord blood, but there
are other savior siblings that are not as lucky and have to donate much more of their body parts,
painful donations that again they, the babies have not consented too, and yes they are too young

Hirschi 4

to do so. With that being said is it ethical to use these little innocent babies who dont
understand whats happening or let alone why it is happening.
Who is watching out for these little ones and how they are being treated, were they born
out of love between a man and woman or were they born to help a dying sibling? I am not
saying it is not important to help siblings/family when in need but not when they are so young, is
it fair or is it right to ask something like that from them when they cannot respond?
In the book, The Match it illustrates another familys quest to save their dying daughter
by having a savior sibling to help her. It discusses the feelings of the mother of these two
children just before both of them were going under to have a blood transfusion. The daughter
Kate was receiving the blood from her new little baby brother and these were their mothers
thoughts
As she sat, Stacy wasnt dwelling on the many ethical issues that troubled the
bioethicists and critics who thought no baby should be conceived with a purpose:
Who would protect the medical interests of what was referred to as a savior
sibling when his parents were so focused on curing the older child? How would
such a baby feel when he grew up and learned he had been brought into the family
with a responsibility? Who would object if the child was later called upon to
donate something more radical than bone marrow to help the sibling, a kidney
perhaps?
As his mom, Stacy had more personal concerns: how would she feel if
Christophers much anticipated bone marrow donation didnt work? What if
Katies body rejected Christophers marrow and Katie died? Would it make it

Hirschi 5

harder to be his mother? If anything ever happened to Katie, Stacy asked herself
uneasily, would I be resentful toward him? (Whitehouse 10, 11)
These are not the type of words that should come from any mothers mouth let alone one
that has such high expectations for her son to make her dying daughter better. He is just a
precious innocent little newborn baby needing love and nurturing from his family. Not realizing
he was coming here for a much bigger purpose and only being human he still has his own
limitations. He may not be the remedy for his sisters sickness, thats not his fault.
David Lamb in his book Organ Transplants and Ethics suggests that
Living organ donors present a problem for the do no harm imperative in

Medical ethics, as they are said to be harmed by the loss of the relevant
organ. This, of course, only affects irreplaceable organs (blood and semen,
for instance, are self- replacing and under appropriate conditions can be
collected without harm to the donor). There have been various estimates
concerning the risks entailed by live organ donation. A 1985 estimate
suggested that around twenty donors have died in good institutions
throughout the United States after the removal of a single kidney. A
University of Minnesota Transplant Center Study in 1974 reported a 28.2
per cent complication rate for live donor nephrectomies. (104)
Are the medical ethics being followed in the for the do no harm imperative, by putting
these innocent babies and children as they grow older at risk for the sake of their ill sibling that
may or may not live. No its not worth the risk to these children who have no say in the matter
and are basically just being used like a piece of property.

Hirschi 6

With all the Medical Technology to take and harvest embryos, bone marrow, and blood.
There will always be objections for or against its use. For example, parents who are in a position
of dealing with the possible death of a child, and have the opportunity to use the technology
available to them, hope for their ill child by creating a Savior Sibling to possible cure the
childs disease see no problem with having that baby go through any painful and invasive
procedure, to help their sibling. With parents who are in that situation they might reply or
think What better gift could that sibling give to the sibling that is sick? Only that newborn
baby was never asked if they were willing to grant such a gift.
However, Paul Ramsey, who is one of the founders of modern bioethics stated that if
there is any change to natural procreation such as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), that
it would cause harm to individuals and society in general (Baumiller Par. 3).
Parents who are for (PGD) object to having people be judgmental and critical of what
they are choosing to do telling others that its not harming any one. In reality, it could not only
hurt the savior sibling but in a procedure like (PGD) usually many embryos are created to have
as many chances as they can to make the perfect match. In an article titled, Newborns and
Involuntary Donors They spoke of 5 savior siblings that were created and about the extra
embryos left over it states that they created 28 human embryo, genetically distinct human
beings, 23 of whom were destroyed. It goes without saying that the five children that survived
have not given their consent to serve as donorshuman beings are to be regarded as ends, not
employed as means. Creating people for the purpose of serving as organ and tissue banks, even
in a limited capacity, in tragic circumstances, lays a predicate for a whole new variety of
slavery. (Par. 4)

Hirschi 7

It is not ok for children to be used as a commodity, or as a piece of property for what they
(the parents) in this case, think is in the best interest of another person who is thinking of the
BABYS best interest, and what if the procedure does not go as planned for the sick child and
they die. Will they still love that baby or will they look at him/her that they did not do their job
and carry ill feelings towards him/her for the rest of that babys life.
It is also wrong for extra embryos, who are considered to be in the first stage of
pregnancy to just be destroyed or killed, only because they did not meet the perfect match. Just
because it is not a full-term child and its only in the first stage of developing into a child and to
think they so callously dispose of it by killing it like its a piece of trash is despicable. Do you
know how many childless couples would have been willing to have a shot at using one of those
embryos without them having to be killed? That shows great disregard for human life.
As I stated in the beginning of this essay medical technology can be an amazing thing as
long as it is used correctly. Although, using it correctly is relative because clearly everyone has
their own opinions on what is ethical and what is not ethical, especially with the procedures of
Designer Babies and Savior Babies.
To try and make a perfect baby or a particular gender of baby as they do with Designer
Babies seems to play with fate. Dont we get what we need or rather yet what needs us which in
this case is a precious baby? There are so many couples that are childless and would love just to
have an opportunity to have a baby no matter what gender or what they look like, it seems very
superficial for those who think they have to make the baby perfect no one is perfect. Where
will technology go from there? It will push the ethical boundaries further.

Hirschi 8

Savior Siblings, It is a natural emotion when one of your children is dying that you want
to do all that you can to save it, but what if it doesnt work will you like that mother in the book
The Match, wonder if you will still love the baby if the sick sibling were still to die. That is not
having a baby because they wanted one. They had a job for him to do, a job he had no control
over how things turned out. And there are other ways of helping sick siblings through those who
are older and consent to be willing to help and anything else that may come along with that.
It is completely and unequivocally unethical to mess with embryos to try to make a
particular type of baby, for a particular type of purpose. Where will it stop with Human Genetic
testing? As time continues I believe it will become more appalling at what scientists and doctors
are trying and willing to do with genes and embryos.
The advancements in medical knowledge and technology should continue to develop
with new procedures, techniques, surgical intervention, and possible cure to alleviate medical
conditions, disease, deformity, but not at the expense of human embryos, savior siblings and
designer babies, who have not consented to these procedures.

Hirschi 9

Works Cited
Baumiller, Robert c, and Charles J. Grossman. Reproductive Technology: Ethical Issues
Genetics. Ed. Richard Robinson. Vol. 4. New York: Macmillian Reference USA, 2003.
26-30. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.
Designer Babies. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit; Gale, 2015.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.
Lamb, David. Organ Transplants and Ethics. Aldershot, England: Avebury, 1996. Print.
Newborns as Involuntary Donors. The New American 31 May 2004: 7. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
Whitehouse, Beth. The Match Savior Siblings and One Familys Battle to Heal Their
Daughter. Boston: Beacon Press, 2010. Print