Sarryna Gesite

Armie Eloisa Exporna

Kate Wad-asen

PHILOSOPHY 1
D-6R

April 5, 2013

Saviour Siblings: Ethical Concerns and Morality

Every human being has been given obligations and rights. These obligations and rights are often
done individually, as these usually deal with humans interests and responsibilities. But upon the
societys growth, individual actions are not truly effective. Institutions created are basically composed
of groups of people. Groups of people should then comply with each others rights and obligations to
live in harmony. One basic example of an institution is family, the smallest unit in society which is the
central place for ones civilization.
Family is typically composed of parents and children. It can be a group of persons related by
blood, or just people sharing same goals and values in a long-term commitment. Fundamentally, family
is composed of persons who have higher capacity to lead the unit than other members included. They
are called the parents who have more obligation than the children as to how the family will run. They
have the ability to decide for certain situations within their grasp. They should care, love, and maintain
the stable growth of children. When one of their children is seriously ill, much deeper medication is
needed. Pre-implantation Tissue Typing (PTT) enters in such a case like this.
PTT is a type of reproductive technology in which a newborn child will act as a savior child
to the existing ill child in the family. Stem cells from the savior siblings umbilical cord blood will be
donated to the existing child. If it fails, bone marrow or peripheral blood will be used instead. But it is
important to note that it is not only the existing childs or the parents individual interest that should be
considered; the savior childs individual interest should also be pondered by the family, because it is
the moral duty of the family to provide welfare to every child member for him/her to live like a normal
one.
Michelle Taylor-Sands, the author of the article Saviour Siblings and Collective Family
Interests said that I will argue that the welfare of the child born as a result of PTT should be
conceived more broadly to include not only the childs individual interests, but also the collective
interests the child shares with his/her family. Collective interests, also according to Taylor-Sands, is

the shared journey of the family in which each member is concerned with everyones interest and the
result of the action to be taken upon imposing those. It grows on how human is flourished in the
institution which will determine his/her life meaning. This concept primarily develops from intimacy,
love, and affection by each member more than nourishment, shelter, and protection. If this develops
well, a human being fully aware of him/herself will exist even with a previous case of PTT. To further
support her argument, she first discussed the Nature of Intimate Families providing different
definitions of family and how an intimate family forms through the initiative of parents to show
affection to their children. Secondly, she discussed about the Roles of families in Promoting Human
Flourishment which provides an impact of family relationships through love and affection that
develop childrens identity. Childrens identity helps in the development of their behavior and defines
their purpose of living. Lastly, she discussed the Collective Interests and PTT which contains the
involvement of family for the fulfillment of savior siblings purpose whether or not what he/she did
was significantly important for the selfs satisfaction and his/her siblings safety.
As a summary, the author stood for the belief that it is important to consider collective interests
of family members to make rigid decisions for the cure of an ill child in the family for example,
because it is not only the welfare of the existing child that matters, but also the probable result of PTT
to the savior sibling in accordance to physical and psychological effects.
PTT is such a controversial issue when it comes to aspect of family. There are children who are
just products of drunken nights and unintentional sex or in short accidents. Their parents doesnt
usually want them, some will abort them or birth them then give them away without even a hint of pity
or care or love. But the children produced from PTT are made for a specific purpose, to save lives. But
then as important and noble as it is to dedicate yourself without hesitation because you know it is your
obligation, these children were not guaranteed to be treated fairly and normally as a child. That is why
there are debates about how this technology can affect the members especially the saviour sibling.
There are numerous questions arising from this discovery - Who will benefit more? Is there a chance

for fair treatment between the saviour and the existing child? What are the consequences that may
affect the lives of each member? Does a child born from PTT should have more rights afterwards? How
can PTT delimit the childs rights? What are the moral duties of parents and how can they say if it is
morally right?
In this case, the one who will benefit more, if seen on one side of spectrum, is the existing ill
child because the attention of parents will be directed to him/her, while the saviour sibling will be
treated only as a saviour until the parents learn to watch him/her grow and create an identity. The
thing is, saviour siblings are first handedly treated as an instrument for an existing ill child to have a
longer life. Parents create the saviour sibling out of the thought that he/she will save a life, but the
affection is given only partially. Due to the way how his/her parents consider him/her, the saviour child
can be said being maltreated for it is stated that emotional unavailability, which is often a result of
depression in the parent, can be particularly devastating form of maltreatment (Pianta, Egeland, and
Erickson; National Research Council). In this instance for the side of the saviour child, parents opposes
the great positive goods where Moore's view that emotions are essential elements (Banner, W. A.
131).
The chance for fair treatment for both children is relatively low because it is obvious that the
existing ill child has more privilege in the family. The saviour sibling will be treated fairly only if
he/she starts to mature and the parents make him/her realize the honour of what he/she did when he/she
was born. If the parents failed to do so, the saviour child, regardless of his knowledge about his
obligations, might rebel and sue his family for forcing him to give vital organs, blood, bone marrow or
stem cells against his will.
In November 2001, following the birth of Adam Nash (the first baby born following preimplantation tissue typing), the HFEA established a policy on pre-implantation tissue typing. This
policy followed detailed consideration of the issues by the HFEAs Ethics Committee. The Authority
recognized that the decision to pursue this procedure was a highly personal one and was likely to

involve complex motivations. It was persuaded that pre-implantation tissue typing would not
necessarily compromise the welfare of the child born as a result of the procedure because there was no
reason to suppose that such a child would necessarily suffer emotional or psychological harm as a
result of knowing that they were conceived, at least in part, in order to be a tissue donor to a older
sibling. The Authority therefore agreed that in principle the procedure was ethically acceptable but that
safeguards should be put in place in order to prevent unacceptable uses of the procedure. If PTT is
successful, a life of more harmony and personal connection will be created especially to the siblings; if
not, the saviour sibling will be put to blame or become neglected.
The last consequence comprises the interests of the family. Individual interests dominate the
decisions in a family which will result to different ways of fulfilling them, thus the harmony is at stake.
If collective interests will be put to mind, every decision that will pass to every member will be
thoroughly evaluated that no interest will be left out. Collective interests can be one of the possible
ways for a savior sibling to live normally in his/her later life even after PTT. Psychological or physical
harm, if triggered in the process, will only have a minimal effect if parents and the then-ill child will
help in the normal growth of the child by paying back what he/she did through their support and
affection.
Obviously, if the process will be unsuccessful, side effects will occur which will mostly hit the
physical and psychosocial factors of the child as the article says these delimit the childs way of life
in the sense that he/she cannot fully participate in physical activities and his/her psychosocial capacity
is not enough for interpersonal relations.
So what is the point in this argument? Basically, PTT is a helpful discovery in science for
families because it can save a life and prolong the unbroken relationship of members to each other. But
it is important to think about everyones interest in the family about the issue. The fact that the whole
family's including the PTT child's goal is to save the life of the ill child, then they have the "mutuality
of interest that according again to Banner is where persons who live together or who are aware of ties

community embraces the mutual concern for the consequences of behavior(18). They should
cooperate through doing their duties to one another and give the best move for the best result of their
goal. The duties stated stressing to parents are the moral duty that has something to do with what is
good to their children. Morality is relative that it changes within cultures. The notion of good and bad,
or right and wrong is not absolute due to peoples different way of viewing life. However, parents,
having more detailed experience in life, should know what good things will be for their children.
PTT should be taken seriously and given much attention.
Now, Utilitarian Ethics has something to do with it. The savior child due to PTT is someone
who should be primarily considered in this procedure in order to save the ill child. Parents in the family
may treat the children (savior and ill) differently. This is because the ill child gets the attention and
concern of parents because of his/her lifes condition, while the savior sibling can only be considered as
a mere cure. In this case, the term family might not be very appropriate to use. There is a
disproportional ratio of people benefitted. On the other hand, if the savior child will not only be treated
as a cure but also a family member treated as a son or daughter and a sibling, no one will be left out;
everyone gets the benefit. This is what Utilitarian Ethics imposes, what is morally right is the option
where majority of the people involved will benefit. 1, 901 words

Works Cited
Banner. Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York: Berne Convention, 1968. Print
Pianta, Egeland, and Erickson. The Effects of Maltreatment on the Development of Young Children. In
Child Maltreatment. Eds. Ciccheti and Carlson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Print.
Embryology Authority. Human implantation fertilisation and embryology authority report:
preimplantation tissue typing, 2004. Print.