Opinion on savior siblings

[Burke Bro]

This is a bioethical debate I stumbled upon after watching the movie My Sister's Keeper (based on a book of the same name). The premise of the movie is that a couple has a daughter with lukemia. In order to keep their daughter alive, they conceive of a second daughter through in-vitro fertilization who is genetically compatible with the first in order to supply them with blood transfusions and stem cell transplants. After being pressured by her parents into donating a kidney, the 11-year old second daughter approaches a lawyer to sue them for emancipation.

I’m interested to hear users’ opinions about this. Should parents have the right to create so called “savior siblings,” as there are currently very few laws regulating in-vitro fertilization in the United States? If so should such children be guaranteed access to an adult representative? Where do rights to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom play into this debate?

[dead0man]

I'm fine with it for if it's nothing more than the occasional blood draw and there is an end in sight.  I'm 100% against it if they are going to harvest a kidney, get bone marrow, there is no end in sight, it's a LOT of blood draws or other things that would seriously negatively impact the life of the "savior sister".  You can't do that to another living thing, certainly not a human and most certainly not your own child you created just to "milk" the.

I'm not even understanding how one can come to another conclusion.  It seems obvious to me.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Isn't that the plot of "House of the Scorpion"?

[Burke Bro]

Isn't that the plot of "House of the Scorpion"?

Not exactly since the main character in house of the scorpion is a literal clone. But it raises similar ethical questions.

[Burke Bro]

I'm fine with it for if it's nothing more than the occasional blood draw and there is an end in sight.  I'm 100% against it if they are going to harvest a kidney, get bone marrow, there is no end in sight, it's a LOT of blood draws or other things that would seriously negatively impact the life of the "savior sister".  You can't do that to another living thing, certainly not a human and most certainly not your own child you created just to "milk" the.

I'm not even understanding how one can come to another conclusion.  It seems obvious to me.

But siblings are statistically the most compatible as bone marrow donors and are therefore often selected to be them. How would such a restriction be fair to families that didn’t get lucky genetically?

[Ferguson97]

But siblings are statistically the most compatible as bone marrow donors and are therefore often selected to be them. How would such a restriction be fair to families that didn’t get lucky genetically?

It is never ethical to force someone into organ donation, even if that child was conceived traditionally without the "savior sibling" intent.

[dead0man]

I'm fine with it for if it's nothing more than the occasional blood draw and there is an end in sight.  I'm 100% against it if they are going to harvest a kidney, get bone marrow, there is no end in sight, it's a LOT of blood draws or other things that would seriously negatively impact the life of the "savior sister".  You can't do that to another living thing, certainly not a human and most certainly not your own child you created just to "milk" the.

I'm not even understanding how one can come to another conclusion.  It seems obvious to me.

But siblings are statistically the most compatible as bone marrow donors and are therefore often selected to be them. How would such a restriction be fair to families that didn’t get lucky genetically?

how is it fair to give birth to something only to medically torture it just to keep her older sister alive for a few more years?