Would you ever have a "savior" child?

tarebear9891 · April 2010

I was reading an article about a couple who had a very sick little girl (her life span wasn't cut short because of her illness but her treatments every day were very rough). They were told that bone marrow from a sibling would help her so they went through IVF and had another child. The article called these type of kids "savior children" because they are conceived for the purpose of curing an older sibling. What is your opinion? And would you do it?

punkfiction_v.3 · April 2010

ie: my sister's keeper.

and no.

MamiJam · April 2010

If we were planning on having more kids anyway, I would. If we were done...DH and I would have to think about it.

Buckets of Moonbeams · April 2010

No.

phishphood · April 2010

I don't think it's right to have a child in attempts to save another.

LynnJones · April 2010

No way.

blueshirt2003 · April 2010

MamiJam:
If we were planning on having more kids anyway, I would. If we were done...DH and I would have to think about it.

I agree with you. As of now we are done having children...but if we had to to save one of our current children we might. I'm not sure...that's a tough decision.

pixiedustie · April 2010

I want to say no, I really hope I wouldn't have another child just to save their sibling. Where do you stop then, will this child constantly be used for their parts. Will it end with the umbilical blood, or painful bone marrow extractions or like "My Sisters Keeper" when the poor kid can't have a life in case they are to far away when their sibling may need a body part.

Cytina · April 2010

That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

tarebear9891 · April 2010

pixiedustie:
I want to say no, I really hope I wouldn't have another child just to save their sibling. Where do you stop then, will this child constantly be used for their parts. Will it end with the umbilical blood, or painful bone marrow extractions or like "My Sisters Keeper" when the poor kid can't have a life in case they are to far away when their sibling may need a body part.

Not that I agree with having a savior child (because actually I don't) but in the article the Doctor they were interviewing said in 90% of cases savior children don't become a machine for parts. Meaning cases like "My Sister's Keeper" rarely happen.

GrowingFamily · April 2010

Cytina:

That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

This

mom2anangel · April 2010

Cytina:

That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

I don't think anyone could make a decision like this hypothetically. Until you are faced with tough choices like this you really don't know what you would do.

LoriFalce · April 2010

Purely so that child could be a parts shop for her sibling? No.

But we do want a #2, and have put plans on indefinite hold and wouldn't use "extraneous measures," figuring if it's meant to be it's meant to be. Because of circumstances, we might change that.

I think it would be harder on me to have a subsequent child after losing a child, and just about as unfair to #2 to be a replacement constantly compared to a ghost.

violetvirgo · April 2010

punkfiction_v.3:
ie: my sister's keeper.

and no.

this.

LaLaSweets · April 2010

Cytina:
That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

true. We banked dd's cord blood in hopes that we wouldn't have to be in this situation

Alex26 · April 2010

Cytina:

That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

This

1MusicMaker · April 2010

It depends, I guess. If DS were sick, then yes for sure--simply because we always knew we wanted at least 2 children anyway.

violetvirgo · April 2010

tarebear9891:
pixiedustie:
I want to say no, I really hope I wouldn't have another child just to save their sibling. Where do you stop then, will this child constantly be used for their parts. Will it end with the umbilical blood, or painful bone marrow extractions or like "My Sisters Keeper" when the poor kid can't have a life in case they are to far away when their sibling may need a body part.

Not that I agree with having a savior child (because actually I don't) but in the article the Doctor they were interviewing said in 90% of cases savior children don't become a machine for parts. Meaning cases like "My Sister's Keeper" rarely happen.

that's probably true, but i can't imagine bringing a child into the world with the sole purpose to save their sibling. they would live with knowing that all their life. and while you never really know until you're in that situation, i just don't think i would ever do that.

this is an instance where some nice cloned or matched bone marrow grown in a petri dish would be awesome (i.e. stem cell research)

iris427 · April 2010

I honestly can't answer this. I have no idea what it's like to have a seriously ill child. And it would depend on how the second child could help. If it was a simple cord blood donation, sure. If it was something like giving a kidney, that's very different and I would say no.

LizzieandGar · April 2010

I really don't think you can say whether you would or wouldn't do it unless your child was dying. It's easy to say "No!" when it's not happening to you.

I'd like to say I wouldn't but I would think that given the desire I would want my kid to live, I probably would.

MegGary · April 2010

Cytina:

That's not a decision I could make hypothetically - I'd have to be in the situation to truly know.

Exactly. I'm not one to ever say never.

iris427 · April 2010

violetvirgo:
tarebear9891:
pixiedustie:
I want to say no, I really hope I wouldn't have another child just to save their sibling. Where do you stop then, will this child constantly be used for their parts. Will it end with the umbilical blood, or painful bone marrow extractions or like "My Sisters Keeper" when the poor kid can't have a life in case they are to far away when their sibling may need a body part.

Not that I agree with having a savior child (because actually I don't) but in the article the Doctor they were interviewing said in 90% of cases savior children don't become a machine for parts. Meaning cases like "My Sister's Keeper" rarely happen.
that's probably true, but i can't imagine bringing a child into the world with the sole purpose to save their sibling. they would live with knowing that all their life. and while you never really know until you're in that situation, i just don't think i would ever do that.
this is an instance where some nice cloned or matched bone marrow grown in a petri dish would be awesome (i.e. stem cell research)

Well you don't have to say "you were conceived for parts" just like I won't tell my daughter "you were conceived because Mommy and Daddy didn't have a condom but we got it on anyway and the morning after pill didn't work so here you are!"

I assume that most of these parents still love their second child for the person that they are, like they would love any other child. They don't just see them as spare parts.

tarebear9891 · April 2010

violetvirgo:
tarebear9891:
pixiedustie:
I want to say no, I really hope I wouldn't have another child just to save their sibling. Where do you stop then, will this child constantly be used for their parts. Will it end with the umbilical blood, or painful bone marrow extractions or like "My Sisters Keeper" when the poor kid can't have a life in case they are to far away when their sibling may need a body part.

Not that I agree with having a savior child (because actually I don't) but in the article the Doctor they were interviewing said in 90% of cases savior children don't become a machine for parts. Meaning cases like "My Sister's Keeper" rarely happen.
that's probably true, but i can't imagine bringing a child into the world with the sole purpose to save their sibling. they would live with knowing that all their life. and while you never really know until you're in that situation, i just don't think i would ever do that.
this is an instance where some nice cloned or matched bone marrow grown in a petri dish would be awesome (i.e. stem cell research)

I agree with this. I think it is true to say you wouldn't know what you would do unless you were in that situation just like it is true to say that once you started using your child as a "cure" it would be hard to draw a line and know when to stop. (holy run on sentence)

hj_1235 · April 2010

I would. If it were something like needing a bone marrow transplant and my having another child would cure DD...without a dobut I would do it.

Now...if it were something where the "savior" child has to "donate" their whole lives or are for body parts, well then no. But a one time donation or something of that nature, yes.

We all have children for different reasons. We all love those children the same, regardless of why they were conceived.

violetvirgo · April 2010

iris427:
Well you don't have to say "you were conceived for parts" just like I won't tell my daughter "you were conceived because Mommy and Daddy didn't have a condom but we got it on anyway and the morning after pill didn't work so here you are!"
I assume that most of these parents still love their second child for the person that they are, like they would love any other child. They don't just see them as spare parts.

no, no. i agree with that. i think once they get to a certain age though i can see how the parents would continue to pressure the savior child to donate whatever was needed. i think once you're in the midst of it it would be harder to draw the line. of course my only real point of reference is my sister's keeper, so that's what i think of.

macchiatto · April 2010

I think it's so hard to say unless you've been in that situation. Reading My Sister's Keeper definitely makes me think only if it was something uninvasive and that they wouldn't remember! Unless they wanted to do more when they were old enough to decide for themselves. E.g. my high school BFF has lupus and her sister donated a kidney to save her life, but they're both adults.

tarebear9891 · April 2010

hj_1235:
I would. If it were something like needing a bone marrow transplant and my having another child would cure DD...without a dobut I would do it.

Now...if it were something where the "savior" child has to "donate" their whole lives or are for body parts, well then no. But a one time donation or something of that nature, yes.

We all have children for different reasons. We all love those children the same, regardless of why they were conceived.

But would you know when to call it quits? What if you thought it was going to be a one time deal and it turned out they were needed over and over again?

mrs.n06 · April 2010

I agree I couldn't really say unless I was in the situation. But reading this post is giving me a nervous butterflies feeling even thinking of ever having to make a decision like this.

chrisnj0614 · April 2010

Yes. I would do anything to save my child's life or prevent suffering. I would have a ton of children if my husband wanted to anyway, so its not an issue for me at all.

iris427 · April 2010

violetvirgo:
iris427:
Well you don't have to say "you were conceived for parts" just like I won't tell my daughter "you were conceived because Mommy and Daddy didn't have a condom but we got it on anyway and the morning after pill didn't work so here you are!"
I assume that most of these parents still love their second child for the person that they are, like they would love any other child. They don't just see them as spare parts.
no, no. i agree with that. i think once they get to a certain age though i can see how the parents would continue to pressure the savior child to donate whatever was needed. i think once you're in the midst of it it would be harder to draw the line. of course my only real point of reference is my sister's keeper, so that's what i think of.

That is a fictional story that was dramatized to be a good narrative. Most of these cases aren't like that, where the "savior child" has to keep donating more and more. It's usually a one time donation of cord blood or possibly bone marrow, at least from what I have read. A cord blood donation doesn't even affect the baby so it's not like we're talking about carving out their organs on the delivery table.

Mrs.Hizzo · April 2010

If it saved one of my kids' lives? Yes, I probably would, even if we though we were done having kids. The way I see it, I would save one and gain another to love, instead of losing one. I don't even have to think about that.

sunnyday016 · April 2010

katem3277:
Yes. I would do anything to save my child's life and I would love the younger sibling just as I would love any of my children.

This.

nicoleRI · April 2010

Mrs.Hizzo:
If it saved one of my kids' lives? Yes, I probably would, even if we though we were done having kids. The way I see it, I would save one and gain another to love, instead of losing one. I don't even have to think about that.

I was trying to figure out a way to say this- I agree.