Should Parents have a Another Child to Save the Life of Another Child Research Paper

Should Parents have a A nonher Child to tho the Life of A nonher Child - Research Paper ExampleLong term repercussions have not been determined as of yet because most of the nestlingren born are still underage. Society may not implement the negative effects that this process move have on the child until several to a greater extent years from now, when the child is an adult. As a child, he or she has no choice to donate or not, it is up to the parents. It is definitely heart wrenching to see your child die a little to a greater extent each day, but parents and society must learn the effects that having another child to save the sorry one get out have. The opposition is just as outspoken. If a childs support can be saved, then anything should be done to save it. The opposition has appealing concepts and qualities. No one wants to see a child die, especially the parents of that child. Everything that can be done should be done. Keeping that humane nurse in mind, during 2002 the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in England laid the basis for an outrageous debate not only in media, but in the ethical circles too, when they allowed a family to have a baby that will be genetically selected to cure the chronical disease of its sibling. A group of medical and scientific researchers fully support the idea to have a baby as a savior for its sibling. It is ethically gratifying to induce an offspring to save the life of a desperately ill sibling. ... al., as cited in Pentz, R., et. al., 2008). They also conclude that life is a precious thing and it is obligatory for us to save each and every life when we can do it with available technologies in 21st century. It is better than seeing a child end with Fanconi anemia. It is heart rendering as a human to see people losing strings to life with desquamation mucous membranes, sloughing skin and mouths with pouring bloods. No matter, whatever it takes but lives should be saved (Belkin, 2001). Aulisio, whitethorn and Block (2001) indicate that as a matter of social policy there is no excusatory ground for prohibiting parents from having a child to save a child. They see it quite ethical if a child is brought into existence for specific reasons. Whatever happens next to the giver child is the area of main concern term rest lies with the decision of donation that is taken either by the donor or parents. If the minor donor is involved and is not able to take decision then the donation should be done in the best interest of the donor. For me, infact the idea to create a child as a donor for tusk marrow transplant for curing a medically vulnerable sibling, seem awful to all acceptable ethical standards. This is a fact that lot of children born, are from unplanned pregnancies and after the initial shock of the parents, convulsion ensues. The baby is born and the parents are happy, proud, and full of love and hopes for the future. Other children are planned and parents experience t he aforesaid(prenominal) feelings. What happens when that child that is so loved and nurtured becomes so ill that he or she needs a operating system marrow transplant in order to survive?