“Savior Siblings” – Now legal in the United Kingdom, it is also being practiced in the United States. Like other medical advances, advances that are coming fast and furious, it is being done without full scrutiny - unrestrained, and unregulated. As in embryonic stem cell research, the focus is almost entirely on the intended result, the “ends” so to speak. But what about the “means”? Does the end really justify the means? Does anything go when you’re trying to save a life? This article gives a real-life look at the issue of “savior siblings” - and it’s a very difficult situation. But they left an important part out – a part that many want to ignore – the “leftovers”.
“Giving Birth to Save a Life”
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jun/01/giving-birth-to-save-a-life/
This family in California has a two-year-old child (Hailey) with leukemia. Evidently, it’s a pretty aggressive form of leukemia, and although she’s had a stem cell transplant, she is not out of the woods. The doctors give her a 25% chance of living past the age of five. The article includes pictures of her, and she is adorable. It’s heartbreaking. In the very first sentence, her parents state that they want to do all that they can to save her life. I understand that. Most of us as parents would lay down our own lives for our children. But that phrase – “do all that they can to save her life” is the crux of the matter. In fact, it’s the crux of the entire embryonic stem cell debate.
Her parents have decided to have a “savior sibling”. They will have another child, who through genetic testing, will be as close of a match to their sick child as possible. Then, if Hailey has a relapse, they could use stem cells from the “savior sibling” – either from saved umbilical cord blood, or a bone marrow transplant, to save Hailey’s life. In the article, much is said about the ethics of bringing a child into the world specifically for the purpose of “using” that child to save another. That’s an issue to be addressed, certainly, but there’s another issue that is much more problematic – and not a word was said about it.
The problem is in the process. IVF (in-vitro fertilization) will be used to create multiple embryos (which are human beings in the early stages of development). The article does not state how many, only uses the plural form of the word, which means, of course, more than one. The embryos will be genetically tested to find the one (or two) that is the closest match to Hailey, and then implanted into a surrogate mother (Hailey’s mom is unable to carry a child to term). But here’s the thing - what about the embryos that are not implanted? They become the “leftovers”, the “unwanted”, the “extras”. And the outlook is not good for the “leftovers”.
There are thousands of “leftovers” in fertility clinics around the world. IVF has been very successful in helping many couples to have babies who could not do so otherwise. But the problem is in the process. They create more embryos than they implant, and those that are not implanted are frozen indefinitely. A very small percentage of these “leftovers” are adopted by other couples, who carry, give birth to, and raise the child as their own. (The reason why that percentage is so small – that’s a discussion for another time.) But, until recently, most leftover embryos have been headed for disposal – thrown out with the trash. With the onset of embryonic stem cell research, however, there’s another possibility for the “leftovers” – they’re a ready supply of the needed embryonic stem cells. And when the objection is made that harvesting the stem cells destroys the embryos, proponents of the research will say, the embryos were going to be thrown out anyway – at least now, they’re being put to good use, and may help save many other lives. So, we’ve moved from “the ends justify the means”, to choosing “the lesser of two evils”. It’s still wrong.
Whether IVF is being used for fertility treatments or for savior siblings - what is the difference between the embryos that are chosen to be implanted, and those that are not? Only that – it’s a choice. Can a choice change what they inherently are? No. They’re all human beings. We can’t change what they are simply based on whether or not we want them. I can’t even tell if I’m talking about embryonic stem cell research, savior siblings, or abortion at the moment. It all applies – because it’s all the same problem. Whether it’s an unwanted pregnancy, or a leftover embryo – by labeling these lives something other than life, by trying to take away their humanity (simply by saying it over and over) – it is so much easier to dispose of them as conveniently as possible and not feel guilty about it. And if they can be used for our own benefit first, so much the better. It’s selfishness, it’s self-delusion, it’s deception, it’s sin.
As much as I want to keep up with these issues, and keep learning, it is sometimes difficult to be so immersed in the world’s perspective. It can be infuriating, aggravating, and downright depressing. As a way to cope with some of the stupid and heartbreaking things that people say, I started my “Quotes that Annoy Me” file. When I come across something that really bugs me, it’s very therapeutic to just toss it into the “annoying” file. You can be sure, the following quotes are in there:
“For one who concludes that we are not obliged to refrain from using embryos that will never enter a womb, embryonic stem cell research is a case of fostering a worthy end by using only nonpersons as means.” (emphasis added)
Louis Guenin, “The Ethics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, International Society for Stem Cell Research
“They (these embryos) belong to men and women who created them in hopes of having a baby, and who often must decide what do with them when they conclude their infertility treatment…What we heard were people struggling to make sense of their procreative responsibilities to an entity whose promise they understood and respected but that they did not believe yet had an absolute claim to life.” (emphasis added)
Ruth R. Faden and Anne Drapkin Lyerly, “The Donors Have Spoken”, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics
“The rabbis unanimously approved the procedure after saying that embryos only a few days old and swimming in a Petri dish are not considered human life but only cells, and that producing disease-free babies with a healthy future was not only permitted but preferred in her situation.” (emphasis added)
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, “Hadassah beaks chain of BRCA mutation”, Jerusalem Post
See what I mean? And, by the way, I looked up the definition of “nonperson”. I really wasn’t expecting to find one – I thought it wasn’t a real word. I was wrong –
"Nonperson" – a person whose existence is systematically ignored or concealed, especially one whose removal from the attention and memory of the public is sought for reasons of ideological or political deviation. (American Heritage Dictionary)
I couldn’t agree more.
There is something wrong with the IVF process. Whether you’re trying to have a baby just because you want one and you’re physically unable to have one naturally, or in order to save another child who is desperately ill – whatever the reason for IVF, “leftovers” should not be allowed. If an embryo is created outside the womb, it should be implanted inside a womb – as soon as possible. All of the embryos – don’t create more than you can implant. We have got to stop messing with these embryos as if they’re a microscope slide in biology class. They are human beings – they are life. We are playing God when we make the decisions about who lives and who does not. We’re playing God – and we don’t fit the job description.
Hailey’s mom is described in the article as a “40-year-old church-going homemaker” (add a few years to that – and that description fits me, too). And the very last statement of the article is hers. She says, speaking in reference to a savior sibling for Hailey, “I just think it’s God’s plan.” My heart aches for her, but I think she’s wrong. I think sometimes we want something so badly, and it seems like such a good thing that surely, God would want it for us – that we put His stamp of approval on it for Him, without taking the time to see from the truth of His word what He really thinks of it. That’s what I’ve been trying to do – find out what God says about life, and “leftovers” – and rely on the truth of His word, and not rely on my feelings, no matter how heartfelt they might be.
I’ve learned a lot, but this is long enough - so for now, I’ll just end with this:
For my father and my mother have forsaken me,
But the Lord will take me up. (Psalm 27:10)
Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. (Proverbs 31:8-9)
If God has every star in the sky named, if He has the hairs on our heads numbered – I’m sure that He knows every single life that has been prematurely ended by abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and by the process of creating “savior siblings”. We may want to forget the “leftovers”, or at least devalue them – but God knows them, God knows each one of them by name. And God is not mocked – we will reap what we sow.
God, have mercy on America.
No comments:
Post a Comment