3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

View previous topic View next topic Go down

3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Admin on Tue May 10, 2011 2:52 pm

A Sister for Joshua

Mr. and Mrs. S are a successful young professional couple. They have two sons: Joshua, who is five years old, and Matthew, who is two.

Nine months ago, Joshua was diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL). He responded well to his initial chemotherapy and quickly went into remission. Last week, however, Josh's oncologist detected the early signs of a relapse of his leukemia. Although secondary therapy is available, it involves drugs with signficantly higher toxicity and much less certainty of a second remission. The oncologist has also told Mr. and Mrs. S about a research study that requires a bone marrow transplant and a new (experimental) drug that will aid engraftment and deter rejection.

Joshua's two-year old brother, Matthew, is not a histocompatible donor for the transplant. So the parents consider having another baby, and begin discussions with an endocrinologist who specializes in in vitro fertilization. The specialist explains the procedures for in vitro fertilization and pre-implantation genetic testing. If Mr. and Mrs. S have any incipient doubts about what they are doing, they do not raise them with one another. Their conversations are only about the process - about what is to be done next.

Mrs. S's eggs are retrieved and impregnated with Mr. S's sperm. Then, while tests are being made to discern histocompatibility with Joshua, an outspoken friend asks Mrs. S, "Are you having this new baby simply as a means to give Josh a new lease on life?" Mrs. S finds herself unable to answer immediately. "No," she says finally. "We are going to love this new baby all for herself, and she will be happy knowing that she has helped her older brother." But that afternoon, when she meets her husband at the clinic, she bursts into tears.

Answer both of the following:

1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

Admin
Admin

Posts : 46
Join date : 2010-08-15

View user profile http://hancockhonorsbio.free-forums.mobi

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  tweetywizard on Tue May 10, 2011 5:44 pm

1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

They can resolve their conflict but not the way they are trying to do it. Why won't one of them give him some bone marrow? I think when the baby gets older and they do tell her why she was born they will just have to tell her and not beat around the bush with it. And i think that she will feel like she wasn't really wanted as a child but as a option because her being born and giving bone marrow is not a guarantee that he would live. And if he was to die even after she as a baby gave bone marrow she would feel as if she was a failure to her brother. Because this is concerning a child being born for this procedure the family may want an ethics consultant to give them information to make the best decision. I would not have a child for that reason, i would try every other option.

2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

If i were put here to save a life and help people i wouldn't have a problem with that because that is what i was put here by God to do. But if i know i am not wanted just needed thats gonna hurt my feelings a lot but i would have no choice but to deal with it. But i think they would get over it because then as they get older they will need younger people to help them.





tweetywizard

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-08-23
Age : 23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Richiee12 on Tue May 10, 2011 8:32 pm

1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

Honestly I would say its probably too late to change their minds. They cant lie about why they REALLY are having this girl. They have to face the fact that what they did is wrong and move on with it. They will have to just be straight forward and tell the baby girl what happened at birth and why she was conceived. No need to hold the truth back from the child. Mr. and Mrs. S will just have to live with the guilt. If Josh responds poorly to the transplant then it'll really be all Mr. and Mrs. S' fault. They have to live with two guilts, one for the new baby, and another one for killing Josh. Either way it goes, the parents have made a poor decision. I don't honestly think the daughter would feel as if she contributed to her brothers death, its not much you can blame on her. The parents are morally the blame for his death. It's not like they asked her if she wanted to donate or not, even if she agreed to it it still wouldn't be her fault. She tried and thats all she can do. If I was the parent, I would leave it alone for as long as I could and once the oncologist noticed it has gotten worse I would go ahead and go through with secondary treatment. At this point its not much I could do but pray on it and leave it in God's hands.

2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

Understanding that you were put in this world to help someone sounds good. But not everyone wants to be a donor so that'll violate some rights. You should be asked before anything becomes donated, wait till the child is able to understand whats going on, whats being donated, and why its being donated. If told you were only put on this earth to be used to help someone kind of hurts, basically your a life not necessarily wanted but needed. You were vital to someone else's life, your presence isn't needed, just your organs. I don't know if every child would accept this act accordingly. Many children would develop a low self-esteem it would make them feel as if they're not wanted. I couldn't imagine being told that, thats something that would take me well over into my later ages to accept.

Richiee12

Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  aMAIZEing94 on Wed May 11, 2011 2:56 am

1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

Mr. and Mrs. S can resolve their conflict. When the baby gets older, they will simply tell her what Mrs. S told her friend because it was not a lie. It will definitely be unfortunate if Josh responds poorly to the transplant, however, the daughter should not feel that she contributed to her brother's death but rather that she made an attempt to save him when no one else could have. This case might be the subject of an ethics consult of a class or a religious meeting. If I were the parent, I would probably get more opinions on having secondary therapy.

2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

If every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons, some may take it differently than others. As the children progress into maturity, some will have low self-esteem, feeling as if their parents wanted love or appreciate them for their "donations" rather than the person that they are. Some may feel heroic, depending on whether the other person survived or not. Society would come to accept, even more, the concept of saving one's life at the expense of, or while disregarding another.

aMAIZEing94

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  gamerdude94 on Wed May 11, 2011 5:25 pm

1. I think Mr and Mrs. S can resolve their conflict but it is going to take a while. Many factors are going to be included and they dont even know how the child feels about it. The child may feel that they are being used or being a hero by saving the older brother. However if Josh dies then the new child may feel that they did not do enough or it is their fault. I think that they would definitely have to consult with an ethical consult. I think that if they dont rush and think it over they can come to a reasonable solution.

2. If every child were conceived to prolong another then society would crumble. A person born would feel that they were not born to live but instead born to be sort of farmed. It would instill that they were only born because someone was sick and therefore would feel unwanted. I think no one could live with this and there would be chaos as a result.

gamerdude94

Posts : 61
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  iluvowls on Wed May 11, 2011 7:34 pm

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have another baby in order to save Josh. Any good parent would do whatever they could to save their child and if this would save him there is no reason they shouldn't do it. The parents will of course love the new child too and the new child should not feel unloved fOr being a test tube baby. They are still a baby from those parents just made especially to help their brother live. If they weren't selfish, they should feel good for having that purpose in life. Many people go years trying to figure out what their purpose in life is but that baby would already know. Any feelings of unlove would eventually subside. The parents should tell the child that she was made because they wanted her but also because she could help her brother live. If Matthew could have done it he would. If everyone was put on earth for this purpose, we would all be more humble and there would be something good about all of us.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Communistkid on Wed May 11, 2011 8:33 pm


1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?


Yes they can, quite easily actually. If they truly do not want another kid, then there's always adoption to be considered. The true question is: Who out there is truly monstrous enough to let your first born child die because you weren't ready to have a third kid? If the brother does die anyway, the sister will at first blame themselves much like children blame themselves for their parents divorce. Eventually they will grow out of it and understand the fact that science isn't perfect, especially with experimental procedures. In no way, the mother has every right to use a child of hers to save another, particularly if the third child wouldn't be permanently damaged in the process. ITS HER *CHOICE* (See what i did there?). I would have the 3rd child and keep it, it has certainly done more for the family than the other two that is sure to say.


2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

If they are not damaged in the process? So be it, but the idea a whole child would need to be made for spare parts and so forth is ridiculous, as most can be grown off of animals already. Nothing? why would it change them? They are children, they couldn't give a damn.

avatar
Communistkid

Posts : 40
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  penguin94 on Wed May 11, 2011 10:09 pm

1. I do believe that the conflict can be solved, but it will not be easy and will take time. A few solutions rest in the areas of adoption, or just raising the kid as normally as any other child. Just because the child was conceived mainly for the purpose of providing a transplant does not mean that that child cannot have a normal life. When the child is old enough to comprehend the circumstances on which she was conceived, then Mr. and Mrs. S should begin to teach her about the transplant. If all goes well with the transplant and Josh survives, then perhaps the child will feel proud that she could help her brother. If it does not go well, then the child may feel some guilt, but it was not originally her choice whether or not she would be conceived and would donate bone marrow. Her parents should teach her that and love her all the more for it. The parents will have numerous ethical persecutions facing them from their family, friends, neighbors, and even themselves and so should be considered for examination by an ethics consultant. If I was the parent, it would be extrememly hard for me to be able to deal with such a decision as this. I would turn to God and ponder and pray about each point that might be considered in this situation. Trusting in him fully, I would make my decision based on what I feel he would want me to do. Seeing as I am not the parent...currently, I think that my judgements would lead me to still going along with the procedure and dealing with the effects one at a time, step by step and praying to God to help me to have the strength and courage to continue on. I would love each of my children as much as I possibly could and raise them to be the best possible people on the Earth.

2. I do not believe that it is morally correct for every child ever conceived to be used to prolong another's life. I believe that in some circumstances it is necessary, but it is wholly unethical when used for selfish reasons. I believe that by doing this, life would seem not as important and we would appear to each other as a fly does to a dog. In otherwords, life would have no worth. We would not be an individualistic culture, we would not necessarily have capitalism either. The world would become as the society of A Brave New World, a factory. I believe that it might hurt the self-esteem of the children because their only purpose in life would be to provide transplants for other people, leaving them as worthless as a muddy old shoe. However, one might say that it would raise the self-steem of the children because they are doing something for the good of others. This may be a truth, but if the transplants are for selfish reasons, then this theory would be utterly destroyed because the children would not be doing any good in helping the selfish people.
avatar
penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 23
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Love is the Most Important Ingredient

Post  Suga-Mama on Wed May 11, 2011 10:57 pm

scratch From what I am understanding the third child will not be harmed in this transplant and they plan to truley love their new baby, so it does not seem unethical to me or in any way mentally damaging to the child. By giving Joshua a sister capable of saving his life is one of the greatest things a parent can do for their kid. Not only are they getting a new member of the family out of this, but they are also going to be able to save the life of thier fist born as well. Sad The sister should be proud to be born with the ability to save her own brother's life. She was born, out of love, to save the life of another. Sad That seems to be a very noble destiny to me. Also, there is really no shame in being born a test tube baby. She still has the genetic makeup of both her parents. She should feel no different than any other child. And if her brother doesn't respond well to the procedure, it is not her fault. She, nor her parents, could have predicted the outcome of the transplant. There was no guarentee that it would be successful anyway. On the other hand, I do see how this could become a an ethical problem for people. It does seem a bit sketchy to have a baby just to save the life of another. I don't think this kind of decision should be taken lightly. To do something like this you have to bring a brand new life into the world with feelings and a mind of its own. It has to be loved and nurtured just like any thing else. You can't treat them as if they are just a tool, they have to believe they are valuable and have a true destiny. However, if a parent's decision is truly out of the concern for their first born and the new baby if given the same amount of love as any other child, them it does not seem wrong to me. Anyway, they better love that child! She would be the key to Joshua's survival and without her he would have no chance at life. Something that precious should not be abused or considered anything less than loving daughter and valuable member of the family. I love you

I don't think experiments like this can be done on a large scale. It would only work for the select few. The people in genuine need of a family donor should be the only ones allowed to do this. It should not used as some kind of transplant assembly line. That is where things get unethical. You are literally raising another child, and child rearing is not something that can be simulated in a factory. It requires a lot of personal hands on attention with lots of love. I believe that society would become less sensitive to human emotions if we treated them like a product instead of human beings. I also think that if experiments like this were put into mass production, then the conditions would not be there to raise the children correctly, causing large amounts of children to expericence low self-esteem and depression. However, if things stayed small I think that this may be a great way to help people in the future.


Last edited by Suga-Mama on Wed May 11, 2011 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

To each his own life is special

Post  Flipper on Wed May 11, 2011 11:21 pm

Mr. and Mrs. S have a really tough decision to make. They can bring new life into the world soley to improve the life of their five year old son.. or they can allow the doctors do what is most common and use the toxic antiboitics to help prevent a second remisssion. Niether of these decisions completely guarantee their sons good health. But I think it is not right to bring new life into the world just to use it for medical purposes. I think it is especialy unfair to their daughter as a human being. When she gets older it will be hard for her to accept that she was only concieved for medical purpose. And im sure it will definately be hard on her if her brother died and she was no help or the cause of his death. I think the parents need to take into account that they are dealing with more than one life now.

Life is something that should not be manipulated or taken. I believe one should be given life and taught how not to abuse it but use it. If every child was born to prolong the life of someone else life wouldnt seem special anymore, but it would seem like a product and it would be taken for granted. Society would actually begin to conform to something that lacks individualism. One life would belong to others rather than the person wielding that one life. Nature would just simply be unbalanced.

Flipper

Posts : 42
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  calientelabios234 on Thu May 12, 2011 12:17 am

1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

I think they can resolve their conflict with understanding that they have a child who might die, and the natural instinct of parents is to do everything to protect that child from harm. I think they should talk to the child when she is mature, even though she was born to help save her brother they still love her, if he dies that is not her fault if anyone should be blamed is the factors of life, if she feels that she contributed to the death of her brother they should explain to her that it was not her fault he died, in essence she did not choose to be concieved. Some people might say that it is wrong but personally I do not think it is unethical to do this. If I was a parent I honestly do not know.


2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?
Well I think there two ways to look at it, people could highly esteem these kids because in essence they are doing something good. But society might look at them as just another non important factor if the results do not turn out great.
avatar
calientelabios234

Posts : 51
Join date : 2010-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  penguin94 on Fri May 13, 2011 5:44 pm

Suga-Mama wrote: Anyway, they better love that child! She would be the key to Joshua's survival and without her he would have no chance at life. Something that precious should not be abused or considered anything less than loving daughter and valuable member of the family. I love you
I completely agree. the parents should definately treat all of their children in the same way and not hold favor over one instead of the other. if they do not do this, then the third child may feel left out and depressed.
avatar
penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 23
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  penguin94 on Fri May 13, 2011 5:50 pm

Flipper wrote:Mr. and Mrs. S have a really tough decision to make. They can bring new life into the world soley to improve the life of their five year old son.. or they can allow the doctors do what is most common and use the toxic antiboitics to help prevent a second remisssion. Niether of these decisions completely guarantee their sons good health. But I think it is not right to bring new life into the world just to use it for medical purposes. I think it is especialy unfair to their daughter as a human being. When she gets older it will be hard for her to accept that she was only concieved for medical purpose. And im sure it will definately be hard on her if her brother died and she was no help or the cause of his death. I think the parents need to take into account that they are dealing with more than one life now.

true to the fact that it seems unethical to have a kid to save the other, but you also need to think about the other hand of this situation. if she helps to save her brother, then their lives can go on as normal, and they don't need to tell the child about that if they don't want to. it will be the parent's decision. and if the boy does die, it is in no way her fault, her parents made the decision and they should teach her that it's not her fault.
avatar
penguin94

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-19
Age : 23
Location : everywhere :)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Suga-Mama on Fri May 13, 2011 5:52 pm

penguin94 wrote:I do not believe that it is morally correct for every child ever conceived to be used to prolong another's life. I believe that in some circumstances it is necessary, but it is wholly unethical when used for selfish reasons. I believe that by doing this, life would seem not as important and we would appear to each other as a fly does to a dog. In otherwords, life would have no worth. We would not be an individualistic culture, we would not necessarily have capitalism either. The world would become as the society of A Brave New World, a factory. I believe that it might hurt the self-esteem of the children because their only purpose in life would be to provide transplants for other people, leaving them as worthless as a muddy old shoe. However, one might say that it would raise the self-steem of the children because they are doing something for the good of others. This may be a truth, but if the transplants are for selfish reasons, then this theory would be utterly destroyed because the children would not be doing any good in helping the selfish people.
I'm with you on that one. I do believe that eventually this method of saving lives will get out of hand and turn into some kind of business where people are treated like a product and not human beings. If possible, something like this should be restricted to special cases such as Joshua's.
avatar
Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Suga-Mama on Fri May 13, 2011 6:01 pm

Communistkid wrote:[b]
2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

If they are not damaged in the process? So be it, but the idea a whole child would need to be made for spare parts and so forth is ridiculous, as most can be grown off of animals already. Nothing? why would it change them? They are children, they couldn't give a damn.

Also, like you said, it is morally wrong and ridiculous to use children as spare parts, and where would the transplants end. It's one thing to have a blood transfusion, but what if Joshua had needed a new heart instead? Would it still be morally correct to use the his sister's heart for a heart transplant? That would surley end the life of his sister, and at what cost? I mean, what if the transplant wasn't even successful? Then two lives would have been lost for nothing. The whole experiment is just wrong. Exclamation
avatar
Suga-Mama

Posts : 67
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Richiee12 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:09 pm

[quote="aMAIZEing94"]..however, the daughter should not feel that she contributed to her brother's death but rather that she made an attempt to save him when no one else could have.


I've never thought of it like that. Although, in certain cases she might feel like she helped cause the death, because she gave and it still came through as a failure. It's going to take her a while to get over that.

Richiee12

Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Richiee12 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:11 pm

aMAIZEing94 wrote:Mr. and Mrs. S can resolve their conflict. When the baby gets older, they will simply tell her what Mrs. S told her friend because it was not a lie. It will definitely be unfortunate if Josh responds poorly to the transplant, however, the daughter should not feel that she contributed to her brother's death but rather that she made an attempt to save him when no one else could have.


I've never thought of it like that. Although, in certain cases she might feel like she helped cause the death, because she gave and it still came through as a failure. It's going to take her a while to get over that.

Richiee12

Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Richiee12 on Sat May 14, 2011 5:14 pm

tweetywizard wrote:They can resolve their conflict but not the way they are trying to do it. Why won't one of them give him some bone marrow? I think when the baby gets older and they do tell her why she was born they will just have to tell her and not beat around the bush with it.



I don't think their method is a good method either. It would probably be a good idea for one of them to give the transplant. Having another child and then them barring the guilt of thinking they killed their sibling is morally wrong.

Richiee12

Posts : 56
Join date : 2010-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  timmy buck buck on Sat May 14, 2011 8:07 pm

Communistkid wrote:
1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?


Yes they can, quite easily actually. If they truly do not want another kid, then there's always adoption to be considered. The true question is: Who out there is truly monstrous enough to let your first born child die because you weren't ready to have a third kid? If the brother does die anyway, the sister will at first blame themselves much like children blame themselves for their parents divorce. Eventually they will grow out of it and understand the fact that science isn't perfect, especially with experimental procedures. In no way, the mother has every right to use a child of hers to save another, particularly if the third child wouldn't be permanently damaged in the process. ITS HER *CHOICE* (See what i did there?). I would have the 3rd child and keep it, it has certainly done more for the family than the other two that is sure to say.


2. What if every child were conceived as a means to prolong the life of other living persons? What would this do to our society and to the self-esteem of children as they progress to maturity?

If they are not damaged in the process? So be it, but the idea a whole child would need to be made for spare parts and so forth is ridiculous, as most can be grown off of animals already. Nothing? why would it change them? They are children, they couldn't give a damn.

Actually i agree with communist kid on this issue. He makes a valid point. I just hope the child doesnt feel used and abused when she gets older. If the procedure works then this child could feel heroic and be a recognized as her brothers savure.
avatar
timmy buck buck

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-09-01
Age : 49

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  timmy buck buck on Sat May 14, 2011 8:08 pm

penguin94 wrote:
Suga-Mama wrote: Anyway, they better love that child! She would be the key to Joshua's survival and without her he would have no chance at life. Something that precious should not be abused or considered anything less than loving daughter and valuable member of the family. I love you
I completely agree. the parents should definately treat all of their children in the same way and not hold favor over one instead of the other. if they do not do this, then the third child may feel left out and depressed.

I feel the same way. The third will ok as long as the parents are loving and kind towards her.
avatar
timmy buck buck

Posts : 43
Join date : 2010-09-01
Age : 49

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  iluvowls on Sun May 15, 2011 10:26 pm

Richiee12 wrote:
Understanding that you were put in this world to help someone sounds good. But not everyone wants to be a donor so that'll violate some rights. You should be asked before anything becomes donated, wait till the child is able to understand whats going on, whats being donated, and why its being donated. If told you were only put on this earth to be used to help someone kind of hurts, basically your a life not necessarily wanted but needed. You were vital to someone else's life, your presence isn't needed, just your organs. I don't know if every child would accept this act accordingly. Many children would develop a low self-esteem it would make them feel as if they're not wanted. I couldn't imagine being told that, thats something that would take me well over into my later ages to accept.



I disagree with this. Considering that most children are conceived by accident anyway, i dont find it necessary to first of all even tell them that they werent wanted but to wait till they are like 10 years old, when it is probably too late, to ask them if they are okay with doing something like this. You should always tell your kid that they were wanted even if they werent. Its just common sense and i'm pretty sure no one in their right minds would tell their kid that they didnt want them.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  iluvowls on Sun May 15, 2011 10:29 pm

[quote="aMAIZEing94"]1. Can Mr. and Mrs. S resolve their conflict? How will they talk to the new baby when she is old enough to ask about the circumstances of her birth? What if Josh responds poorly to the transplant and dies? Will she feel that she contributed to her brother's death? Under what conditions might this case be the subject of an ethics consult? What would you decide if you were the parent?

Mr. and Mrs. S can resolve their conflict. When the baby gets older, they will simply tell her what Mrs. S told her friend because it was not a lie. It will definitely be unfortunate if Josh responds poorly to the transplant, however, the daughter should not feel that she contributed to her brother's death but rather that she made an attempt to save him when no one else could have. This case might be the subject of an ethics consult of a class or a religious meeting. If I were the parent, I would probably get more opinions on having secondary therapy.

quote]

I do agree that she should not have low self-esteem about this. No one who wasn't completely selfish would. by the time she even should be informed with this information, she would be able to understand that there is no reason for her to feel bitter about it but to be happy that she could at least be there to try to help.

iluvowls

Posts : 65
Join date : 2010-08-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 3rd Hour - Bioethics - A Sister for Joshua

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum