One child to save another...

Tah - posted on 11/09/2010 ( 44 moms have responded )

7,412

22

400

So say God forbid, you had a sick child, some rare form of cancer or something along those lines,

would you have another child to save that child?

Would allow that child to go threw testing, procedures, and surgeries just to save the sick child?

Would that child be any less important than the sick child?

What if that child decided they didn't want to go through it anymore to save their sibling, would that be okay with you????

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Sharon - posted on 11/11/2010

11,585

12

1315

ok - the "pain" argument irks me.

http://www.marrow.org/JOIN/Myths_%26_Fac...

MYTH:
Donating is painful and involves a long recovery.

FACT:
There can be uncomfortable but short-lived side effects of donating PBSC. Due to taking a drug called filgrastim for five days leading up to donation, PBSC donors may have headaches, joint or muscle aches, or fatigue. PBSC donors are typically back to their normal routine in one to two days.

Those donating marrow receive general or regional anesthesia, so they feel no pain during donation. Marrow donors can expect to feel some soreness in their lower back for one to two weeks afterward. Most marrow donors are back to their normal activities in two to seven days.

[deleted account]

@Emma - the book was so good because it was such a surprise at the end. No one saw it coming. It wasn't nice, but it was dramatic. Sometimes its good when the hero dies...

And I don't think the parents in that situation were cruel. They just couldn't see the woods for the trees so to speak. They never had the kid to be spare parts for the first kid. It was just for the cord blood. But then she needed a little blood. No big deal. And then a little more blood and then a little more. If you look at the individual procedures, its easy to see how the parents would make that decision. All together, yes, it is cruel, but you wouldn't be looking at it that way, necessarily if you were in that situation.

Isobel - posted on 11/10/2010

9,849

0

286

There's no way of knowing what we would do when faced with the death of a child...I honestly don't pretend to know.

Amanda - posted on 11/10/2010

74

16

8

oy i started watching my sister's keeper lasat night haven't finished it yet, but it serve a very good message (from what i saw) to knw your whole purpose in life is spare parts would be devasting and depressing.

Ava - posted on 11/10/2010

307

31

12

This sounds like 'My Sister's Keeper'. And no, I wouldn't, but I would certainly save my next child's stem cells if I had one.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

44 Comments

View replies by

Tah - posted on 11/11/2010

7,412

22

400

I don't think anyone would sit by and watch their child die..but having another child and using them as spare parts..that is a little...well alot extreme isn't it...

Stifler's - posted on 11/10/2010

15,141

154

604

The point of the movie also is that the sick person's wishes weren't being respected (minor or not) by forcing more treatments and procedures onto her that would potentially harm her sister. She wanted to enjoy her life and die with dignity.

Ava - posted on 11/10/2010

307

31

12

Chances are if the illness is severe enough to need another child to go through testing, they aren't going to live long enough for the second child to be old enough to make the decision. That was the point of the movie she's referencing-- the child wanted emancipated because the parents were abusing her by putting her through all of this testing, making her sick to make her sister better, who ended up just asking to die anyway.

I think your priorities are mixed up, Sherri. The second child shouldn't be more important than the first child for any reason-- you should love your children equally. And giving birth to another child for the sole sake of curing the first is cruel. It assigns one purpose to that kid's life that isn't yours to give. I sincerely hope you seek psychiatric counseling.

Lacye - posted on 11/10/2010

2,011

31

164

I would not purposely get pregnant for any reason besides me wanting another child. To me, it would be cruel to the other child. What would you say to them? "oh, you were born so we could save your older sibling." no. that's not right. and i wouldn't blame a child if in the end they said no.

Stifler's - posted on 11/10/2010

15,141

154

604

The book sounds like it sucks if the healthy kid dies and the sick one that may or may not actually still live for longer than 5 years survived. In the movie the younger one wants to be emancipated so she doesn't have to do anything more and the parents don't have a say (the older sister wants to die and put her up to it).

Tara - posted on 11/10/2010

2,567

14

114

I wasn't going to post on this thread but than I read the following part of it. "
Would allow that child to go threw testing, procedures, and surgeries just to save the sick child?"
I think it was the word *just* that left a bad taste in my mouth. Just to save a sick child? Yes!! Emphatically yes I would allow my other child/ren to go through testing etc. and if at some point they didn't want to do it anymore I don't know how I would react? Does anyone really know I mean really really know how they would react in this situation and given that this is something some people have done I would be reluctant to slag anyone for making these choices, again none of us could ever know for sure what we would do to save our child.

Ez - posted on 11/10/2010

6,569

25

237

I was just going to echo Shannen. The only 'simple procedure' would be the cord blood. Beyond that, it all involves pain and risk.

[deleted account]

People keep saying "simple, like bone marrow" Do any of you who said this really know how much a bone marrow transplant hurts?? It is agony and i would never have a child to put them through pain just for their sibling.

Rosie - posted on 11/10/2010

8,657

30

321

i would have another child if it were simple procedures, like bone marrow, or something. no major organ transplant like kidneys, or liver or whatever. i won't hack one of my children open to save another. although i have heard bone marrow donation is really painful as well, so i'd have to know more about that to say for sure to that one as well.

[deleted account]

To have a baby born and it doesnt save your sick child, do you think that down the line it would be damaging to know you were born to save your siblings life and it failed.I mean you would have to really not allow anyone to tell that child as the grew up.Just to put it out there.

April - posted on 11/10/2010

3,420

16

263

and now to answer your question Tah...I would do anything to save my son. Yes, i would get pregnant to save him. HOWEVER...I could not force my other child to go through dozens and dozens of procedures to save his or her brother. I would allow procedures up to a certain point. If my son isn't better, I'm not going to run my other child into the ground to save him.

April - posted on 11/10/2010

3,420

16

263

Okay and i must comment that the book and the movie cannot be compared. If you're a fan of Jodi Picoult, then you know her stories are notorious for their twist of irony.

*spoiler alert*

In the book, Anna wins her case, but on the way home from court, she is in a terrible car accident and dies anyway (and i believe Kate ended up getting the organs, but i will have to go back and check) .

In the movie, Anna lives and Kate dies. Two totally different endings. To say that the book was better than the movie simply doesn't do the book justice...IMO they were almost 2 different stories!

April - posted on 11/10/2010

3,420

16

263

Have you ever read My Sister's Keeper, by Jodi Picoult? That is exactly what the main character's mother did. She had daughter #2 to save daughter #1 and the little girl finally refused to share her body. She ends up suing her parents because she wants to keep her kidney (she was a hockey player and wouldn't be allowed to play with just 1 kidney)

Amanda - posted on 11/10/2010

697

15

25

I have to say that I would, IF it came to something such as a bone marrow transplant, something that would be over a 50% chance. If down the line more and more was needed then i would not continually use the child like in the movie(not sure how to word this to make sense....) i would love the child just as much as the sick child. I think it really is a question most people cannot HONESTLY answer unless they are in such a situation.

Bonnie - posted on 11/10/2010

4,813

22

262

I don't think I would be able to do it just by thinking of it now in the spur of the moment and I don't think I would change my mind if the situation were to occur.

Katherine - posted on 11/10/2010

65,420

232

5195

I read the book and saw the movie. Book was better like everyone has said.
I may have another to save the first. I don't know. My neice had a very rare blood disorder and it was fatal if not taken care of with bone marrow. Her brother saved her with his. The difference is that my in-laws didn't have him to save her. They new how bad dhe was, but not HOW bad it really was. It was a one time thing and she's doing much better.
I know I would, I can't lie. I have 2 now, I have donated my 2nd's cord blood to a public bank, so I'm good.


"Just in case."

Tracey - posted on 11/10/2010

1,094

2

58

This is a time I prefer the NHS in UK against the American health service. Anyone who needs treatment for any illness / disease gets it free of charge. The only cost in this scenario would be having IVF and screening to make sure the new baby was able to provide the cure.

The book has a much better ending.

[deleted account]

Could you even afford another child anyway with all the medical bills from your now sick child..you have to think about how you will raise the child not just how this child can save your sick child.Cord blood maybe okay yes but anything other than that, its heartbreaking but no.

[deleted account]

I would test existing children and family who were willing to see if we were a match but I would not have a baby just to save my sick child. It's not fair on either child, both need your attention in different ways. The new born baby will need your attention as only a newborn can, yet the sick child needs your attention too and how are you supposed to give both children the attention they need?



Also, I think it could adversely affect the donor childs self worth because at the end of the day that child could possibly feel as though you only want them as the saviour to the sick child and not for who they are.

Jodi - posted on 11/10/2010

3,562

36

3907

I am going to agree that:



(1) I wouldn't have another child for that reason; and...

(2) The book was much better than the movie. But then, most books are :)

[deleted account]

No i couldn't bring another child into the world for the soul purpose to possibly save her sister.Its not right.

Stifler's - posted on 11/10/2010

15,141

154

604

In the movie the sick daughter has told the other kids she doesn't want to do it anymore and wants to die and tells the well sister to say no to anymore procedures and they don't tell the mum so she's like WHAT'S GOING ON WHY ARE YOU REFUSING TO HELP YOUR SISTER. The sick one dies in the end.

[deleted account]

Can't tell you the ending Tracey without possibly ruining the ending of the book for others.

And I agree with your point Tracey - you can't really say what you'll do until you're in that situation. Especially if it happened like it did in that book ie just wanting the cord blood and then it snowballing from there.

Tracey - posted on 11/10/2010

1,094

2

58

I've read the book but not seen the movie,how does the movie end?
My son is disabled although not in a life threatening way, if I could have another child who could somehow provide a cure I would get pregnant tomorrow, and I would let that child go through all testing up to up to the point of donating body parts.
Don't judge me until you have walked in my shoes.

Ez - posted on 11/10/2010

6,569

25

237

The book is 1000x better than the movie!! Though isn't that always the way?

And no, I would not have another child with the sole intention of using them to save an existing sick one. I would explore all possibilities with existing family (including children) but that's it.

Charlie - posted on 11/09/2010

11,203

111

409

Like my sisters keeper .

NO WAY , i would never have a child for that reason .

[deleted account]

No way would I have another child for the specific purpose in mind of saving my other child. I don't even know if I would allow my child to go through testing and procedures and stuff, even if its to save the other one. Especially if they're young and don't understand these things. If they're older and I felt they did understand, I might let them (still torn); and they didn't want to go through it anymore, I would allow them to stop, definitely. My children are precious but there are lines you just can't cross.

Tah - posted on 11/09/2010

7,412

22

400

@Anika..thats what i am watching..i figured most people saw it, but i always watch it when it comes on because it raises these questions...

[deleted account]

I'm with Emma. As much as i would hate to see my child go through a sickness i couldnt carry another child just to save the 1st one. IMO it's wrong on so many levels.

[deleted account]

This is just like "My Sister's Keeper".
I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation. I think if it was just the cord blood they needed, I might. But all the other stuff? No. I don't think that would be fair to the other child. But in saying that, I love my daughter with all my being and if she was sick I would want to do anything I could to save her....so who knows what I might decide then? I just hope I (or anyone) never have to make that choice.

Becky - posted on 11/09/2010

2,892

44

93

That's a very hard question to answer! I mean, if I had a very sick child, I'm sure I would want to move heaven and earth, do anything in my power to save that child. But to have another child just to basically be a sacrificial lamb? I don't think I could do that. For one, there are no guarantees that that child would even be a match and able to donate the bone marrow or organs that my sick child needed. For 2, I think that is a horrible and unfair burden to place on a child. And I think even if I treated that child equally, he/she would always feel like maybe his/her life was less important than the sibling's life.
Now, on the other hand, if I were pregnant anyways, or had another child, we certainly would explore whether that child was able to help my sick child - by donating blood or marrow or whatever. If I were pregnant, we'd definitely bank the cord blood in hopes of using it for the sick child. If my kids were old enough to voice their opinion, then they would have a say in it. I would not force one of my children to go through tests and painful (and even life-threatening) surgeries for their sibling. I hope they have the kind of relationship where they would do so willingly, but I wouldn't force it. That just sets them up for resentment.

Stifler's - posted on 11/09/2010

15,141

154

604

No. I wouldn't go there, it's not fair to bring the next child into all that and have them feel like they were only born to be a donor ginuea pig.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms