Savior Siblings: Ethics of Creating Spare Part Children
This paper examines the ethical controversy surrounding "savior siblings" — children created through in vitro fertilization and genetic screening to serve as stem cell or bone marrow donors for critically ill older siblings. Drawing on bioethics scholarship and case examples such as the Nash family of Colorado, the paper presents arguments both for and against a hospital hiring a physician to offer this service. Proponents cite the life-saving potential of umbilical cord stem cells and advances in genetic technology, while critics raise concerns about embryo discarding, the donor child's lack of consent, and long-term psychological harm. The paper ultimately concludes, through a utilitarian framework, that the ethical costs outweigh the benefits.
- Introduction: Context and hospital decision on savior siblings
- The Case for Savior Siblings: Arguments supporting the practice and hiring the doctor
- Expanding Access and Genetic Technology: Genetic advances and parental autonomy in donor conception
- Ethical Objections to the Practice: Moral concerns including embryo discarding and playing God
- The Savior Sibling's Perspective: Consent, psychological harm, and child welfare concerns
- Conclusion: Utilitarian recommendation against hiring the doctor
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Presents a structured, balanced argument by acknowledging both the benefits and ethical objections before arriving at a reasoned conclusion.
- Grounds the discussion in real-world examples, such as the Nash family case, lending credibility and relatability to an abstract ethical debate.
- Incorporates multiple ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, deontology, and bioethical principles — to evaluate the issue from different philosophical angles.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning by systematically working through competing moral arguments. It introduces stakeholder perspectives — the ill child, the savior sibling, the parents, and the hospital — and weighs each before committing to a position grounded in utilitarian theory. This technique shows how ethical frameworks can be used as analytical tools rather than mere background theory.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with context-setting and a clear statement of the decision at hand. The discussion section alternates between pro and con arguments, with each paragraph devoted to a distinct line of reasoning. The conclusion synthesizes the analysis and delivers a definitive recommendation supported by reference to Overall (2012) and ethical theory. The structure follows a classic argument-counterargument pattern suitable for applied ethics writing.
Introduction
At a hospital, one of the most fulfilling tasks carried out daily is helping mothers usher newborns into the world. Proud parents of healthy babies cannot contain their joy as they take their children home, ready to embark on a journey full of happiness. However, some parents' joy is short-lived when their children develop life-threatening illnesses and complications that leave them struggling each day to find the best treatments. Although these parents resolve to do all it takes to save their child's life, their options are often limited — particularly because the most common illnesses requiring intervention, such as Diamond-Blackfan anemia or leukemia, frequently require blood or bone marrow transfers that parents themselves cannot provide, as they may not be exact tissue matches for the affected child.
Confronted with the dilemma of how to save such children's lives, doctors have adopted the practice of creating babies who can provide stem cells or transplants to their siblings. To create savior siblings — sometimes referred to as spare part children — a cell is sourced from an embryo and tested to determine whether it will match the cells of the older, ill sibling. If a match is found, the umbilical stem cells of the new baby can develop into compatible tissue for the sick child's body. Those cells are then implanted into the affected area of the older child's body, often resulting in a cure. The hospital has been presented with an opportunity to help desperate parents using this method, after being offered the chance to hire a physician who specializes in creating spare part children. As head of research at the hospital, it is imperative to present a solid argument in light of the conflicting views held by the board of trustees. This paper examines spare part children in detail and evaluates whether it is advisable to hire the doctor to provide this service.
The Case for Savior Siblings
According to Whitehouse (2010), experts estimate that there are more than 250 spare part children in existence in the United States today. In Chicago alone, approximately 1,000 families had adopted in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select a donor child for the benefit of an older sick sibling. Furthermore, the first family to attempt this — the Nash family of Colorado — was able to save their six-year-old daughter's life using their son Adam, resulting in two happy, healthy children (Whitehouse, 2010). The main implication is that if the procedure is performed for the right reasons, parents can help save their child's life. The doctor is an expert in this field, and it is therefore reasonable to hire him, particularly because in most cases only the umbilical cord is harvested — tissue that is typically discarded under normal circumstances — meaning no real harm is caused to the spare part child. In agreement with Dr. Brookoff, a member of the ethics panel, the hospital should not withhold a treatment that has previously been offered to other babies and resulted in improved health outcomes. As such, doctors in the hospital should pursue all available options to save a sick child's life, even if that means creating a spare part child.
Expanding Access and Genetic Technology
Another motivation for engaging the services of the doctor is to recognize the advancement of genetic technology in the field of medicine and to apply it within this hospital. Today, parents have been given the chance to save a sick child by conceiving another child. If there are parents who are fully aware of the consequences of the procedure, willing to accept and love the new child regardless of whether a tissue match is found, and who are desperate to prolong their ill child's life — then the question arises: who are we to deny them that opportunity? It would be valuable to have such a specialist available should the hospital encounter couples who are ready and willing to pursue this path. With an ethics vetting committee and proper guidelines in place, this hospital is well-positioned to carry out the procedure responsibly, ensuring that all relevant safeguards are in place and that the process is conducted for the right reasons. Without this option, parents may simply seek the service elsewhere, where oversight may be less rigorous. Information about the ethical dimensions of preimplantation genetic diagnosis — the technique used to screen embryos — is widely available and should inform the hospital's deliberations.
Conclusion
After reviewing the pros and cons of parents using spare part children for the benefit of a sick child, the best decision would be not to hire the doctor. In agreement with Overall (2012), if parents are not permitted to have a child in order to save a parent or another couple's child, then they should not have a child to save an older sibling. The drawbacks of such a procedure far outweigh the advantages to the parents. It is not appropriate to rely solely on past success stories, because for other couples, outcomes may differ significantly. The savior sibling might not provide the required match, subjecting them to a life of considerable difficulty. Such exploitation of a child's body should not be sanctioned by the hospital, as it often conflicts with established ethical and moral codes of conduct. The principle of deontology may also be undermined because, while some doctors may have good intentions, some parents may abuse genetic technology to control their children's traits — such as attractiveness or intelligence — well beyond therapeutic need. Therefore, the best framework for the hospital to adopt is the utilitarian ethical theory, which requires that any action maximize overall well-being — an outcome that the creation of savior siblings cannot reliably guarantee.
References
Overall, C. (2012). Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Paola, F. A., Walker, R., & Nixon, L. L. (2010). Medical Ethics and Humanities. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC.
Whitehouse, B. (2010). The Match: Savior Siblings and One Family's Battle to Heal Their Daughter. Boston: Beacon Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.