Spare Parts Children?

[Pea-n-Me]

National Bone Marrow Registry - please watch the video.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Neither do brothers, though.

You're right, they don't. My brother wouldn't take a kidney from his identical twin, in case the same disease eventually strikes him.

My brother died. I'm aware transplantable organs aren't easy to find by any means - but surely it's more likely that a donor kidney can be made to match the recipient, no? Bone marrow, on the other hand, not so easy.

And isn't the spare parts child entitled to her/his own existence?

 

[Cool-Beans]

You're right, they don't. My brother wouldn't take a kidney from his identical twin, in case the same disease eventually strikes him.

My brother died. I'm aware transplantable organs aren't easy to find by any means - but surely it's more likely that a donor kidney can be made to match the recipient, no? Bone marrow, on the other hand, not so easy.

And isn't the spare parts child entitled to her/his own existence?

Of course they are entitled to exist.

They just (in my family, anyway) are not entitled to refuse to help their siblings live. The idea that one of my children would refuse to endure a little pain in order to save someone else's life would have me hanging my head in shame.

But even if they weren't, up and helping is what they'd be doing, if I had to drag them by the ear.

They'd be allowed to hate their sibling and call them occasional names. But marching in there to donate some marrow would be their #1 job. Bank on that.

And if they didn't like it, that would be too damn bad. But, again, I can't imagine one of my children saying, "I'm not giving you any marrow. You can just get it from some stranger or die." (But if they did, oh, heavens, would they be regretting it.)

 

[GoldieSaysMeep]

I don't think giving up a kidney is just enduring a little pain. Yes, a person can live with one kidney but what happens if the same illness strikes them. Then they are down a kidney and have no donor.

blood & marrow, of course. Organs, I don't know.

 

[daisax]

Of course they are entitled to exist.

They just (in my family, anyway) are not entitled to refuse to help their siblings live. The idea that one of my children would refuse to endure a little pain in order to save someone else's life would have me hanging my head in shame.

But even if they weren't, up and helping is what they'd be doing, if I had to drag them by the ear.

They'd be allowed to hate their sibling and call them occasional names. But marching in there to donate some marrow would be their #1 job. Bank on that.

And if they didn't like it, that would be too damn bad. But, again, I can't imagine one of my children saying, "I'm not giving you any marrow. You can just get it from some stranger or die." (But if they did, oh, heavens, would they be regretting it.)

Thank God, that's why there are psychiatric reviews of donors and recipients. And this point of view is why my friend who does those psychiatric evaluations feels fairly strongly that deciding what's "voluntary" within a family dynamic is a treacherous business, because if everybody signs up to see if they're a match, and the one person who matches is the one who feels most conflicted about it, all family pressure turns on that person, and can they honestly, truly, feel safe to say no? And that's with ADULTS!

No matter what happy endings you see on tv, giving organs is a serious risk of one's own life. And I would hope that doctors and nurses would call in their Ethics board if they realized a parent was threatening a frightened child into agreeing. Frankly, I don't even know if they WILL take a kidney from a sibling, probably because of that.

I imagine with minors there are far more serious oversight guidelines in place to prevent parental abuse.

 

[Imzadi]

To me, this also raises the medical/ethical question of why are there no medical rules about parents being able to volunteer and hand over a second, healthy child for body parts? Why are there no rules and advocates for the well being of the sibling? There shouldn't be a casualness of, "Oh, first child is sick? Here, just take the kidney from the second one." And the doctor just has them fill out forms and then takes the child to cut open & harvest? Why are parents allowed to determine that?

I remember there was a post several months back by Tina. I think her screenname is ILoveGoofy. Her hubby is in the army. She wrote that her longtime drug addict cousin got into some type of accident and needed a kidney. She feared that her aunt & uncle would come to her and pressure her to get tested for being a match and then donate one of her own kidneys. She didn't want to do it. A) Her cousin was a drug addict/alcoholic and may simply ruin the kidney she gives. B) She wants to have children someday and donating a kidney may make that potentially dangerous to her own ability to do so. Yet, she was racked with guilt that she may be able to save her cousin's life. and she didn't want to let down her uncle & aunt.

People here said there actually is a screening/interview process to make sure that if the the donor is a relative, that they aren't being pressured by family.

Tina is an adult and had these people on hand, watching out for her wellbeing. Where are these type of people for this child? Why should she have to sue for something that should be her natural, god-given right, the ownership and privacy of her own body? Children aren't objects to be passed around. Children aren't property.


Cool-beans, there is a difference in sharing toys versus sharing body parts. Every human being is born as an individual, with the right to ownership & the privacy of their own body. Period. In this story, they were essentially going to rape the second child for a kidney.

This child was conceived with a job in store for her. She never had a choice. (Yes, she was too little at the time to make a choice.) Regardless, when she was born, she had rights unto herself.

They thought it was going to be a one-time procedure... Then as the book goes on, they continue to take a little more and a little more from the younger sister -- for the benefit of the older sister. BUT every time the parents thought, "This is it, and then our older daugher'll be well. This is the last time we'll have to do this to our younger daughter." While we might stop and say, "Hey, we're going to put this new baby through eight surgeries, is that really right?", I think every one of us would've said, "YES", to the idea of ONE surgery that would SAVE the older child's life . . . and that's what this family did -- they agreed to one surgery . . . then one more . . . then one more.

They stopped thinking this when they said, "No hockey camp because we may need you for Kate," by then, they were saving her a "next time."

 

[61292cna]

There comes a time when you no longer find value in living life as a lab rat only!!!

 

[TheBigBadWolf]

You're right, they don't. My brother wouldn't take a kidney from his identical twin, in case the same disease eventually strikes him.

My brother died. I'm aware transplantable organs aren't easy to find by any means - but surely it's more likely that a donor kidney can be made to match the recipient, no? Bone marrow, on the other hand, not so easy.

And isn't the spare parts child entitled to her/his own existence?

Kaytieeldr,
I'm so very sorry about your brother.


I tend to believe I would do anything possible to save my child, even if it meant conceiving a child for "spare parts" and then asking (begging/forcing) that child to do whatever it took to help save her sibling. My nephew had ALL leukemia and this book really hit hard for me. Fortunately he was cured with chemo and his sisters didn't have to donate bone marrow or anything else. It was an extremely difficult time for the whole family though and everyone in the family went through their own hell. I have no doubt his sisters would have done anything to save their little brother, though.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My best friend's sister needed a kidney transplant (as an adult).

All of the siblings were willing to donate one of theirs to her.

The spouse of the sibling who was the best match wasn't comfortable with the donation, so they moved on to the next person, which was Mom.

I've read stories of complete strangers donating a kidney to someone who needed one, without regret.

Everyone has their comfort zone when it comes to something like this.

I'd be curious to know what the norms are in pediatrics when faced with the need for a kidney transplant. I would think an older child would be able to make that decision for himself if given all the facts and counseled, but again, it probably varies based on the individual factors of each case, caregivers, and facility. As a parent (and nurse who works with heart transplants), I could see myself probably being comfortable with that. But I could see why others may not be. It's very individual.

I also agree that kidney donation is different than bone marrow donation because the kidney donation has implications for the donor for life, whereas the bone marrow donation really does not.

I do think that giving the opportunity to help someone in such a way is really giving that person (the donor) a gift.

IMO the misnomer "spare parts children" invites a negative image of an unwanted child chained in a room somewhere, tossed a piece of stale bread now and then, and used strictly for the benefit of the other, wanted child. As you could see in the Alaya article, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The daughter who was "created" to help the dying daughter had as normal a life as any other child, and in fact had no problem with her reason for being and how her life went.

The only other thought I have is that I can't imagine most parents not going to the ends of the earth to save their child from dying if there's a way they possibly can.

Just my $.02

 

[bookgirl]

Actually to get the true meaning of this delima you have to read the book.

You can't argue that situation with out knowing the motives of ALL the family members.


I think even as a parent you have to respect when a child is old enough to say no. I might try to change thier mind, I would certainly respect their right to thier point of view, I might even bargin with them, but to tell them that saying no means they are a bad person, or no longer part of the family or that they have no choice since I'm the parent, well then what kind of person does that make the parent. I would not want to be that person, I would not want my kids to grow up thinking that they were only worth as much as they could contribute to the family as a whole and had no self worth if they differed in opinion to me as a parent or my belief in thier "place" in the family unit.

 

[MrsPete]

Actually to get the true meaning of this delima you have to read the book.

You can't argue that situation with out knowing the motives of ALL the family members.

Absolutely. In the book it's crystal clear that the parents both love and adore Anna. They aren't taking her for granted, they aren't treating her like a second best child -- perhaps the movie takes that slant because some posters here are definitely leaning in that direction, but the book doesn't do that. The parents don't enter into these decisions lightly, and they aren't heartless people. Rather, this family is split between how to handle the needs of a sick child and a healthy child -- it's a lose-lose situation. It's a horrific situation.

 

[Disneyland_emily]

Its a tough decision- One that we started to have when my older daughter's Leukemia relapsed and the talk of a bone marrow transplant began. We had decided to test both of our other children (along with other family members) and had the tests scheduled when it was determined that her cancer was to advanced for the transplant to help.

Part of me had no negative thoughts about subjecting either of our other children to the transplant had they been the match, the other part of me wondered if it was right especially when both so young (they were 2 and 4 at the time) and was it fair to place my other kids in danger for their sister, and if I was placing one over the other. I came to peace with the decision that no matter which was in need the decision would be the same, because one day it might be the other kids turn to need something that only their sibiling could assist with.

-em

 

[mickeyboat]

Actually to get the true meaning of this delima you have to read the book.

You can't argue that situation with out knowing the motives of ALL the family members.

I was going to post the same thing.

 

[Imzadi]

I think even as a parent you have to respect when a child is old enough to say no. I might try to change thier mind, I would certainly respect their right to thier point of view, I might even bargin with them, but to tell them that saying no means they are a bad person, or no longer part of the family or that they have no choice since I'm the parent, well then what kind of person does that make the parent. I would not want to be that person, I would not want my kids to grow up thinking that they were only worth as much as they could contribute to the family as a whole and had no self worth if they differed in opinion to me as a parent or my belief in thier "place" in the family unit.

Not only that, but to place the responsibility, guit and blame on the second child for the first child's death if (s)he says no, I don't want to do it.

If a baby stroller rolls out into the street with a baby clearly in it, and a person sees a car barrelling down the street at it and the person has a split second to run into the street and push the baby stroller out of the way, but, in doing so he puts his own life and limbs at stake and he decides not to, should he be held responsible for NOT saving that baby's life? That he valued his life and safety more than the child's?

Just because a person is conveniently in the right place at the right time doesn't make him obligated or responsible to save the other person.

 

[happygirl]

I would never have a second child just to save my first child life

 

[Imzadi]

Actually to get the true meaning of this delima you have to read the book.

You can't argue that situation with out knowing the motives of ALL the family members.

I was going to post the same thing.

I think this thread has moved away from the specific situations in the book to general hypotheticals.

 

[Fintastic]

My first instinct is to do anything in my power to save my child's life. I would absolutely try IVF to get the best match - the resulting baby would not be loved any less had s/he been conceived for other reasons. But bone marrow is different than a kidney. I don't see how you can demand that child #2 give organs to child #1.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think this thread has moved away from the specific situations in the book to general hypotheticals.

My sense from the title and the last paragraph in the OP was that it was less about the book than about hypotheticals.

Those who have children may also see it differently from those who don't. It's hard before you have them to imagine the depth of the love you feel for a child and what you'd be willing to do for them.

 

[HGD24]

We lost our first daughter to a birth defect that is 100% fatal. If we had been told that there was even a slight chance to save her life by having another child, I would not have done it. I just can't imagine conceiving a child for the purpose of putting them through medical procedures in hopes that their existence would save their sibling. I just can't imagine that to be a very healthy way to raise a family.

 

[kaytieeldr]

They just (in my family, anyway) are not entitled to refuse to help their siblings live.

Respectfully, they cannot be forced to donate an organ, either. This would be the same as telling the child their body is not their own, that it belongs to the parent?

On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

More here http://www.katsandogz.com/onchildren.html