Spare Parts Children?

[kaytieeldr]

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.

But we're not talking about marrow. We're talking about the plot in the movie where Anna is 'expected' to give up a kidney for Kate. Again, bone marrow regenerates itself in the donor, as does blood. A kidney can't. Would you expect (force) your child to donate a cornea to a blind sibling? And, respectfully, while the child might resent the sibling, it's more likely the hate would be manifested in feelings toward the parent.

 

[MrsPete]

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

Yeah, this book seems to lead discussions in that direction.

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.

Ah, but that's NOT what the family in the book agreed to . . . they were told that the blood from the baby's cord would "save" her sister. They entered into the situation believing that the situation would be completely non-invasive for the newborn. I think most of us would've agreed to that. It was later . . . and later . . . and later that the doctors proposed one more treatment, which was SURE to work . . . then one more treatment that was a SURE THING . . . then one more treatment that COULDN"T FAIL. Each of the subsequent treatments was a little more, a little more, a little more invasive.

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

What is the law about this?

I ask because parents do have the right to make medical decisions for their minor children, even if the children disagree. Every now and again you hear about a parent and child who disagree about treatment for a serious disease like cancer, and I remember clearly a boy from my high school who died because his parents wouldn't allow him to have a blood transfusion (it was a religious thing, and the courts stepped in, but it was too late).

Changing the subject completely, I thought the saddest character in the book was the brother. The parents focused so much on the two girls that the poor boy was forgotten. No wonder he turned out so badly.

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

I think a parent will do anything to save their child.
I would just image that a parent faced with such a painful situation would look at their children as two special blessings.....
One child that has the strength to survive an illness & a child that allowed their sibling to survive & thrive.

 

[chager]

I remember a family that had a child for the specific purpose of saving the older childs life. This child grew up knowing that the ONLY reason they had him was to donate to his older sibling. He was told from early on that if his sibling wasn't ill then he probably would not have been born. He was a nice enough kid but I always felt sorry for him. I thought his parents were wrong to raise him that way. If you want another child and it happens that the child can help fine, but to simply have a child to save a child and then treat the child badly is not right. The older child survived but last I heard the younger brother has nothing to do with any of the family.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

The family decides to have another child but does not have time to keep trying if the child is not an allogenic match. So the parents turn to in vitro fertlization and have genetic testing done to ensure the child is a perfect allogenic match for their sick daughter.

This is the point where they crossed the line. The concept is so revolting to me that I would never be able to read the book or see the movie.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

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.

Actually, I started this as its own thread as opposed to putting it in one of the threads about the book/movie specifically so that those who hadn't read the book would weigh in. While inspired by and discussed in context of the book, it was intended to go beyond that.

One of the interesting things to me is how far is too far? I could see asking a kid to donate bone marrow, that is a relatively low risk procedure and not one that would put you at any risk later in life. But I'm not sure of kidney donation. That's a lifetime of risk for the individual, and limits the kinds of activities you can participate in. I would hope that if I was ever in that situation I would leave it up to my kids to decide if they even wanted to be tested and donate, but that would be such a hard position to be in as a parent. I hope I never have to do that.

One thing in the book that struck me was one of Sarah's flashbacks where she is in the salon with the other pregnatn women who are talking about names and what they hope their child will look like. Sarah states that she never had thought about a name and that although she knew the exact genetic make up of the child had never thought of the child as an individual, had only thought of the child in terms of what she could do for her sister. That to me was very telling.

While the Anissa case is interesting, I don't see it as quite comparable because they left it up to fate whether or not the child would be a match instead of going through genetic testing, and thankfully in their case it worked the first time. There was never a continued expectation. But reading the article, it certainly was not without its consequences, and it is clear that this has shaped the young girl's life, for better or for worse.

 

[HGD24]

Ah, but that's NOT what the family in the book agreed to . . . they were told that the blood from the baby's cord would "save" her sister. They entered into the situation believing that the situation would be completely non-invasive for the newborn. I think most of us would've agreed to that. It was later . . . and later . . . and later that the doctors proposed one more treatment, which was SURE to work . . . then one more treatment that was a SURE THING . . . then one more treatment that COULDN"T FAIL. Each of the subsequent treatments was a little more, a little more, a little more invasive.

I still can't imagine conceiving a child in a lab for the sole purpose of saving another child's life. I am the type who goes over every option with multiple dr's if necessary and gathers every bit of information I can before making a medical decision. I'm pretty sure I would think of this very scenario - what if the cord blood didn't work and more was needed? I don't think I could put a child through that.

I also don't think that in this situation, (conceiving in a lab for this purpose) you could stop thinking of the 2nd child as being here for the purpose of saving the 1st and those feelings have to come out in some way that could affect how these children are raised.

 

[C.Ann]

this is one of those questions that no one can really answer - unless they have the opportunity to walk in the shoes of each individual involved.. Having said that, I couldn't give any type of answer that would truly be legitimate..

And for the poster who said they were going to see the movie, please, please read the book either before or after.. From what I understand, there has been a public backlash due to the fact that the movie had an entirely different ending than the book..

 

[ryan840]

Before I can read the book or see the movie I have to know the ending to prepare myself. Can someone please pm me? I guess about both, since they appear to be different! Thanks!

I know that those who know/recognize me on here me will crack up at this, since I typically HATE spoilers!

 

[Cool-Beans]

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.

I don't know this story. Didn't read the book or see the movie.

But I do believe that families exist simply for purpose of loving and helping each other. When the need is greatest, that's when you do the most. That's how I feel and how I see it.

When my father's kidneys failed, I immediately told the doctor that I wanted to give a kidney if I could. I was never tested - it never came to that - but it never even crossed my mind to think of anything else. "What about me? What if my lone kidney fails?" Blah, blah, blah. Never even thought of all that until I was reading the rest of this thread. It wouldn't have phased me, though. I wanted him to live and wanted to do whatever I could to make that happen.

It's just what you do - helping people who need help and especially family. When they're in trouble, you step up. In my world, anyway.

I think it is the right way to live and have taught my children that. I think I have, anyway. I would hope that they wouldn't have to be asked, either...that they'd volunteer because that's what they wanted - to do whatever they could to help their sibling live.

And if they were all "me, me, me" then, yeah, we'd sit them down and have a talk with them.

The more I read this, though, the more I can see other people's points of view.

And what goes for my family doesn't go for all of them, that's for sure.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

I think that's where the difference is though: you would have no problem doing it, as an adult who fully understands the possible consequences and is at complete liberty to make the decision. But it's a different situation for kids who are more likely to engage in the activities that are forbidden after a transplant and who are being coerced into it.

Part of me feels like the kid should donate to their sibling and that it would be the right thing to do, but another part of me feels like saving one child's life at the expense of another (particularly if that child is not given the chance to choose for themselves) is crossing the line.

I probably would not feel the kidney in this story was too much if there had not been many many things before it.

 

[BeccaBellePA]

This is purely hypothetical, and JMO because thankfully my family has never had to deal with anything like this. But, if I was 11 and my brother needed a kidney transplant to live, I would hope my parents would have made me give him a kidney. I just can't even imagine 10 years down the road the guilt and blame I would feel for not doing it for him, especially if it resulted in his death. Although, maybe that is just as selfish as not wanting to give him a kidney in the first place....

Again, my opinion, and I honestly can't say what I would do if it ever did happen to me.

 

[WDWMom]

Different people feel different ways, so no real way to know how this person or that would feel.

I'd feel a lot worse if someone I loved died and there was a chance I could have helped, but didn't.

If I did everything I could and they died anyway, at least I wouldn't have the shame of knowing I might have helped, but chose not to try.

Again, different people feel different ways...but I couldn't live with myself if I knew I didn't do what I could.

I'd want my kids to live their lives - in fact, I want my kids to do this all the time - knowing that they did the best they could to help. If you do what you can to help other people, you can sleep easy.

If you try to help people and they die anyway, that's just how it goes. We do whatever we can to help and we know we fought the good fight.

But if they die and there is a chance that the death came about because we chose not to help...you know, the more I think about this, the more I have trouble seeing the other side.

Who sits around thinking about themselves instead of helping when the life of someone they love is at stake? And who could live with the knowledge that they might have saved that person, but chose not to bother?

I totally understand your perspective and agree with you. I think the issue in the book is that Anna is never given a choice/asked. She is always told even though it may be her choice to help, she is never given one.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've been thinking about this a lot.

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I haven't read the book nor seen the movie. (But I'd like to see the movie and probably will now. I'm not a fiction reader so I know I won't read the book.)

I do think, though, that real life and fiction are very different. In real life, you may think one way going into something, but as you navigate the course, you realize that things are different than the way you thought, and open your mind to other things as you talk to people and become informed. It's so different than thinking what you might do.

The way I would look at something like a kidney transplant between my children is this way (and I am not criticizing anyone else who may think differently; and I'll add that the identical twin issue surely was unique and complex): I'm going to deal with the here and now, not what may happen in the future. So if one of my children is dying now and needs a kidney, and the other is a suitable and willing donor, then I'd have to play the hand I was dealt now, and not worry about what may happen in the future (although of couse I'd have to give it consideration).

I think a conversation with the docs would go something like this:

Here are the facts. Child A will die without a transplant. Child B is a good match. Another kidney (from a cadaver) may not be available and Child A could die waiting.

Child B can live successfully with one kidney. Many, many people have done it without a problem. Is there a chance there may be a problem down the road, such as the one kidney failing on Child B? Of course, but the chances are that are extremely low, especially with deliberate care on the part of Child B and his or her medical team. There is a far better chance that Child B will live a normal and healthy life with one kidney.

So yes, I believe I would go ahead.

And I also understand and pretty much agree with Cool-Beans' position that families help eachother (though am aware not all families are this way, and even in families who are, individuals' reluctances need to be respected). Do Unto Others and all that. I also really and truly believe in the virtues of the good that one receives from being able to help others, and I would want Child B to benefit from that, as long as Child B is willing, of course. Child A also benefits because it's an amazing and life changing experience to be the recipient of an organ, so really, everyone benefits. Can things go wrong? Sure. But at least everyone knows they gave it their best shot.

Again, this isn't the hypothetical related to the book or anything like that. I'm just thinking out loud about the way I see it in reality.

Good thread.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

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.

I just wanted to comment on this. It's a good example of what I was talking about above. At the outset of this type of crisis, people think one way. But I think had this family gone forward, first of all, the suitability of this man being a recipient (medically and psychologically) would have been very closely looked at, and there would be a possibility/probability he would not be a candidate for transplant. It's a complex process and doesn't happen overnight. There may be other organ damage or medical conditions that would make any new kidney fail, even one from a directed donor like family. And because of his lifestyle and habits, he would probably not be given a cadaver kidney unless he could prove that he was off drugs for a good long time and willing to follow up medically and do everything hes supposed to do, etc (which oftentimes people like this cannot do, even in the short term). Then, as you said, there would be counseling for all involved and Tina's reluctance would have disqualified her as a donor, even if she was dragged in by determined relatives, LOL. People simply can't be made to give an organ, even with family pressure. There is a safety net of teams that deal with these things all the time, and they are very good at what they do.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

Earlier in the thread someboy brought up a point that I had not considered: childbirth. If a girl donates a kidney does that make childbirth later on more risky? I'm not very familiar with the mechanics of it. In that case, I would be very reluctant to allow my daughter at such a young age to take on that risk. I would really have to look at the other child's illness and chances of survival.

If the kidney failure is the only thing going on and a transplant would fix it I would probably feel very differently than if the child had multiple medical issues and the transplant was a long shot (like in the book/movie). There are so many little things that enter into the equation, and God forbid my family will never be in that situation.

 

[ZachnElli]

I finished reading the book on Sunday and I have not seen the movie. In the book, some of Kate's doctors were against her having the transplant because they didn't think she would survive the surgery. I think this is a big point to make because the mom was still willing to have her other daughter go through an invasive surgery to try to save her other daughter when the doctors didn't think her ill daughter would even survive the surgery. I know another poster said that in the book the mom loved and adored both daughters equally and I honestly didn't see it that way. Just from her not even thinking of a name for the baby while pregnant, not letting her go to camp because she might be needed for her sister, etc. I do think the dad did love Anna just as much as Kate.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Earlier in the thread someboy brought up a point that I had not considered: childbirth. If a girl donates a kidney does that make childbirth later on more risky? I'm not very familiar with the mechanics of it. In that case, I would be very reluctant to allow my daughter at such a young age to take on that risk. I would really have to look at the other child's illness and chances of survival.

I believe that even with one kidney, you can still have a babies. I don't know if it makes it higher risk, but it's possible it does.

As a matter of fact, my friend's sister who had the kidney transplant did have a baby after her transplant, so I'm sure that even with one kidney, you can, but each case would have to be looked at individually.

But again, even if it were an issue, being in that life and death situation in the moment, I don't know if that possibility would be something that would completly preclude donating. There are other ways to have children besides giving birth to them. But yes, it's something to be considered, for sure.

I wish there was someone here who knew more about pediatric neprhology and works with this type of thing who could weigh in.

Anyone, anyone?

 

[wall*e2008]

That's a hard call. I would want to do everything to protect my child. But that raises the question, which child are you protecting?

There was a true story of that very thing some years back. I believe the family was the Ayala family. The child was Anissa I believe. She was able to donate marrow and save her older sister. The sister went on to marry and live a great life. The donor child appeared to be well adjusted and happy.

I remember that story. I would have done what they did but not what the movie is doing. Marissa was so close to her sister. The parents did not know if the new baby would be a match and if Anissa would even live long enough to be helped by Marissa.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

In the book, some of Kate's doctors were against her having the transplant because they didn't think she would survive the surgery. I think this is a big point to make because the mom was still willing to have her other daughter go through an invasive surgery to try to save her other daughter when the doctors didn't think her ill daughter would even survive the surgery.

And I guess this is why I don't like fiction, especially medical fiction. Because in reality, they wouldn't do surgery on someone who they think wouldn't survive the surgery, whether Mom was willing to or not. Just wouldn't happen.