Question:
ETHICAL CONFLICT: A REAL SITUATION:
There is a couple I know (a freind of a friend) who has a child with a bone cancer and they cannot get a doner with a lose enough match. (I have limited knowledge of the situation as it is intensely personal and I don't want to pry into their business) The doctor's suggested
that they have another child to match this child's bane make-up more similarly. The chances are much higher that there will be a match (the parents for some reason aren't suitable). (There is also talk of cord blood stem cells from the new baby, but I am not sure how that would help the now existing child?) They have had no intention of having another child and are now considering it as per doctor's advice.

ETHICAL QUESTION:
Is it kosher to have another child "for spare parts"? Especially if that is the sole reason for having the child? Pleae explain your reasoning, and or Torah portion you are quoting.

Choices:
Yes, that is fine.
No, absolutely not.
Perhaps...

 

quote:

(There is also talk of cord blood stem cells from the new baby, but I am not sure how that would help the now existing child?) They have had no intention of having another child and are now considering it as per doctor's advice.

I think the term "spare parts" is too strong for this situation... as it might imply not permitting the baby to remain whole... if I take the engine out of a parts-car that parts car will not have one.

Would it be too cold to suggest the couple have another child in case chas v'shalom their older child does not survive, and thus their need for "fault tolerance"?

If this is a Jewish couple who have not yet had at least one boy and one girl, one standard for when they have fulfilled their mitzvah, then perhaps they can be encouraged to perform a mitzvah when they have at leat three blocks...

First that their first child is having a difficult time, and they might be scared to put another child through such a thing, or scared to endure what is already too much for many parents.

Second that they are so dedicated to their first child they cannot imagine themselves having the proper amount of time to devote to other children... and perhaps wouldn't want a dying child to think they are being chas v'shalom replaced.

Third that they do not have a pre-existing dedication toward the mitzvah of having children that they might not do so now.

B"H

The couple, in my opinion, should have never ceased from "periyyah u'reviyyah." But since they did, this may be G-d's way of getting around to them that they should have other children, in addition to their first child.

David

David,
I don't know if tht is His intention--but I hope you are right!

I read of a case where a couple had another child purely for her "spare parts" to save an older sibling. Although it does not work in all cases, it did work in that case. And the new child came to be loved for a lot more than her parts.

Think of more common situations: tens of thousands of children are born every year to parents who weren't extremely desirous of having more children, and yet these children become loved and essential parts of their families.

Sometimes, Paulette

quote:

I read of a case where a couple had another child purely for her "spare parts"

This has reminded me that I think I once read of a case where a sibling in-utero was able to donate some bone marrow I think to save an older sibling who could not have waited for the birth...

Perhaps your friends can take comfort in knowing that Adam HaRishon is said to have donated 70 years of his lifespan to allow Dovid HaMelech to come into existance later in life. In this case it was at a loss to himself of those same 70 years (something he actually missed at the age of 930 - that he still had the will and desire to live much longer) and he was of course fully grown when he made this decision... but I think it is still a comforting precedent particular in a case where the parts being donated would not be missed, such as bone marrow which a healthy person regenerates?

That is a VERY comforting piece of information. I will pass it on to them; I am sure it would be appropriate as they are asking many questions about this very issue with regard to people's opinions and Torah-based interpretations.
Thankyou for that.

Yocheved

If there is the potential to save a life and to bring a new life into the world.. it couldn't be too unethical.. also there is no perfectly pure human motive but it is good that they are giving it careful thought..

How good it would be if more Jews became blood and marrow donors, then, perhaps anyother donor could have been found..

I think I agree with you Amira, and welcome to the forum. I think the only difficulty with that is the issue of being buried "whole". I still am unclear on how the Orhtodox Rabbis have settled on this as an issue. I have not signed up as a donor until I get a satisfactory answer. Perhaps we should post that as a new forum discussion question?

Or the Rabbis could answer us now?

Yocheved, I fail to see an "Ethical Conflict" as you put it.

Are you asking whether there has to be any particular reason to have a baby, and if you do have to have a particular reason, is one better or more ethical than other?

If that were true, than before birthing baby number one you would have to consult the "ethical code" (whatever that maybe) and come up with an answer that would fit a reason (other than simply bringing a life into the world)that states that baby number one deserves to be born. Than birthing baby number two would require his or her own reason. Better or less better than number one.

Now, there are many utilitarian reasons incorporated in the action of bringing a life to the world. In agricultural societies, it was not unusual to have many children in order to create a large workforce.

If a couple has a child that was born with Down-syndrome and they want to bring another life into the world, and by doing so they are thinking that their current existence will be "bettered", than based on your question, would that be ethical?

The same pru urvu, "be fruitful and multiply", has an utilitarian proposition inbedded in it.

As to the "interpretation" that the child might have gotten sick in order to create a condition so that the parents are "forced " into having another child, I think it is "sick" in its own right. We have no business making up terutzim for what we don't know or understand; regardless if one put the title of Rabbi before one's name.

Suffering is suffering and it is not lessened by an "stamp" interpretation of someone who obviously is quite far from The Decision Maker.

My advise to your friends, look into your hearts. Try as much as you can to see past the tragedy that you have at hand and make your decison based on your own genuine feelings and needs.

If you have the new baby and the procedure works than you will have two wonderful lifes in your hands. If it doesn't (Chas ve Chalila), you will not be "replacing" one for the other. Rather your positive deed will carry it own weight, hopefully a beautiful child.

The problem isn't whether having a baby is ethical--the argument is "IS IT OK TO HAVE A SECOND CHILD KNOWING THAT IT THE ONLY MOTIVATION FOR HAVING IT WOULD BE FOR PROVIDING A SUITABLE MATCH FOR THE DONATION".

All the answers stating that the child will GROW to be loved, are hopeful, but irrelevent to the question.

From as little as I know on the medical/biological side of this dilemma, bone marrow is replaceable. It does take a medical procedure, and is painful, but there shouldn't be a reason for the baby not to survive the procedure, or to grow "incomplete" in any way. So it is not exactly like having a car for spare parts and a car for driving.

Yes, Alex all of this is true, but you are still not answering the question. Is
IS IT OK TO HAVE A SECOND CHILD KNOWING THAT IT THE ONLY MOTIVATION FOR HAVING IT WOULD BE FOR PROVIDING A SUITABLE MATCH FOR THE DONATION.
I'm not sure how to ask it any more clearly.

quote:

THE ONLY MOTIVATION FOR HAVING IT WOULD BE FOR PROVIDING A SUITABLE MATCH FOR THE DONATION

To paraphrase a prior posting... it sees not to uncommon for some parents to have children for less selfless reasons such as a biproduct of their own selfish pleasures.

If these parents have raised their older child with the belief that bone marrow transplant is proper and ethical, there is no deviation from their established ethics to expect that they will raise their next child with the same belief.

And I disagree that "ONLY" aspect both here in in your 2-subsequent post... that's just the primary impetus here changing their mind about deciding to have more children.

I understand what you are saying. But there would BE NO ethical issue if there were any intention at all to have any more children. But they had firmly decided not to. THat is the dilemma, Sir. And frankly, if I were the second child, and it ever got out that the only reason my parents had me was to save my sibling, I think I would forever doubt the reality of their love for me.

By the way, a new issue has arisen. She evidently had great difficulty getting pregnant in the first place, and now in vitro will be necessary.

Another GREAT red flag is raising in my mind.
Is in vitro kosher?

They should probably have the child because a child's life is at stake, but this is now becoming a very tangled question of ethics. Can we directly decide which spermatazoa and egg gets fertilized in a petrie dish and play G-d about the life beginning in a laboratory? Hmmm.

Yohevet, my posting started asking you to define the "ethical conflict". You did not. You simply restated your claim and added the word "ONLY" to it.

Altough it narrows your assumption, it really does not allow for a true understanding of your question.

It would be a lot more helpful if 1) you could organize your assumptions. I'm going to venture to say that you might need the help of other loggers to put this togehter as it is not easy. and 2) list your values and principles that make the competing values (i.e. the conflict).

It will help to show the readers what is it actually the "meat of the problem".

OK. My assumption wasthat the conflict was clear, so I will try again:

The couple has a child, gravely ill, that at this point can only be healed by the birthing of another child via the same parents.

The parents love their child, but DO NOT (now or in the future) want another because of
a. the enormous health issues faced with this one
b. limited finances
c. limited time (barely have enough time for one much less more)
d. lack of desire
e. both parents have demanding careers (which they must maintain now more than ever as their finances are stretched to capacity due to illness.
The family is now being told that the one thing they have no desire to do and haven't the financial nor time capacity to endure (outside of HaSh-m providing supernatural endurance and the aid from others--which is starting happen, thankfully) is the one thing that will sve their child.

Here is the question (and ethical conflict, as it were):

Is it ethical to have another child that they do not desire to have, and cannot afford, and would be having:
Not for the fulfillment of a mitzvah
Not for pru urvu, "be fruitful and multiply",
Not to replenish the earth after the Shoah (HOlocaust)
Not to help perpetuate the generation of observant Jewish children,
Not for love, nor for any reason at all
EXCEPT
to save the first child.

The term "spare parts" wasn't overly harsh, because that would be the sole reason for the child. Surely ( I would hope) the couple could love the child in time and treat the child as well as they can given their resources, but that doesn't change the reason for the child's existence. Moreover, if another transplant is necessary in the future (they more often than not ARE), the poor second child will be subjected to enormous pain even, whether or not the child understands the ongoing painful procedures or agrees to go through with them. Which may be tantamount to torcher if the child absolutely refuses to go through with it for the sake of the sick brother.

In effect you could state the problem this way:
Is it alright to torcher one life (willing or not--especially unwilling, as most young children do not like long, painful surgeries)
to save another?

The second dilemma is whether in vitro is kosher IN THIS INSTANCE (it may not be under any circumstances, but specifically is it alright in this one).