ArticleJournal of medical ethics2004
Should selecting saviour siblings be banned?
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conception of Saviour Siblings: Ethical Perceptions of Selected Stakeholders in Malaysia.Asian bioethics review · 2021Article
- Born to donate: proposals for "savior sibling" regulation in Latin America.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia) · 2018Article
- Comparing Non-Medical Sex Selection and Saviour Sibling Selection in the Case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel: Beyond the Welfare of the Child?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
- Kant's 'formula of humanity' and assisted reproductive technology: a case for duties to future children.Monash bioethics review · 2017Article
- Factors Influencing the Decision-Making Process and Long-Term Interpersonal Outcomes for Parents Who Undergo Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Fanconi Anemia: a Qualitative Investigation.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Prenatal and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2016Review
- More than 10 years after the first 'savior siblings': parental experiences surrounding preimplantation genetic diagnosis.Journal of genetic counseling · 2013Article
- Conceiving a hematopoietic stem cell donor: twenty-five years after our decision to save a child.Haematologica · 2012Article
- Saviour siblings and collective family interests.Monash bioethics review · 2010Article
- Persons and their parts: new reproductive technologies and risks of commodification.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2009Article
- What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A Citizens' Jury of young people in South Wales.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2006Article
- Britain's new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence.Journal of medical ethics · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
By using tissue typing in conjunction with preimplantation genetic diagnosis doctors are able to pick a human embryo for implantation which, if all goes well, will become a "saviour sibling", a brother or sister capable of donating life-saving tissue to an existing child. This paper addresses the question of whether this form of selection should be banned and concludes that it should not. Three main prohibitionist arguments are considered and found wanting: (a) the claim that saviour siblings would be treated as commodities; (b) a slippery slope argument, which suggests that this practice will lead to the creation of so-called "designer babies"; and (c) a child welfare argument, according to which saviour siblings will be physically and/or psychologically harmed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.