Birthing A Baby To Save A Baby and Dying At Will: The Ethics Of Saving Or Losing A Life

It seems impossible that 18 years have passed since the controversial decision by the Ayala family who chose to get pregnant with a baby to save their daughter, Annisa, who suffered with leukemia. She needed a bone marrow transplant to save her life, but there were no matches. Her parents had another child who ended up being the perfect match. Both girls are alive and well today. Watch the whole story here.

An ethicist made the argument that it was wrong to have a child, and before the baby could consent herself, take her bone marrow to save her sister. I watched the family, imagined watching my daughter die and can see making the same decision. The thought did occur to me, though, what if the child wasn’t a match? How would that reality affect the family? After the older daughter died, would the new child be a solace or source of pain? That’s a lot to put on a child. I’m sure the parents thought this through. What say you?

I would have made the same decision as the Ayalas:
Disagree free polls

This case also reminded me of end of life decisions, too. No one likes to talk about it, but I know for a fact that parents, children and doctors make tough choices every single day in hospitals across America. The Terri Schiavo case was especially divisive because of the nature of her husband’s relationship and the questionable circumstances surrounding her coma. At any rate, her case wasn’t typical. Most people at the end are suffering and the question is whether to intervene and end it, or less overtly, just remove the life support; or, should nature be allowed to take it’s course, meaning that the person dies when the body quits. Again, I’m curious about your reaction to this dilemma.

At the end, people should:
End the suffering if they want.
Let nature take its course. free polls

Cross-posted at where I’m talking about how liberal policies are killing Michigan.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!