Be Fruitful or Die: A Moral Conflict

[ThinkingSapien]

I know of some one with deteriorating health that could die in the next few years if a bone marrow donor isn’t found. There are indications no donor would be found. It is possible to extract some of her stem cells, grow them, and then re-inject them since there have been no donors. But presently that is illegal in the state in which she lives and it is something that won’t be covered by insurance until some of the changes the president made to the health care system become applicable in 2014. It would also cost a little short of 100,000 USD to pay for the treatment and residence in a state in which the treatment is not illegal.

The other potential solution is that if a donor cannot be found to produce one. She would need to have a child (which is risky given her current health). She’s not married and she’s catholic and has some concerns for the moral implications of producing a child to harvest its marrow, producing a child while not married, or marrying some one she doesn’t love so that the child “won’t be a bastard.”

This might be one of those fringe scenarios for which the Church has no guidance, but I figured I would ask to see if any one knows what the church may have to say about it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Oh, I think the Church would have everything to say about it. We don’t create children in order to use them for our own disease cures! It’s a sad situation but this woman shouldn’t even entertain the notion of specifically trying to marry, let alone get pregnant, with the end goal of using both her prospective husband and any children they might have the blessing to help God create, in order for her own life to be preserved.

 

[maryjk]

I know of some one with deteriorating health that could die in the next few years if a bone marrow donor isn’t found. There are indications no donor would be found. It is possible to extract some of her stem cells, grow them, and then re-inject them since there have been no donors. But presently that is illegal in the state in which she lives and it is something that won’t be covered by insurance until some of the changes the president made to the health care system become applicable in 2014. It would also cost a little short of 100,000 USD to pay for the treatment and residence in a state in which the treatment is not illegal.

If it were a proven treatment it would be legal and covered through insurance. Since it is not a proven treatment…

The other potential solution is that if a donor cannot be found to produce one. She would need to have a child (which is risky given her current health).

I was under the impression that siblings, not offspring, were the likely match. Is she sure that the doctor said her child would be the best chance?

She’s not married and she’s catholic and has some concerns for the moral implications of producing a child to harvest its marrow, producing a child while not married, or marrying some one she doesn’t love so that the child “won’t be a bastard.”

Do you really call children born to parents that aren’t married, “a bastard?” I don’t remember the last time I heard that word used in that context. You also have that in quotes, did a church representative use that word to describe a child born out of wedlock?

This might be one of those fringe scenarios for which the Church has no guidance, but I figured I would ask to see if any one knows what the church may have to say about it.

 

[searching04]

Children are not always a match, and if not, you then have a motherless child, and one literally produced in the hopes of using it to stay alive. God doesn’t want that.

The quotes for “bastard” are, I believe, a quite common use of punctuation to show that it is simply a commonly used term and to get the point across, not that the person was trying to call a child that name.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If it were a proven treatment it would be legal and covered through insurance.

I asked her about that. It got wrapped up in a state senate debate about embryonic stem cell research in which a restriction was produced that didn’t distinguish between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. When I asked about the success rate of the treatment she said “70%.” That’s not to say that her chances of success are 70% as there are other health conditions to consider.

I was under the impression that siblings, not offspring, were the likely match.

There are no siblings. So this is not a consideration.

Is she sure that the doctor said her child would be the best chance?

A matching bone marrow registrant that is willing to donate would be her best chance. No one has been found that is a match in the registry and willing to come forward. So the procedure that would be considered best is not yet an available option. Her known available options were described in the first post.

Do you really call children born to parents that aren’t married, “a bastard?” …]did a church representative use that word…]
searching04;9191038:

The quotes for “bastard” are, I believe, a quite common use of punctuation to show that it is simply a commonly used term and to get the point across, not that the person was trying to call a child that name.

You are correct. She used the term as part of an expression of how strongly she feels against producing children while unwed herself. But let’s not get distracted by how polite a term is or is not.

No church representatives have been involved yet.

Children are not always a match

That’s my understanding to. I’ve got the number “23% chance” in my mind, but that was from data from 1991.

and if not, you then have a motherless child, and one literally produced in the hopes of using it to stay alive. God doesn’t want that.

No one does, that’s a concern I share.

Thanks for your replies.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Oh, I think the Church would have everything to say about it. We don’t create children in order to use them for our own disease cures!

Thanks for the insight.