Muzakarah Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam Malaysia Kali Ke56 yang bersidang

pada 7 May 2003 telah membincangkan Pencantuman Benih Untuk Mendapatkan Zuriat. Muzakarah telah memutuskan bahawa: 1. Hukum mencantumkan benih yang dikeluarkan sebelum akad nikah dan kemudiannya dibuat pencantuman dalam tempoh perkahwinan yang sah adalah haram. 2. Hukum mencantumkan benih yang diambil dan dicantumkan dalam tempoh perkahwinan yang sah adalah harus.

English Version In Vitro Fertilization as an Effort to Have Baby 2 Decision: The 56th Conference (muzakarah) of the Fatwa Committee National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs held on 7th May 2003 has discussed in vitro fertilization as an effort to have baby. The Committee has decided that: 1. Mixing eggs that were extracted before the solemnization of marriage is forbidden although the mixing process is conducted during the marital period 2. Mixing eggs during marital period is permissible.

Arabic Translation

)2( ) 65( 2003 7 : . .1 . .2 .

Ethics of Savior Siblings stanmarsh2 Student

Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 27, 2011 Location: Tempe, AZ

Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 147 #1 - Quote - Permalink

Posted 04/16/12 - 11:59 AM: Subject: Ethics of Savior Siblings So in my Bioethics class, we were discussing "Savior Siblings" which for those who don't know is the idea that a child is born in a family with a defect of some kind, usually something like bad kidneys or something that they are genetically prone to. Well the parents know this at a young age of the original child so they conceive another child and they get the genetic testing done so they have the "perfect" fetus implanted into the mother and hypothetically have a guaranteed organ donor who would match with the older sibling.

The question is should this be allowed or even viewed as a morally right or wrong thing? In class we briefly discussed both views that people argue including that in a society where sacrifice is viewed as a good thing to do, the savior sibling might accept their fate and see their purpose in life as being fulfilling. However, opponents say that the child might be in complete dismay when they realize they were conceived solely to save their older sibling and their life was predetermined. Also people argue that the conditions of treating the savior sibling could possibly be less than adequate since they are alive solely to harvest the organs, no education and possible neglect could happen.

I was just curious of everyone's thoughts. Caldwell PF Addict

Usergroup: Moderators Joined: Apr 18, 2006

Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 3345 #2 - Quote - Permalink

Posted 04/17/12 - 1:16 AM:

Kant's answer would be that it is unethical. It is using a human being as a means to other things. Besides, as far as consent, Locke would bawl out over this because a fetus or a baby can't really give its consent to anything. So, to treat a person with respect means to let it live for its own sake, not to use him or her for other purpose, even if it's to save another human being.

Here's a further stretching out of this argument: some people might be inclined to argue that it is for a noble purpose, not for material gain, why it is okay to use a person. This is blurring the issue of "use"of other human beings. They justify the use by saying that it is for humanitarian purpose, not for profit or for material goods. The argument is fallacious in the sense that having the "noble" reason for using a human being somehow changes the meaning of "using" a human being. In other words, either these people are committing ambiguity or do not understand the premise of an argument. Roke Devil's Advocate

Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 08, 2009

Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 384 #3 - Quote - Permalink Posted 04/17/12 - 7:28 AM:

I say let the perfect-baby live and just keep the older defect-child on standby for organ harvest in case anything happens to perfect-baby.

stanmarsh2 Student

Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 27, 2011 Location: Tempe, AZ

Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 147 #4 - Quote - Permalink

Posted 04/17/12 - 11:06 AM:

Roke wrote: I say let the perfect-baby live and just keep the older defect-child on standby for organ harvest in case anything happens to perfect-baby.

I kind of giggled at this, but in the US, there isn't any law against this right now, which to me is a little disturbing. However, in the UK, I've read that they have a regulation committee on this issue, not sure of the legality though. Roke Devil's Advocate

Usergroup: Members Joined: Dec 08, 2009

Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 384 #5 - Quote - Permalink Posted 04/17/12 - 11:44 AM:

I kind of giggled at this, but in the US, there isn't any law against this right now, which to me is a little disturbing. However, in the UK, I've read that they have a regulation committee on this issue, not sure of the legality though.

It might be more disturbing that the UK needed to form a committee to regulate baby harvesting. Fiammetta Apotropaically Abstruse

Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Location: Northern Illinois

Total Topics: 13 Total Posts: 192 #6 - Quote - Permalink Posted 04/17/12 - 12:52 PM:

Let's bolster the argument;

It is unethical to put undue pressure on someone's person from birth with indoctrinated ideals of "saving" a sibling who was born of the same parents who are putting on the pressure within the structure and confines of said family group.

Slavery is likewise unethical, and with the undue pressure of the family unit being "saved" by your growing and harvesting an organ (to your own possible health detriment) it becomes a barder of sorts. Your born life (existence) is a small payoff for one organ, but it is still something taken for nothing and at great risk to your own existence and quality of life. It's not romantic or brave for the child to do this for a sibling, as it had no choice even at birth and was conceived not from love but from a purpose of serving another humans needs. That is slavery.

We could also go in to the family ethics and ideology of valuing one life over another inside the family unit before said life is even at the same maturity level and has had the same amount of time to contribute. It's rather illogical, but life isn't valued by weights and measures but by the emotional level invested in it's members. Not to mention that having a child to save another is an emotional burden that would be hard for a child to overcome in it's lifetime. Rejecting the plan would be devastating. This is not Hollywood, and the ending is not happy for the most part.

There are many reasons why this really should not be done to another human being. And no amount of video editing, counseling, financial and emotional over-compensation, or success will change that. BalanceofEquilibrium Concept of Equilibrium

Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 29, 2012 Location: From the sky (above) and from the ground (below).

Total Topics: 28 Total Posts: 789 #7 - Quote - Permalink Posted 04/17/12 - 1:14 PM:

Well, I know this is an ethical discussion, but I'm going to approach it disregarding morals and ethics. I wouldn't be saying this in a class, maybe.

Humans now depend in medicine and without medicine some diseases would kill many people.

If we have to rely on other organs or bodys to be born, then that's a huge flaw for the reproduction (not reproductive) system of the human race. It'll be so hard and (maybe) expensive for babies to be born that if a disaster happens, we might all reach extinction or close to it. If we help the newborns with flawed genes live, their genes will be pass on. Thus, we have to continuously deal with these "flawed genes" with surgery/medicine that'll the human race will be too dependant on it. Therefore, in saving these "weak innocent lives" it'll make the future human race weaker overall (I'm talking in the next 1000's of years or maybe less). We must not revolt the Law of Survival of the Fittest with unnatural procedures, or else machines would be our true parents in giving us our bodies. If our bodies are so flawed that we have to replace the organs inside of them...why even freaking live and pass on the genes? It may seem unethical, but it's for the benefit of the majority of the human race to survive. It's ridiculous to have to replace our "inner parts" just to survive. Like Fiammetta said life's ending isn't always happy. Life is simple, but it's a hardship; life is a game.

P.S. I'm thinking ahead for the well-being of the human race, not just the well-being of a few beings in the present time. The future is what we should focus on, in my opinion.