Strollerderby

Conceiving a Child to Save a Life

Posted by Jen Chaney

At age 47, Pam Obadia is trying to conceive her second child. But that's not what makes the Vancouver mother's situation controversial.

Obadia and her husband Mike have an 8-year-old with leukemia. Currently undergoing chemotherapy and unable to find a match that will allow him to get a bone marrow transplant, the boy's prognosis is not promising. So the Obadias are hoping to give birth to another infant and use the stems cells from the newborn's umbilical cord to save their existing child's life.

It's difficult to imagine a more painful, wrenching situation for a parent. I think anyone can understand the impulse to do anything -- anything -- to save that little boy's life. But some people view this approach as something akin to genetic engineering: Creating a child primarily to save the life of another. Personally, I think it sounds a heck of a lot like a Jodi Picoult novel.

The Obadias insist they are eager to raise another child in addition to the health benefits that said baby's arrival may mean for their son. They also are spending $30,000 and traveling to Chicago to pursue invitro fertilization, then screen embryos in the hopes of finding a match.

Since they both know what it means to raise a child and are willing to go to such lengths, I can only hope that means they would happily embrace and raise the baby on his or her own terms. Because the sad fact is this: They could overcome the odds and successfully get pregnant, overcome another set of odds and find matching stem cells for their boy, then get him that transplant they've been desperately seeking. And after all that, they could still lose him in the end.

Photo: The Telegraph 


+ DIGG + STUMBLE

Comments

 

renee said:

This happened in California in the late 80s; everything went as planned, both girls are fine, and the older one REALLY loves her little sister.  I remember a lot of ethical hand-wringing at the time, but honestly, when you think of all the terrible reasons people have kids (including sheer accident), this seems fine to me.

April 16, 2008 12:11 PM
 

chyna823 said:

I agree with Renee--there are far worse reasons to have a baby than to save the life of its older sibling. I would absolutely do that in a heartbeat.

These people already have a child they adore, so I doubt that they will adore the new baby any less. (Plus, I know a few people who had "surprise" babies in their 40s, when their other kids were already in grade school, and it turned out to be a lot of fun for the parents and the older kids.)

April 16, 2008 1:52 PM
 

steffmarcusky said:

At least they're getting the cells from the umbilical cord and not from the baby itself. Ok, I watch too much CSI, but remember the one where the older, dying brother helped his little sister kill herself because she was tired of all the operations she had to give him bone marrow? Yes, it would be tragic to lose the oldest anyway, but at least they would have tried. And if it worked, the little one would be a hero to the older brother.

April 16, 2008 8:16 PM
 

Manjari said:

I think this is fine too, and I would do the same thing if I were in their situation. I'm sure they will not treat the second child any differently than they otherwise would have.

April 16, 2008 10:01 PM

About Jen Chaney

Jen Chaney is the movies editor and a DVD columnist for washingtonpost.com. Her byline has appeared in The Washington Post, People magazine, USA Today and the Utne Reader as well as various other newspapers around the country. She is the mother of a one-year-old boy, who has not yet learned the word Xanadu. But he will. Trust us, he will.

in

GROUP BLOGS

  • Strollerderby

    The smartest, funniest, most exhaustive parenting blog in the blogosphere.
  • Droolicious

    Modern design for modern parents.
  • FameCrawler

    Your daily baby celebrity fix.
back to blog homepage