In this blog post, we will examine the ethical issues surrounding the “Saviour Baby” and the principles of bioethics through the movie ‘My Sister’s Keeper’.
Saviour Babies and the Movie “My Sister’s Keeper”
When a family member is diagnosed with a fatal, incurable disease such as leukemia, the entire family focuses on the patient. Parents, in particular, will do everything in their power—by any means necessary—to save their child’s life. The movie “My Sister’s Keeper” revolves around this very situation. In the film, the protagonist’s parents use preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) to conceive their younger daughter, Anna, who is genetically compatible with their older daughter, Kate, who has leukemia. Anna was born to serve as a donor whenever Kate needs blood or bone marrow, and such a child is commonly referred to as a “Saviour Baby.” In the film, Anna repeatedly undergoes various medical procedures—including lymphocyte and bone marrow harvests—to save her older sister. This physical suffering is by no means less severe than the pain endured by Kate, the patient. Unable to lead a normal life, Anna spends most of her time in the hospital, much like a patient herself, all to save her sister. Later, when Anna turns thirteen, Kate develops kidney failure due to complications from leukemia and reaches a point where she needs a kidney transplant to stay alive. With her own life and health now threatened, Anna decides to file a lawsuit against her parents to reclaim her rights over her own body.
The Medical Value of a “Saviour Baby”
As seen in the film’s case, a significant number of medical professionals and people support this technology because of the medical benefits provided by the “savior baby.” The medical functions this technology can offer are as follows. Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT) is a technique used to screen embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) for genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities before implantation in the uterus, selecting healthy embryos to attempt pregnancy. As the scope of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)—which was previously widely used—has expanded, the term PGT is now commonly used. This technology can be described as a combination of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and genetic testing.
Before PGT became widely used, prenatal tests such as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis were performed during pregnancy to check for genetic disorders and chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus in order to give birth to a healthy child. However, if a serious abnormality was detected in the fetus, parents had to decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, a process that caused not only physical strain but also psychological distress for the expectant mother. Furthermore, there were significant ethical controversies surrounding pregnancy termination. Consequently, a method was needed to prevent these issues at an earlier stage, and PGT technology emerged as a solution to meet this need. This is because screening for genetic disorders and chromosomal abnormalities at the zygote stage and implanting healthy embryos can increase the likelihood of giving birth to a healthy child. Furthermore, since it allows families with specific medical conditions—particularly those with siblings—to select embryos based on tissue compatibility, the concept of the “savior baby” has emerged.
Consequently, some countries recognize the necessity and medical value of “saviour babies” and have actually permitted the use of related technologies on a limited basis. However, laws and the scope of permitted practices vary significantly from country to country. For example, the United Kingdom permits tissue-compatibility testing for therapeutic purposes under strict review, and several other countries also operate such systems within limited parameters. These examples demonstrate the medical necessity and therapeutic value of “saviour babies,” while also indicating that social debate on the issue continues.
The Issue of “Saviour Babies” from the Perspective of Bioethical Principles
However, not everyone supports the concept of “saviour babies.” Many bioethicists and religious leaders raise concerns about such decisions—and, by extension, the very concept of “saviour babies”—based on fundamental bioethical principles.
Bioethics is the discipline that critically examines the moral aspects of decision-making in the fields of life sciences and medicine. Bioethics generally identifies the following as its core principles: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.
The first principle, Respect for Autonomy, holds that individuals have the right to make their own decisions regarding their lives and bodies. The second and third principles mean that one must not cause harm to others and, whenever possible, should act in a way that benefits others. Finally, the principle of Justice states that all human beings, as equal beings, must be treated fairly.
However, from the moment of birth, the “Savior Baby” is placed in a position where it is difficult to fully exercise its own agency. Depending on the parents’ decision, the child becomes a donor for its siblings, and even as it grows up, it may find itself in situations where it must provide its body to meet family expectations and social pressures. Forcing the child to undergo repeated bone marrow harvests or other medical procedures to save patients raises controversies regarding the principles of non-maleficence and respect for autonomy.
Furthermore, PGT technology involves the process of selecting embryos based on specific genetic conditions or tissue compatibility. This process has also sparked long-standing debates regarding the dignity of life and the ethical status of embryos. Consequently, there are still diverse opinions on whether it is just to plan and give birth to a child solely for the purpose of saving another life. Ultimately, the “savior baby” issue can be viewed as a prime example of the four principles of bioethics coming into conflict with one another.
Kant’s Concept of Human Dignity and the “Savior Baby”
The philosopher Immanuel Kant stated the following:
“Treat humanity, always at the same time, as an end in itself, and never merely as a means.”
Kant argued that every human being is a dignified being in and of themselves and must not be treated as a mere tool for any purpose. This means that every person must be an end in themselves and must not be used merely as a means for others.
The parents in the film also do their best to save Kate, but the suffering and sacrifice Anna endures in the process are not given sufficient consideration. Because they are so focused on saving the patient’s life, the life and rights of the child who becomes the donor are pushed to the sidelines. In this regard, bioethicists and religious leaders criticize the film, pointing out the risk that the “savior baby” might be treated not as an independent person but as a medical means or therapeutic tool for the patient.
How should the human rights of the “savior baby” be protected?
In the film, Anna says the following:
“I wish my sister could live, too, but her death might be the happiest thing that ever happens in my life.”
This line illustrates that the “savior baby” endures not only physical pain but also psychological suffering. While they must continue to serve as a donor for the sake of their beloved family, refusing even once could lead to accusations of being selfish or cruel from those around them.
The problem is that, in the course of repeated medical procedures, the “savior baby’s” rights to their own body and human rights may not be adequately protected. Ultimately, the “Savior Baby” may be forced to make a difficult choice between their own health and rights and the lives of their family members. If they try to protect their own rights, they may be accused of turning their back on their family; if they choose to sacrifice themselves for their family, they may endanger their own health.
Given the psychological and physical burdens that “Savior Babies” may face, legal and institutional mechanisms to protect their rights are of the utmost importance.
In fact, while countries around the world have laws governing organ and tissue donation, the scope and procedures for tissue donation by minors, as well as the methods for guaranteeing their right to self-determination, vary from country to country and remain subjects of ongoing debate. Therefore, to adequately protect the rights of “savior babies,” institutional improvements that take into account both bioethics and medical realities are necessary.
Scientists initially developed PGT technology to prevent genetic diseases and facilitate the birth of healthy children, and this technology has provided medical benefits to many people. Furthermore, the concept of the “savior baby” emerged during the development of this technology. While doing our utmost to save human lives is of the utmost importance, we must constantly reflect on whether it is justifiable to demand excessive sacrifice from another life in the process. Rather than science and technology themselves being the root of the problem, how we utilize these technologies and to what extent we permit their use ultimately depends on the choices made by society and humanity. If we readily accept that one person’s life can be used as a means to serve other purposes, the true danger may stem not from the advancement of science and technology, but from human value judgments.
