Couple's 'saviour baby'- stem cells for other son

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Pushing the bounds of ethics.

A couple in Port Coquitlam BC is having another baby, in the hopes that stem cells taken from the umbilical cord might save their 8 year old son from leukemia.

The couple calls this baby a 'saviour baby', in the hopes that pre-screening IVF embryos--a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis--will yield a match to their son's tissue type.

When the baby is born, doctors would harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord in the hopes that the cells will contain Human Leukocyte Antigen(HLA), after some manipulation and isolation.

The couple has been told the chances of success are 0.1%, and they will have to travel to Chicago for the $25,000 procedure.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/14/bc-stem-cell-baby.html
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/unwind/story.html?id=46734d67-ef39-4938-8d18-0a6771ca18e5

A thorny issue to be sure. Manipulating embryos, and a planned child as the vector. The couple also said they would have done this sooner had they been aware of the procedure.

Just to get a picture of the small outside chance this will work, HLA is by far the most variable of all the mammalian coding loci( a locus is a site on a chromosome where a particular gene is located). There are 9 known loci, five of those having over 100 alleles. That's incredibly diverse. Consider that in humans, freckles, colour blindness, and ear-wax type are all simply inherited, only two alleles to determine genotype.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Well sound like they are having the child in the usual way. I would have to assume the umbilical cord is not the property of the Religious Right or George W Bush so it really sounds like they are doing nothing wrong.
In reality anyway.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
You're right, there is nothing wrong with the umbilical cord derived stem cells. It's the circumstance and words like 'manipulation' that will get people up in arms.

If the child is born healthy and the parents love the newborn, can't ask for more than that, especially if it can save their son. However, I'm sure they've been warned about getting their hopes too high...
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I worry about the family being judged by a bunch of people who don't even know them and have never been in their situation. It's a private family decision and I won't second guess them for choosing one way or the other. The docs have already told them the chance of success is less than 0.1%.

I don't see why this is a thorny issue anyways. Almost all IVF patients will have the embryos screened in some way prior to implantation, simply to increase the odds of success.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I don't see why this is a thorny issue anyways. Almost all IVF patients will have the embryos screened in some way prior to implantation, simply to increase the odds of success.

I only say it's thorny because they mentioned 'manipulation,' and I said pushing ethical bounds because there obviously is a limit to what most people would say is acceptable manipulation. I think there is a thread here somewhere about designer babies where people discussed this stuff.

I'm not one of those who would say these parents are wrong, or monsters, or the like, but I can see why some would.
 

senorita

Nominee Member
Oct 29, 2007
92
5
8
Ontario
I think it's difficult to fathom why individuals would resort to such means...but to save a child...a lot of parents are willing to do almost anything.

I think that there is nothing wrong in having hope...but if it does not work out, the couple will be in for a major disappointment. Imagine the baby they are trying to have...what he or she will grow up thinking. It just has so many risks...
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
It's a little misleading. PGD is a biopsy of an embryo to take a chromosome test. There is a chance the embryo won't survive, but if it does survive, the biopsy won't have any future effect. They kind of make it sound like the embryo is being manipulated into to something it isn't, which is false.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
People here screening and manipulation and it causes a knee jerk reaction. All the playing God comments start. Well, we're playing God in any kind of fertility treatment. This one isn't really different. The couple could just attempt conceive naturally and hope for the best too (don't think many parents haven't done that before). Why should it matter if they are doing IVF to increase the very slim odds of success?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
The one article that I read stated that Canadian hospitals are refusing to do this procedure for ethical reasons. That set off red flags in my head as to what it entails. But, worrying about the treatments available to them does no one any good in my opinion.

What worries me is the emotional impact on the family of having spent this kind of time, this kind of money, and in the end possibly (most likely if the stats are an indicator) being left in despair with a newborn baby to take care of.

Miracles happen every day though.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It's a little misleading. PGD is a biopsy of an embryo to take a chromosome test. There is a chance the embryo won't survive, but if it does survive, the biopsy won't have any future effect. They kind of make it sound like the embryo is being manipulated into to something it isn't, which is false.

The screening isn't what I read from the article as manipulation, and I would never consider that manipulation in the first place. For one, that doesn't even fit the definition of manipulation.

The second article I linked to does say that the couple has exhausted a world-wide donor search, with no compatible donors.

I read it as, manipulating genetic expression, not manipulating which embryos get implanted. It's a polygenic trait, which was why I detailed how the 0.1% chance might come about. It's a highly variable trait, with myriad alleles and on many loci. Presumably, a Human leukocyte antigen typing would be done to identify the proteins in the embryos, and from there I have no idea what microbiology and biochemistry is involved to get that expression they need, if that's even possible yet. That's how I read it. That's the controversy as I see it.

If I'm reading that wrong, well then it's just sensational journalism.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
If it's Dr Rowe's statement at UBC, he questioned the ethics of taking someone's money when the procedure is mathematically futile. They have a .1% chance of conceiving a child through IVF that is a match to their son, because of quality of her eggs at her age and the chance of a surviving and implanting embryo being the match for the son. Imagine what an unsuccessful couple might say to the news media if a group of doctors took $25,000 from them with .1% of success and they claimed afterward they didn't understand it all. That scenario would be a far more likely outcome than a successful pregnancy.

Plus, 5 years ago there were very few clinics anywhere in the world doing PGD, so today's $25,000 bill was probably more like $50,000 then.

Why has this couple gone public with this? They're already trying to place blame on local doctors and concerned about the cost of going to the US. The only thing unusual about this case is the sick son. Otherwise what is happening to them is par for the course. They're only joining the club, not creating it. It's expensive and healthcare doesn't cover it.
 

Hazmart

Council Member
Sep 29, 2007
2,265
32
48
I worry for the baby not born 'good enough' to save them their grief.

That would be my concern too Karrie. What happens when this child, who was conceived to save their son, is not able to do just that. Will the parents be able to see past that? I sure hope so.
There is a novel actually that deals with this very issue, it was one of those books that I couldn't put down. It's called My Sisters Keeper.
I hope everything works out for this family!
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The screening isn't what I read from the article as manipulation, and I would never consider that manipulation in the first place. For one, that doesn't even fit the definition of manipulation.

The second article I linked to does say that the couple has exhausted a world-wide donor search, with no compatible donors.

I read it as, manipulating genetic expression, not manipulating which embryos get implanted. It's a polygenic trait, which was why I detailed how the 0.1% chance might come about. It's a highly variable trait, with myriad alleles and on many loci. Presumably, a Human leukocyte antigen typing would be done to identify the proteins in the embryos, and from there I have no idea what microbiology and biochemistry is involved to get that expression they need, if that's even possible yet. That's how I read it. That's the controversy as I see it.

If I'm reading that wrong, well then it's just sensational journalism.
Paul, when they say typing I believe it is just testing. I've never heard of any embryo manipulated through PGD. I suppose if they can identity various proteins and such that may cause auto-immune issues, for example, they can then screen beyond chromosomes and look for other related issues. I'm no scientist but I've never heard of a genetically altered embryo through PGD or any other processes in that field.

edit - now that I think of it it is against the law in Canada to alter the genome of an embryo and implant it in a woman.
 
Last edited:

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
The one article that I read stated that Canadian hospitals are refusing to do this procedure for ethical reasons. That set off red flags in my head as to what it entails. But, worrying about the treatments available to them does no one any good in my opinion.

What worries me is the emotional impact on the family of having spent this kind of time, this kind of money, and in the end possibly (most likely if the stats are an indicator) being left in despair with a newborn baby to take care of.

Miracles happen every day though.

The ethical reason they are referring to is her age. It has nothing to do with the couple's motivation in having a child.

It's possible they will have a child that isn't a match and lose their other son anyways. That's a risk they are willing to take obviously. If that happens they may have comfort in knowing they did everything they could for their dead son and they may feel blessed at having another child to love regardless of their loss.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
edit - now that I think of it it is against the law in Canada to alter the genome of an embryo and implant it in a woman.

That deserves further highlighting. Canada has some VERY strict laws when it comes to fertility medicine. It's one reason so many couples come to the US for treatment and to find surrogates or donors.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
That deserves further highlighting. Canada has some VERY strict laws when it comes to fertility medicine. It's one reason so many couples come to the US for treatment and to find surrogates or donors.
Oh, absolutely Tracy. The AHR board are like Nazi's. I suppose though if this was about being denied for those reasons someone like Rowe would've said it was against the law and thus case closed. He explained the ethics from an entirely different issue, therefore I don't think altering embryos was at issue at all.