Saviour Siblings: No Avoiding the Hard Questions

Abstract

Michelle Taylor-Sands is skeptical of the sorts of reasons that have typically been advanced in support of creating saviour siblings. The precarious nature of such claims, Taylor-Sands maintains, provides a reason to be skeptical of an individualistic approach to the child’s interests, and to seek instead to justify the creation of saviour siblings on several other grounds. These include: that the saviour sibling shares ‘collective interests’ with its intimate family; and that the future child owes duties to the family members by virtue of having been born into that family. In this article, the author assesses each claim and argues that while it is preferable to admit that many medical decisions are not made for the benefit of the patient, the notion this can obviate the need for tough balancing acts and speculative predictions is considerably less likely.