Baby Brother’s Stem Cells Could Save Older Sibling With Leukemia
- Posted on January 16, 2012 at 1:42pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Mildly like the book and film “My Sister’s Keeper” — except without the litigation for medical emancipation and expectation to donate a kidney — a family in the U.K. has a baby boy who could save the life of his older brother should he have a leukemia relapse.
Stem cells were taken from little Samuel Shorey’s umbilical cord in the hopes that they could be used by Nathan, 3, should his leukemia return, according to the Daily Mail.
Samuel (left) and Nathan Shorey. (Photo via Daily Mail)
The Daily Mail has more from the mother of the two boys, Melanie:
“As soon as you hear the word leukaemia, you fear the worst.
“Nathan is currently doing well and I do try to remain positive, but there is the worry in the back of my mind that his condition could relapse.
“Samuel’s stem cells have been tested and are a match for Nathan so can be used if needed.”
According to the Daily Mail, Nathan is doing well, although he is currently undergoing 19 months of maintenance chemotherapy.
Although Samuel was not conceived with the purpose of helping Nathan — the stem cells were taken from his umbilical cord merely because they were available and just in case — the idea of having a second child to help a sick sibling went mainstream with Jodi Picoult’s novel “My Sister’s Keeper” in 2003 and a feature film was based on the book in 2009.
In 2004, USA Today reported that one geneticist alone helped more than two dozen couples tissue-type embryos in order to have a child who could help a sibling with leukemia or a rare form of anemia. In the U.K., having a child with the intent that he or she be a stem cell donor for a sick sibling was banned in 2002. USA Today reported professor of law and medicine at the University of Minnesota Susan Wolf as saying measures should be enacted to protect children from being used for this purpose until they are of age to decide to donate themselves.
Comments (21)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 690 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 659 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 324 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 210 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 225 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 210 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:35pmMy goodness those are cute kiddos.
Report Post »American Mensch
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 11:13amThis is an issue that has no easy answers. If I were given the option to have a baby so that my older child could be saved by using the younger sibling’s stem cells in the future, I would probably do it. A parent will often move heaven and earth to keep their little one alive and healthy. To some of the posters on this site; don’t be too quick to judge others. Just be grateful if you never have to face such a difficult decision. I am thankful my two children continue to be healthy, and would do anything to make sure that continues.
Report Post »Oh, God!
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 10:28pmThe stem cells from the umbilical cord has been done for many years. When I had my first child in 2000, you can store these cells for future use incase they were diagnosed with cancer. You can still do this, nothing new to this procedure. What I have done with my other three children is donate the umbilical cord stem cells to a bank, that helps kids with leukemia or some certain types of cancer. A lot of parents choose to store the stem cells, at a very expensive cost, but others choose to donate. If you choose neither, it gets thrown away. I always saw it as hopefully saving a child somewhere in this world without killing anything else in the process.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 11:26pmBless you for your thoughtfullness. We din‘t do anything with our children’s umbilical chord blood. If the hospital had asked us to donate, then I’m sure we would have. Should donation to a tissue bank be automatic unless a parent opts out? It would make a lot of sense.
Report Post »Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:38pmwe did “delayed cord cutting” so there was no blood to save. That is nice that the hospital offered that choice.
Report Post »waggie
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 9:02pmI don’t know much about stem cells, but are these the two cutest little boys ever or what? OMG, they are adorable!
Report Post »theranter
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 8:49pmcrikie blaze – from now on can you state “umbilical stem cells” or “adult stem cells” – you get the progs all riled up thinking they are stem cells from embryos – their ghoulish source of choice. Another case where the misogyny of the left (pimping women for their eggs, using eggs from aborted baby girls (an ugly black market) not to mention the billions bilked out of California taxpayers for “promising research”) leaves me baffled as to why so many women are screaming liberals.
Report Post »mountainmover101
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 8:04pmThe intentional mention of the fact that he was NOT conceived to be used to help his older brother seems a tad contrived. We don’t have a clue if that was the intent. If it was, that’s creepy. If it truly wasn’t the intention, then so be it.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:09amHaving a second child to save the first is creepy?
Report Post »You aren’t a parent , are you?
Libertyluvnmomma
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 7:41pmWe always joked with each of my pregnancies (after the first) that this was finally “the Spare”! but then we loved that one so much we needed another “spare” ..just in case.
Report Post »Looks like we might need another!
lukerw
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 8:03pmAll Humans… are Unique Individuals with Inanlien Rights…
We are not Numbers, Machines, part of a Collective (ie Family, Tribe, etc), nor Products to be Valued and used by Eugenicists!
Report Post »Jenny Lind
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 7:25pmIn my world, one child NEVER replaces another, each is so different it is not possible, nor would I ever put that kind of expectation on an innocent child. Each child is born with a unique spirit, and is not able to be it’s sibling, no matter what.
Report Post »landoffree
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 6:52pmWhat will they think of next?
Report Post »ProudTeaPartyMember
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 5:07pmKey word, COULD.
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 5:06pmIf parents have s seriously sick or terminal child, what is the matter with producing a replacement before the other is gone? What kind of fools in government think they can regulate reproduction?
Then if that replacement child just so happens to have spare (thats important, “spare”) parts the older can use then what kind of cold heart would deny?
Report Post »JennyWoods
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 6:52pmThe first problem would be having a second child as a “replacement”. What kind of human are you? Agreed that the government should not have any regulation on how many children we have. (We aren’t communists yet) The “replacement” child as you call it, should just be expected to give their organs away? Have one “replacement” to help another? I cannot believe that a person can have such audacity to just think “Oh I can have a second one, a replacement” THOSE people shouldn’t be allowed children!
Report Post »Better Dead Than Red
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 7:32pmGrumpy,
I seriously hope you do not have kids. Or I seriously hope you are joking.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:12amGrumpycat
Report Post »agreed wholeheartedly. So does every real parent.
Burgher
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 4:10pmI have been hearing and reading a lot about stem cells extracted from ones own fat cells to heal many ills. No moral dilema needed. The FDA has yet to approve the process in humans. http://www.vet-stem.com/
A local Vet has been speaking on this at lenght on his weekend call in show on KDKA radio. Dr Mike Hutchinson
Who needs ambilical or fetal stems cell when they can use yours.
Report Post »Jennifer_D
Posted on January 16, 2012 at 11:55pm@Burgher
You bring up a great point about expanding our options with regards to what stem cells are collected. We need to research various options so that the abortion crowd won’t use stem cells as a ploy to legitimize abortion.
Many people say that people are having children with the sole intention of harvesting stem cells from them. However; baby Samuel was not conceived for that purpose. That is really a non-issue because these stem cells are being collected when a baby is born and no harm comes to them as a result. The umbilical cord would have otherwise been discarded and the opportunity lost. Not collecting those stem cells would have been irresponsible parenting. Even the children who have stem cells extracted and banked can benefit at a later date if they become ill.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on January 17, 2012 at 10:16amHundreds of thousands of terminally ill people need those cells. And deriving reproduced cells from one’s own fat cells is a procedure that is hardly as effective as other stem-cell techniques. We could cure and save millions of lives, but the “pro-life” crowd stands in the way. Irony and superstition triumph over human life. Pro-life my a$$.
Report Post »