These questions raise what seem like new dilemmas brought on by the new age of genetics. But, in reality, they are rather old quandaries which many parents have faced before. Couples with a sick child whose health depends upon a matched tissue donation have been known to have another child in the hope that they will be a suitable donor. Whilst this might not be considered the most noble reason for having a child, it is usually regarded as a private family decision. And indeed it was in the case of the Whitakers, whose second child, Emily, was conceived naturally, but who sadly turned out not to be a compatible donor for Charlie. To answer the second question, whether psychological harm will be done to the so-called saviour child, one need only look at Emily, who shows no signs of being neglected or psychologically scarred in any way, despite the fact that her stem cells could not be used to treat her older brother.
If parents have been left to make such judgements privately up until now, why were the Whitakers forced to have their wishes scrutinised by the nation? Because the technique they sought to use is one normally carried out in order to avoid the birth of a child with an inherited disease. In the case of the Whitakers, the government regulator, the HFEA (Human Ferlisation and Embryology Authority), did not consider the reason for having embryo screening to be sufficiently immediate to warrant its use. As chairman, Suzy Leather, told a number of newspapers, 'No one can say for certain what the long-term risks of embryo biopsy are. If there are benefits for the child to be created from the biopsied embryo... the balance of potential harm and potential good falls in a different place than if you're simply biopsying an embryo for the benefit of another person.'
This sounds reasonable enough. But it is important that we do not get safety and morals mixed up in a case like this. If people have difficulty accepting what the Whitakers did, they have to find a way of explaining why they think that. Perhaps people who object to this case really are concerned about the slim chance that the procedure will have damaged James Whitaker in some way. But sometimes safety concerns can be an easy route out of a moral maze. Mere mention of a 'precautionary approach' is often enough to trump all other concerns.
The fact that James did not himself benefit from the embryo screening procedure does make the issue slightly different, but only in the sense that it might have made it a more difficult decision for his parents. Decisions that parents make in relation to their children are often about weighing up risks and benefits and making a judgement which seeks to maximise their health and well-being. The difference with Jayson and Michelle Whitaker is that, because of their unfortunate situation, the stakes were higher.