Four-year-old Zain Hashmi has a rare blood disorder and cells from the umbilical cord of a perfectly-matched sibling could be used to make tissue for a life-saving bone marrow transplant for him.

The treatment was originally given the go-ahead by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, but was challenged and overruled by the pro-life Comment on Reproductive Ethics group.

The new sibling would not have to undergo surgery during the process to give his or her stem cells to brother.

What are your views on the case? Is it unethical to be able to give life to an embryo according to its genes? Do you hope the Hashmis win their appeal?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

My first thoughts were that it is wrong to create a human being as some sort of medical remedy. But when really thinking about it and trying to put myself in the Hashmis' position, I can fully understand their decision. What parent would not move heaven and earth to save their child? It isn't like the new baby will be disposable, I'm sure that he or she will be as cherished as Zain, perhaps particularly special because of the gift s/he could bring. The pro-lifers have no right to interfere, they are (thankfully for them) not in the Hashmis' position and it is easy to oppose a decision that does not affect them personally. This is difficult ethical ground but I think in this case, the family should be allowed to go ahead.
Melanie Hamlin, Guildford, UK

The boundaries surrounding genetic modifications and the creation of specifically designed babies for a specific purpose are being blurred Martin, UK

Little by little the boundaries surrounding genetic modifications and the creation of specifically designed babies for a specific purpose are being blurred by the well meaning parents. I would question how much influence the companies behind this industry are "supporting" unfortunate couples like these. Surely the companies which developed the technologies to enable such procedures have much to gain and thereby recoup their R&D costs and increase revenue. My view is "a life is a life if it fails then so be it", a harsh view perhaps but it is mine.
Martin, UK

There's nothing more precious a gift than the gift of saving a life for a family member. Why should this family be forced to watch their child die, when there is a chance? The concern that the new child would be overlooked is inaccurate, the family would grow very close and loving and should not be denied. Stem cell research has far-reaching potential for treating previously untreatable illnesses. If we take the view of some of the other contributors, we should not be developing any medicine, and adopt a survival of the fittest. No penicillin, no vaccines, no surgical procedures. It would be like the Dark Ages.
Ian Westwood, UK

God places a lot of problems and various opportunities in our path within this life span. There is a reason for why this is happening to the Hashmi family. I really feel for them. What they need to do is consider all the factors and take into consideration that some things are not meant to be.
Mina, London

Firstly, the "Pro Lifers" don't really appear to be in this case. Secondly, consider some of the often spurious reasons that cause people to be parents, such as family pressure or tradition. Is the Hashmis' rationale so terrible? On the contrary, it's a laudable step to take, done out of love and to promote and further life. CRE appear to be acting outside their remit by providing more than "comment". Good luck to the Hashmis.
Andrew, Thailand

Of course it would be legitimate to produce a child for whatever reason, including such a noble one. But the motivation for producing offspring is actually NOT the problem here. Rather, the nasty issue is hidden in the phrase "selecting an embryo": selecting here means picking one and killing all other embryos whose tissue does NOT match. And since intentional killing of human life is murder, it would not be appropriate to select. If a method is found that does not kill embryos, there could hardly be an objection to the treatment, but all embryos are living human beings, and as such basic human rights apply.
J Leidner, UK

It is neither ethical nor moral to create human life to solve a medical problem. Have we lost the ability to value life for itself? Can we no longer face up to illness and death?
Lesley, UK

The child they are looking to create is little more than a means to an end Heather, UK

I can understand this couple's pain, but the human race shouldn't let suffering push us to doing what is essentially wrong. In all their interviews, I've only heard them talk about what is best for Zain; the child they are looking to create is little more than a means to an end.
Heather, Stockport, UK

I do feel for the Hashmis and it cannot be a pleasant experience for them. However, were they trying for another child anyway before being offered this procedure? If not, then I fear for the new baby, although it will no doubt loved for helping Zain. The love for him will be different no matter how hard the parents try, and this, I'm sure, will adversely affect him. Wanting a baby and needing a baby are two different matters and if I was that new child, I would much prefer to be wanted than merely a requirement to needs.
Richard hall, UK

I totally disagree with 'interfering with nature' but when I think of these poor people trying to save their son's life all my objections go out the window. I truly wish them luck.
SC, UK

Whilst it is hard to argue against a treatment that would ultimately save a human life, one has to think about the child produced. Would he/she accept that he/she was created for a noble purpose or come to believe that he/she was created not out of love but for someone else.
Adrian Potter, England

My wife and I have also lost three unborn babies due to Thalassemia Rubi, Harrow, UK

I relate fully with the Hashmis. My wife and I have also lost three unborn babies due to Thalassemia. We decided to terminate on each occasion rather than put our babies through what Zain has to endure. Surely Pro-lifers would prefer Gene Selection to termination.
Rubi, Harrow, UK

In this case designer baby is a misnomer. The couple are not looking for a perfect child to complement their family, just a healthy one that might help keep their young son alive. It is good that HFEA debate these matters but in rare cases like these the technology should be allowed to help them.
Diana Armstrong, UK

The Hashmi family are obviously loving and caring parents, and the new baby would be much loved in it's own right - the fact that he had helped his brother to also live would only endear him more. Good luck to the Hashmi family - I hope the courts hear the case with some compassion for this dying little boy.
Pat M, UK

Banning this act would be murderous Emma, Australia

If you are able to save one child�s life and create another one its a miracle. How different is it from IVF - which is legal? Banning this act would be murderous. Good Luck to the Hashmis
Emma, Australia

This is a huge ethical dilemma - if this is allowed it could be the test case quoted in future cases - this unborn child will only be used to obtain bone marrow and will survive - but it could be the beginning of a slippery slope to selective breeding for hearts, livers, kidneys etc. We already see organ selling in the developing world. Very difficult decision but I feel to allow it would be a very dangerous step on a slippery slope.
Kevin, UK

I think the family are doing whatever it takes to save the life of their child. They obviously love their son very much and I have no doubt that they will love the second child just as much. This child will be saving the life of their son causing no pain to the unborn child. Why do the pro-life people have to interfere, what right do they have to jeopardise the only chance this family have to save their son's life?
Samantha Gibson, England

It will still be a well loved and looked after member of their family Jodie North, UK

I honestly don't think they are doing anything wrong. They have 'designed' a baby which has the same genetic make-up as their ill son. They are not going to disregard the baby after it has helped him, it will still be a well loved and looked after member of their family who may well give their ill son a better chance at life. You opportunists will only understand this when you are put in this position yourselves. Good luck and best regards to the Hashmi family.
Jodie North, North Yorkshire, UK

I am in favour of genetic science whereby hereditary human faults can be corrected. So in my view using genetic material from UNBORN foetuses etc is alright. But the thought of a child BEING BORN for any other reason than being a child wanted for itself alone is objectionable. In this case the parents want another child to use to repair their first child. They do not and should not have the authority to do that. And the fact that they want to makes me question their ability to be responsible parents.
Ray Anderson, UK

Dear Mr and Mrs Hashmi: You may be interested to know that we in Denmark have had the exact same situation. Here the minister in charge cut through the red tape and said that saving the life of the boy was not to be delayed while the "moral issue" was being investigated. He also made sure that the whole family got the funds to travel to USA in order to receive the treatment. I do hope this will be of some help. All the best here from Copenhagen.
Jan W. Jensen, Copenhagen, Denmark

It is medical manipulation for the worst reasons Susan, Scotland

I think it is morally wrong and despicable concept. Would these parents wish to have another child if their son was perfectly healthy? What if the second was born and his/her bone marrow did not save Zain's life anyway? It is medical manipulation for the worst reasons.
Susan, Scotland

I'm torn on this one. I myself have a young child and if he was ill and something could be done to save him I would be 100% behind it. But nature should be left alone. My heart goes out to the little boy and his family.
Charlene, London, UK

What right have the pro life group got to take away a chance of saving a little boy's life?
Scott, UK

Every new "trend" or "scientific breakthrough" that most countries encounter along our own evolution go through the same process of questioning the ethics behind them. Eventually though, someone somewhere will do these things. It's going to happen, and we'd be better in the more affluent countries promoting correct codes of practice so that when the next big event comes along, like human cloning, at least it can be done properly. A legal block now will not stop these things happening at a later date. I wish Zain Hashmi well, and hope that his life means more to "the powers that be" than trying to stop the inevitable. Good luck son.
Pete, Hartlepool, England

Twenty years ago my brother had leukaemia. If my bone marrow hadn't matched his exactly he would have died. He's still alive now! How can I not support these parents?
Richard, UK

The idea is a little further towards creating people for organ harvesting Katherine, UK

I think pro-life organisations might have a point. The idea of bearing a child solely for the purpose of saving another is a little further towards creating people for tissue and organ 'harvesting'. How will the parents deal with this new child? Will they love him/her as a child in their own right? Will the next couple who get permission to do this? What a horrible dilemma - I do not envy the people having to make the choices here.
Katherine, UK

Opponents of this procedure are exaggerating and twisting the implications of this crucial science. IVF scientists must look down microscopes and use their judgement to select what they consider to be the healthiest-looking embryos. That selection process is not immoral, it is necessary. This time, there is good reason to apply genetic selection. The result will be two human lives; Zain and his younger sibling, both of whom are bound to receive a great deal of love from their parents.
David Wiseman, Oxford, UK

What if the new sibling has the same illness, or is found to be an unsuitable donor for some other reason? Will this newborn child then become surplus to requirements?
Christopher Hunter, England

The 'created' child will be a much-loved and wanted baby who can also save the life of his/her older sibling. It isn't as if the new life will be discarded after donating the bone marrow. The child will always be cherished in the family for saving his brother.
Victoria Wright, UK

What the Hashmis are doing already goes on. IVF treatment already involves the process of selection: Only the healthiest embryos are chosen to be used in the process. The child born will have a great feeling going through life that he or she saved his or her brother's life.
Laura, London, UK

We must watch the ethics of reproduction carefully before we end up in Huxley's World.
Jan, UK

As parents, it is their duty to do everything they can to save their son Josephine, UK

I wish the Hashmis luck with their appeal and hope they win. As parents, it is their duty to do everything they can to save their son, and I applaud them for it. This is a clear case of life-or-death, not convenience: They are doing it for the right reasons. All the siblings I know would do anything to help their brothers or sisters in a situation like this - I am sure the new child would be happy that s/he had the opportunity to save his or her brother's life.
Josephine, UK