Saviour Siblings

   After reading this, I felt as though I didn’t have all the facts to form an opinion about this case. I did a simple Google search and discovered information that changed my agreement with the Authority’s decision to a neutral stance.

    When I first read this article, I thought that the “designer sibling” would be used as a lab rat, a biological resource, for the remainder of his or Charlie’s life. I instantly pictured a dystopian society that used technology to encourage eugenics. On the other hand, I could understand that the Whitakers’ were trying to save their son. I did further research about this case which my mind at ease.

    The policy of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) of using in-vitro fertilization (IVF) was initially solely for the purpose of making sure a baby would be born without any genetic defects/abnormalities of his or her parents. However, since the Whitakers’ wanted to save the life of their already-born son (Charlie), they were denied IVF for the purpose of (possibly) curing Charlie’s Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA). At this time, Charlie had been receiving blood transfusions every three weeks to treat the DBA.

    From this potential “designer baby”, Charlie would need only the stem cells from Baby X’s umbilical cord, which would kick-start Charlie’s body into producing red blood cells. A bone marrow transplant would be a secondary option if the stem cell treatment did not work. The Whitakers’ did look for potential bone marrow matches for Charlie (they have a daughter as well), but to no avail.

    The Whitakers’ eventually did go to the United States where they were approved for IVF for the purpose of creating a life to save Charlie’s. Embryos were screened and implanted into the mother’s womb, and James Whitaker was born June 16, 2003. Part of the umbilical cord was sent to a lab, compatibility was confirmed; the other part was stored until a transplant could take place. The family waited six months to make sure James didn’t have DBA. That six months passed and the transplantation was performed. After being monitored for one year, Charlie was declared 100% healthy by his doctors (though he will need periodic check-ups).

    The HFEA has since changed its policy to allow for tissue typing to save the life of a sibling, in certain cases. Since then, the HFEA approved a family to use IVF to conceive a child who would be a match to treat their son’s condition (who also had DBA).

    So, how do I feel about all of this now? Neutral. When the HFEA denied the IVF for the Whitakers’ they were merely abiding by their initial policy, clearly something they felt was important to do; it isn't something that can be seen as wrong or right. After seeing the success of the Whitakers’ case, they altered their policy and approved a different family for the same procedure. The Whitakers’ took advantage of the technology available to them and are now a happy, healthy family; the stem cell transplant was successful. I say “live and let live.” I support stem cell research and transplants, if there is a good chance of it curing diseases (such as cancer, HIV, AIDS, etc.). Equally as much, I support research into any treatments or cures for diseases and conditions. Stem cell transplantation is but one avenue of treatment.

    However, I am still a bit unsettled with emergence of further issues that only time can solve:

1) Would the created child be psychologically damaged in some way, knowing s/he was created for a sole purpose?

2) Is the natural course of evolution being disrupted with these life-saving procedures? How much does the role of “survival of the fittest” play in the case of human survival and evolution?

3) Technology has brought us to a point that we are now able to select physical traits of children. This has potential to be misused.

One of many.

How do you understand prosody and the role it plays in language use? Provide two examples to support your answer.

    Prosody, in general, is tools used for communication cues and indicators. Since my native language is a spoken one (English), its prosodic markers are most familiar to me. Spoken language prosodic markers include the rhythm, stress, and intonation of words to indicate the intent of the text. We naturally utilize these markers to show emotional states, differentiate between questions and commands, to show sarcasm, to create emphasis, as well as numerous other things. Signed language users rely on prosodic markers for the same reason: to indicate the intent of the text. However, a different approach is used. To identify a few from Nicodemus’ article, prosodic markers used in signed languages include changes in eye aperture, head movements, body leans, cheek puffing, and nose wrinkling.

    A basic example of applying prosodic markers is how we indicate we are asking a question. When asking a question, spoken language users raise the pitch of their voice at the end of the phrase. Some speakers continuously increase pitch throughout the sentence; others raise the pitch of just the last word or few words. Signed language users, when asking questions, raise or lower their eyebrows to indicate they are seeking information. Sometimes more prosodic markers are used, but there is always a raising or lowering of the eyebrows.

    The second example I will use will be to show how we exhibit the emotion state of being in wonder. In spoken and signed languages, the word choice varies drastically depending on the speaker or signer, but for the sake of simplicity we will pretend the speaker/signer has chosen to express “Wow” as their text. Spoken language users in a state of wonderment might lengthen the vowel, lower their tone, and pause to collect their next thought. Signed language users might slow down the pace of their signing, drop their jaw, and possibly lean the body inward.

    Prosodic markers are natural to us. It is the pitch, rhythm, intonation, tempo, etc. naturally used to indicate the intent of our message.