Giving Birth to Your Sister-Right or Wrong?
ref-Daughter may give birth to mother's child and The disease only girls get, Straits Times Mind Your Body, 11 July 2007

Recently, a Canadian mother has recieved much flak for her controversial decision to donate her eggs to her seven year old daughter.

Ms Melanie Biovin, a 35 year old mother of 3, has decided to freeze her eggs so that her seven year old daughter Flavie, who suffers from Turner's syndrone, can one day be a mother through pregnancy.

Turner syndrome is a genetic condition occuring in girls which renders them unable to develop ovaries and eggs, thus they are not able to concieve and have children naturally. They can, however, be impregnated with other people's eggs and carry the foetus to full term.

This is the first time that a mother to daughter donation has been made. This of course brings up many ethical questions on motherhood and parenting.

For example, would the child be considered as Flavie's daughter or her sister? Biologically speaking, because they both came from 1 woman's eggs, they should be sisters. However, when one gives birth to one's sister, psychologically the relationship is mixed.

Would the child think of Flavie as her mother, or sister? After all, although she gave birth to the child the eggs are not hers. In fact Flavie would only be used as a vessel to bring the child into the world, and this is little more than surrogate motherhood. The child would be confused as to wheter to treat Flavie as mother or sister, and whether to treat Ms Biovin as a grandmother or the biological mother.

Personally I think such a decision is unethical and does little to help either mother or child. Sure, Flavie may be able to experience the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth, but she will have to live with the fact that the child is not really hers. And although she will care for the child, this does little to distinguish her as the mother. Even big sisters now care for their siblings as they would their own children. What does this say about the whole concept of motherhood then? Has motherhood become so shallow that so much of it depends on the parents ablitity to concieve and for the mother to get pregnant? Flavie could have adopted or fostered children. However the fact that Ms Biovin willingly subjected herself to egg harvests so that Flavie could give birth to a child shows how much emphasis is being placed on pregnancy and childbirth as an essential part of motherhood.

Also, the interests of the unborn child have not been taken into consideration. Aside from the identity crisis the child would have, the way that the child views both women would drastically affect their family relationship. The child could suffer from insecurity and low self esteem, especially when there are conflicts within the family and the child does not know who to defer to.

If the unborn child is born, this could seriously mess up the family relationships. Defenders of Ms Biovin who say that there is nothing wrong with this by likening it to surrogacy are totally wrong. In surrogate motherhood, the birth mother is merely used as a vessel to bring the child into the world. She will have no part in the process of procreation and is very unlikely to play a role in the child's life after the birth. However, while surrogate motherhood has become a necessary evil of society, surrogate mothers from the child's direct family is an abomidable and should not be encouraged at all. Surrogate mothers who come from the same social circle as the child will seriously affect the relationships between child, birth mother and genetic mother, as they are likely to come into close contact and play future roles in the child's life. This is not natural at all.

Of course, Ms Biovin has no ill intention in doing this. All she wants is to allow her daughter to have a chance to become pregnant and bear a child. In the article, she said that she was motivated by love for her daughter. However, while her intentions are honourable, and her love for her daughter admirable, the way she chose to express it is not right. Also, we cannot be sure that her intentions are not tainted. Could it be a form of natural human selfishness that also influenced her in her decision? Might she in her own way tried to ensure the continuation of the family bloodline by giving Flavie the option of eggs from within the family rather than a stranger's?

It is up to anyone's guess how this drama will play out. However for the sake of the family I hope Flavie will accept the fact that she can never truly have her own children, and that it is not whether a woman can bear her own children that is important.