Post- Reading My Sister's Keeper

1. "The safety of the rescuer is of a higher priority than the safety of the victim.  Always."

This quote is shown through out the book and is even sometimes violated. Sometimes when we see a problem without knowing any of the emotional background of it, the answer is almost always lucid. But when we add in the emotional side of a problem it's hard to make a decision because we know that choice can truly hurt people even if it is the "right" thing to do. We see in My Sister's Keeper that this is the main struggle that stumps everyone.

Kate was diagnosed with a rare leukemia when she was two years old. In this equation she is the victim. It's not fair obviously, but it was the cards she was dealt. Anna is the rescuer for Kate in this equation. She was specifically made for Kate and all her life Anna has been the rescuer when Kate needed platelets, cord blood, bone marrow and a friend. So, what happens when the rescuer (Anna) is put in danger? Well, according to Brian, the fire fighter, when he goes into a burning building to save someone if he is about to die he has to leave the person in the fire because he is the highest priority. Most likely the person in the burning building didn't cause the fire, and it's not fair that they are there, but it is not Brian's job to save them if he is about to die. Should Brian save the victim or leave them? Should Anna help Kate and give her a kidney,even if it could cause detrimental effects for the rest of her life,but possibly prolong Kate's life? Or should Anna put her foot down after 13 years of being the rescuer because she is in danger? If you don't know the emotional side of this problem the answer is that Anna should put her foot down. 

What you don't know about this problem is that there is a mother in the mix that has fought 14 years to keep her daughter alive  at the cost of failing the rest of her immediate family. She has been in too deep for so long to not have any good consequences to pay for all the bad repercussions of her decisions. There is a father that has always been expected to be the rock and supporter through out all the doctor bills and emotional breakdowns. There are so many emotional variables that make the decision not so cut and dry. As much as we would like to believe and live by "The safety of the rescuer is of a higher priority than the safety of the victim.  Always." it doesn't always work out that way. 

Socratic Question: My Sister's Keeper

Socratic Questions

1. Campbell continued to deny the reason he had a service dog through out the entire book. Why would this have been something that he kept a secret, and/or have been something he was ashamed of?
2. Why would Kate feel like her existence continued to damage her other siblings emotionally, mentally, and physically? 
3. Why do you think Jessie continued to break the law (arson, drug abuse,etc.)?
4. Sara was making the decision to choose between her kids. If you were a parent what would be some thoughts or considerations that crossed through your mind if you were put in Sara's shoes?
5. How would it feel if you knew that your worth was based upon another person? Is it good because at least you have worth? Or bad because you can never have the option of finding your worth on your own?

Pre-Reading: My Sister's Keeper

2. Read the article attached below about stem-cell research and cloning.  Write a blog post the explains how you feel about "creating humans."  Then go one step further and discuss the emotion you would feel knowing you were created for the betterment of another human being. 

After reading the article on stem-cell research, I have to say that I disagree with it. I think the power to clone humans will bring detrimental effects. The positive side of cloning does not outweigh the negative consequences.

Just like abortion, the question is: “Are embryos living things?”  If you consider embryos to be a living thing, then your answer to that question is very lucid. No, we shouldn't allow embryonic stem-cell research. But the other side of that answer is that, by not allowing stem-cell research, possible solutions to genetic diseases and illnesses may not be found. I think that, once you fertilize a human egg, it is a living thing that is on its way to becoming a newborn baby. In believing that, I don't think that it is right to kill another human life to preserve another human life. Just like I shouldn't be killed to save my friend’s life, embryos shouldn't be killed to save another's life.

Human cloning is also something that I disagree with, even though the process does not involve killing embryos. After the baby is born, that is the really worrisome and scary thing. So, hypothetically, if we achieve the process of human cloning then we can decide what we want in a baby and what we don't want. People could have the ability to create a superior race. Essentially we could have the power to create "perfect" people that would all be the same. No longer would humans be considered valuable, unique, one-of-a-kind, or irreplaceable. Humans would be disposable and replaceable. Human cloning could be a positive thing that we could swear not to abuse, but the truth is there will always be someone that could and would take advantage of the new discovery.

If the embryos could know that they were being used for the betterment of another human being, you can imagine the emotional distress. It would be incredibly hurtful and make you question your own self worth. Was I just created to help someone else? Do people love me for me, or what I do for someone else? You can imagine that, if this living embryo was able to understand what was happening to it and express how it felt, almost all of us would rethink our decision to continue stem-cell research.

In my eyes, there is a big caution sign with both human cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. Humans shouldn't tamper with human life. There could be positive effects to Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem-Cell research, but at what cost?