The Ethical Justification for Minor Sibling Bone Marrow Donation: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a case study of a mentally delayed minor sibling donating bone marrow for his older sister, we discuss an alternative ethical justification for minor donation. The accepted justification for permitting minor siblings to donate bone marrow or peripheral blood stem cells is that the donor will benefit because of the greater likelihood of survival and less suffering of the sibling. Based on the limited data from four small retrospective studies of the risks and benefits for minor donors, we argue that there is a possibility, illustrated by this case, that the donor may not benefit, particularly if the transplant is unsuccessful. We, therefore, encourage the oncology community to increase support for minor donors, particularly mentally delayed ones. We also argue that the donation can be ethically justified based on the donor's familial duty to his sister. The basis of familial duties is complex, including such factors as the nature, intimacy, and history of the relationship and the specific risks and benefits to all involved. We examine each of these factors for our case study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".