title: Response to 'A relational approach to Saviour Siblings?' by Selgelid.
abstract: In his concise argument, 'A relational approach to saviour siblings?', Selgelid reiterates some of the arguments raised in the author meets critics discussion of my book, Saviour Siblings In this response, I highlight an important misunderstanding in one of the arguments put forward by Selgelid, which forms the basis of a large portion of his analysis. Contrary to what Selgelid contends, I do not use the deafness case in my discussion of the non-identity problem to contend that the case of selecting for deafness is ethically different from the case of saviour siblings. As I state in my reply, I use the case of deafness not as a comparator for saviour siblings but rather to illustrate the different categories of risk that apply in selection cases Given this confusion, I restate my objection to relying on the non-identity problem in evaluating risk of harm associated with the embryo biopsy process for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Finally, I reiterate that the individual interests of saviour siblings remain important in the decision-making matrix and emphasise that Saviour Siblings offers a more contextualised approach to the welfare of the child in selective reproduction, which includes both individual and collective interests.
authors.forename: Michelle
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taylor-Sands
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D019836:Preimplantation Diagnosis; D012098:Reproduction; D035781:Siblings
keywords: Embryos and Fetuses; Genetic Selection; In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer; Interests of Woman/Fetus/Father; Reproductive Medicine