In June 2008, the ABC screened a television documentary involving a couple who decided to have an additional child in the hope of obtaining umbilical cord blood to treat their daughter who had leukaemia.

The couple conceived naturally, meaning that there was a one in four chance that their child would be suitably matched. They seemed to be unaware of technologies that, if successful, could provide a near certainty that the next child would be a matched “saviour sibling”.

This story raises questions about whether clinicians have an obligation to discuss emerging and morally contentious treatment options.

Ignorance of technology, assumptions about availability, and medical assessment of burdens and benefits may affect attitudes towards treatment options, but they do not justify non-disclosure of information.