Ever since it has been possible for parents to buy life insurance on their children, a few parents have traded diapers for dollars. Read More
Strictly from an economic standpoint, although not so much from a moral standpoint, it could make sense if the amount is large enough. The logic is that instead of allowing all their children to survive in poverty, the parents would sacrifice one and use the money for their other children.
As for the potential loss if someone dies, I don't see why members of one's extended family should be automatically excluded. In some cultures or in some particular families, there could be a very real interest due, for example, to living or working together. But even if that is not the case, I can easily see a childless aunt, for example, loving her niece as if she were her daughter. As a matter of fact, I can even imagine a longtime employee of a sole proprietorship having an interest in the survival of the sole owner of the company because if s/he dies, the employee loses his or her job. I'm not aware of anybody having attempted that (and it might look odd indeed), but it would make sense if the employment relationship is more stable than many marriages are nowadays, yet is not protected in any legal or financial sense.
I think parents making a purchase of life insurance on their baby may be a good idea if there is a need for funds to pay for a funeral if needed, also to build cash value for your child's future, to guarantee a low rate for life insurance on your child as he or she grows up, and the option of your child being able to add more life insurance to the policy when he or she becomes an adult, regardless of a change in health. With so many children these days becoming overweight or diabetic, it may make sense to help your child out and provide some financial security for their future.
More information about formatting options
Joni E. Johnston, Psy.D, is the author of Complete Idiot's Guide to Psychology.
When and how should we open up to loved ones?