Doctor, please make me freer: Capabilities enhancement as a goal of medicine

Rueda, Jon; García-Barranquero, Pablo; Lara, Francisco

doi:10.1007/s11019-021-10016-5

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerns regarding distributive justice are fundamental and can influence our judgements about genetic enhancement. Elsewhere I have defended that autonomy enhancement is a legitimate goal of medicine and that there are reasons to publicly subsidize medical interventions aiming to improve the capabilities needed to lead a more autonomous life (Rueda et al, 2021). That said, further investigation is needed regarding the ethical foundations of the public subsidizing reprogenetic technologies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The capability approach is a normative framework about positive freedom and wellbeing that remarks the importance of what individuals are able to be and to do (Nussbaum, 2007; Sen, 2009). Although this theory has been largely unattended in the human enhancement debate, I have recently argued along with Pablo García‐Barranquero and Francisco Lara that this framework can consider biomedical enhancements as a legitimate goal of medicine as long as they make people freer (Rueda et al, 2021). Here I argue that, if reprogenetic enhancement improves future children's capabilities, these individuals could be considered freer.…”

Section: Autonomy Enhancement Through Reprogenetic Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Self‐Determination to Offspring‐Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement

Rueda

2021

Theoria

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging reprogenetic technologies may radically change how humans reproduce in the not-so-distant future. One foreseeable consequence of disruptive innovations in the procreative domain is an increase in the reproductive autonomy of intended parents. Regarding the prospective parental liberty of enhancing non-health-related traits of the offspring, one controversy has particularly dominated the literature. Does parents' choice of genetically enhancing the traits of their descendants compromise children's future personal autonomy? In this article, I will analyse the main arguments which posit that reprogenetic enhancement could be at odds with the child's future autonomy. I will argue that these objections are ill-founded. Moreover, I will present other arguments that show that reprogenetic technologies can enhance the autonomy of future children. Autonomy enhancement is a plausible and pro tanto desirable application of emerging reprogenetic technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Autonomy Enhancement Through Reprogenetic Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Self‐Determination to Offspring‐Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement

Rueda

2021

Theoria

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We return to that shortly in the next section, but it is, finally, worth pausing on the observation that if one believes that medical necessity is determined by the goals of medicine, and if one believes that these refer to a conception of well-being, then one will have to take a stand on which theory of the good is preferable (and it is likely that such an account will at least heed to personal desires). 33,34,54,55 Alternatively, one may argue that the goals of medicine are not as broad as securing well-being, but rather pertain to securing people's health (which may induce moral worries that determining the patients' health needs without reference to their idea of the good may lead back to medical paternalism). In sum, accounts of health are no less controversial than accounts of well-being.…”

Section: The Changing Goals Of Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Disrupting medical necessity: Setting an old medical ethics theme in new light

Proost

2023

Clinical Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent medical innovations like ‘omics’ technologies, mobile health (mHealth) applications or telemedicine are perceived as part of a shift towards a more preventive, participatory and affordable healthcare model. These innovations are often regarded as ‘disruptive technologies’. It is a topic of debate to what extent these technologies may transform the medical enterprise, and relatedly, what this means for medical ethics. The question of whether these developments disrupt established ethical principles like respect for autonomy has indeed received increasing normative attention during the past years. Yet, more fundamental ethical considerations of a possible disruption of the concept of ‘medical necessity’ (and the potential ensuing clinical ramifications) have been limited if not absent. It is our modest – though morally and practically relevant – aim to address this objective in this article, by exploring how the current wave of allegedly disruptive innovation is invoking a resurgence of this concept and related debates on ‘the’ goal(s) of medicine.

show abstract

“…In a recent article, I defended along with Pablo García-Barranquero and Francisco Lara that the welfarist conception of enhancement is problematic and that the capability approach is a stronger framework to include enhancement as a legitimate goal of medicine. 66 This is because we should improve biologically based capabilities to enable individuals to freely choose the well-being that they have reason to value. Similarly, posthumans may have an interest not only in having lives of well-being but also in having the capabilities to freely develop the well-being most in line with their own values.…”

Section: Objections To the Principle Of The Best Interests Of Posthum...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic enhancement, human extinction, and the best interests of posthumanity

Rueda

2022

Bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cumulative impact of enhancement technologies may alter the human species in the very long-term future. In this article, I will start showing how radical genetic enhancements may accelerate the conversion into a novel species. I will also clarify the concepts of 'biological species', 'transhuman' and 'posthuman'. Then, I will summarize some ethical arguments for creating a transhuman or posthuman species with a substantially higher level of well-being than the human one. In particular, I will present what I shall call the Principle of the Best Interests of Posthumanity, which states that the enhancement of the human and transhuman species must be directed towards the creation of a posthuman existence that is substantially more valuable than its predecessors. I suggest that human extinction may be considered, within that principle, as one of the best interests of posthumanity. Finally, I will develop three objections that make that principle unattractive and that show that pursuing a full-blown programme of posthuman evolution is ethically flawed.

show abstract

Doctor, please make me freer: Capabilities enhancement as a goal of medicine

Cited by 8 publications

References 64 publications

From Self‐Determination to Offspring‐Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement

From Self‐Determination to Offspring‐Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement

Disrupting medical necessity: Setting an old medical ethics theme in new light

Genetic enhancement, human extinction, and the best interests of posthumanity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About