Procreative Altruism: Beyond Individualism in Reproductive Selection

Douglas, Thomas; Devolder, Katrien

doi:10.1093/jmp/jht022

Cited by 29 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The following example illustrates my worry and that of others (p. 403)7 with this second interpretation a little more vividly. i Imagine you and your partner have two embryos and that you have decided to implant only one of them.…”

Section: Why Partiality?mentioning

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note

Petersen

2015

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to criticise the well-discussed principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) lately refined by Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane. First, it is argued that advocates of PB leave us with an implausible justification for the moral partiality towards the child (or children) which reproducers decide to bring into existence as compared with all other individuals. This is implausible because the reasons given in favour of the partiality of PB, which are based on practical reason and common-sense morality, can just as well be used to guide reproducers to make choices that do not support partiality towards one's possible children. This seems to be true as least in some situations. Second, it is argued that Jakob Elster's recent critique of PB is problematic and specifically that a counterexample designed by Elster to criticise PB because of its partiality towards one's own children misses the target. Finally, a genuine counterexample to PB is developed in order to show that the partiality of PB leads to the wrong answer in a specific case.

show abstract

Section: Why Partiality?mentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Douglas and Devolder7 have designed a case that points to a similar problem for PB as the one I have in mind here, namely that in isolation PB gives what seems to be the wrong answer in such cases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note

Petersen

2015

J Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The example of the "genetic scapegoat" is therefore a key test case in evaluating the plausibility of recent arguments that parents have an obligation to consider the welfare of parties other than the child themselves when making decisions about reproduction. See, for instance, Douglas and Devolder (2013) and Elster (2011). Thus, it might be argued that diversity that we have imposed would be different from the diversity that we find in the world as it is-and therefore that we should not conclude from a reluctance to impose diversity that we have no reason to conserve it. I have a good deal of sympathy for this line of thought, which resonates interestingly with recent arguments about the virtues of "species relativism" developed by Agar (2010).…”

Section: Conservation Versus Impositionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Imposing Genetic Diversity

Sparrow

2015

The American Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea that a world in which everyone was born "perfect" would be a world in which something valuable was missing often comes up in debates about the ethics of technologies of prenatal testing and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This thought plays an important role in the "disability critique" of prenatal testing. However, the idea that human genetic variation is an important good with significant benefits for society at large is also embraced by a wide range of figures writing in the bioethics literature, including some who are notoriously hostile to the idea that we should not select against disability. By developing a number of thought experiments wherein we are to contemplate increasing genetic diversity from a lower baseline in order to secure this value, I argue that this powerful intuition is more problematic than is generally recognized, especially where the price of diversity is the well-being of particular individuals.

show abstract

“…The paradigm of consent presents itself with a new point of view. Considering these new paradigms, we can take it a bit further as the procreative altruism (Douglas & Devolder 2013), where, along with individual interests, other altruistic considerations should manifest at the time of selection for the others' well-being.…”

Section: Good In Birth: the Eugenic Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Genome Editing. The New Eugenics?

Araújo

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human genome editing techniques, which surpasses preimplantation genetic diagnoses at this time, has posed a number of ethical, philosophical, social and legal issues over the years that are far from resolution or any consensus. The challenge, nowadays, is the option between the refusal to use them or, by the contrary, making them available, in particular, to the prospective parents of ART, who are a wide range of consumers of these techniques. The possibility of DNA editing, and the immense solutions of CRISPR technology reprogramming the heritable genome brings us the debate of a modern form of eugenics. For parents and the programmatic choices they make, with DNA editing to their will and repudiating the genetic inheritance of their children, with impact on their personal integrity and identity, bringing human dignity, and human nature itself, to the epicentre of the debate and a new form of generational responsibility and, in a social context, a form of genetic aristocracy. The latest Nuffield Council on Bioethics report, "Genome Editing and Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Issues," published in July 2018, further inflamed the debate. Seeming to accept, albeit cautiously, that the issue may be ethically acceptable in some circumstances, namely the guaranty of the welfare of the person and that it does not result in any disadvantage, discrimination or social cleavage. The timeliness and importance of the subject require us to focus our analysis considering the ethical and legal issues raised by the topic.

show abstract

Procreative Altruism: Beyond Individualism in Reproductive Selection

Cited by 29 publications

References 13 publications

On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note

On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note

Imposing Genetic Diversity

Genome Editing. The New Eugenics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About