Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Foetal surgery and using in utero therapies to reduce the degree of disability after birth. Could it be morally defensible or even morally required?Constantinos Kanaris - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (1):131-146.
    In 2008 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act amendments made deliberately choosing to bring disability into the world, using assisted reproduction, a criminal offence. This paper considers whether the legal prohibition above, should influence other policy areas concerning the welfare of future children such as new possibilities presented by foetal surgery and in utero gene therapy. If we have legal duties to avoid disability in one context should this influence our avoidance of disability in this other context? This paper investigates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for “Non-Medical” Traits: Ensuring Consistency in Ethical Decision-Making.Hilary Bowman-Smart, Christopher Gyngell, Cara Mand, David J. Amor, Martin B. Delatycki & Julian Savulescu - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (3):3-20.
    The scope of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) could expand in the future to include detailed analysis of the fetal genome. This will allow for the testing for virtually any trait with a genetic contribution, including “non-medical” traits. Here we discuss the potential use of NIPT for these traits. We outline a scenario which highlights possible inconsistencies with ethical decision-making. We then discuss the case against permitting these uses. The objections include practical problems; increasing inequities; increasing the burden of choice; negative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations