Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Genetics and Human Malleability.W. French Anderson - 1990 - Hastings Center Report 20 (1):21-24.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Germ-Line Engineering: A Few European Voices.A. Mauron & J. -M. Thevoz - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (6):649-666.
    We have surveyed various recent European opinions on Germ-Line engineering. The majority express more or less severe reservations about any interventions on the human Germ-Line, including therapeutic ones. However, they are divided over the pragmatic, or categorical-ethical nature of the relevant arguments. This split reflects two competing views of technology. The ‘pessimistic’ one is deeply concerned by the slippery slope leading from bona fide therapeutic applications of genetic engineering to eugenic practices. It insists that, if anything can defend us against (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Are there moral differences between maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer?César Palacios-González - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (4):503-511.
    This paper examines whether there are moral differences between the mitochondrial replacement techniques that have been recently developed in order to help women afflicted by mitochondrial DNA diseases to have genetically related children absent such conditions: maternal spindle transfer and pronuclear transfer. Firstly, it examines whether there is a moral difference between MST and PNT in terms of the divide between somatic interventions and germline interventions. Secondly, it considers whether PNT and MST are morally distinct under a therapy/creation optic. Finally, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Reproductive Choice, Enhancement, and the Moral Continuum Argument.E. Malmqvist - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):41-54.
    It is often argued that it does not matter morally whether biomedical interventions treat or prevent diseases or enhance nondisease traits; what matters is whether and how much they promote well-being. Therapy and enhancement both promote well-being, the argument goes, so they are not morally distinct but instead continuous. I provide three reasons why this argument should be rejected when it is applied to choices concerning the genetic makeup of future people. First, it rests on too simple a conception of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Nanomedicine–emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes.Christian Lenk & Nikola Biller-Andorno - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (2):173-184.
    Nanomedicine plays a prominent role among emerging technologies. The spectrum of potential applications is as broad as it is promising. It includes the use of nanoparticles and nanodevices for diagnostics, targeted drug delivery in the human body, the production of new therapeutic materials as well as nanorobots or nanoprotheses. Funding agencies are investing large sums in the development of this area, among them the European Commission, which has launched a large network for life-sciences related nanotechnology. At the same time government (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Theological Anthropology and Human Germ-Line Intervention.N. Koios - 2012 - Christian Bioethics 18 (2):187-200.
    Germ-line genetic interventions, like all medicine, can present opportunities to remove suffering, save and prolong human life, and support the conditions for successful human performance. Like all medicine, these interventions also present risks that reflect fallen humans’ age-old egocentric ambition to secure their health and improve their quality of life by relying exclusively on their own power, wisdom, and technical means. Moreover, man has always been tempted to overstep Divine prohibitions and to disregard his own calling to become deified by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)Altering Humans—The Case For and Against Human Gene Therapy.Nils Holtug - 1997 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):157-174.
    The case in favor of gene therapy is quite simple. Gene therapy is likely to improve the health and well-being of some people that are among the worst off in society, namely patients with painful and life-threatening diseases. However, two types of objection have been raised.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Germ-Line Therapy to Cure Mitochondrial Disease: Protocol and Ethics of In Vitro Ovum Nuclear Transplantation.Donald S. Rubenstein, David C. Thomasma, Eric A. Schon & Michael J. Zinaman - 1995 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 4 (3):316.
    The combination of genuine ethical concerns and fear of learning to use germ-line therapy for human disease must now be confronted. Until now, no established techniques were available to perform this treatment on a human. Through an integration of several fields of science and medicine, we have developed a nine step protocol at the germ-line level for the curative treatment of a genetic disease. Our purpose in this paper is to provide the first method to apply germ-line therapy to treat (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Good Parents, Better Babies : An Argument about Reproductive Technologies, Enhancement and Ethics.Erik Malmqvist - unknown
    This study is a contribution to the bioethical debate about new and possibly emerging reproductive technologies. Its point of departure is the intuition, which many people seem to share, that using such technologies to select non-disease traits – like sex and emotional stability - in yet unborn children is morally problematic, at least more so than using the technologies to avoid giving birth to children with severe genetic diseases, or attempting to shape the non-disease traits of already existing children by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Analysing our qualms about “designing” future persons: Autonomy, freedom of choice, and interfering with nature. [REVIEW]Erik Malmqvist - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (4):407-416.
    Actually possible and conceivable future uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and germ-line genetic intervention in assisted reproduction seem to offer increasing possibilities of choosing the kind of persons that will be brought to existence. Many are troubled by the idea of these technologies being used for enhancement purposes. How can we make sense of this worry? Why are our thoughts about therapeutic genetic interventions and non-genetic enhancement (for instance education) not accompanied by the same intuitive uneasiness? I argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research.Giulia Cavaliere - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):38.
    BackgroundThis article explores the reasons in favour of revising and extending the current 14-day statutory limit to maintaining human embryos in culture. This limit is enshrined in law in over a dozen countries, including the United Kingdom. In two recently published studies, scientists have shown that embryos can be sustained in vitro for about 13 days after fertilisation. Positive reactions to these results have gone hand in hand with calls for revising the 14-day rule, which only allows embryo research until (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Negative and Positive Genetic Interventions: Is There a Moral Boundary?Norman Daniels - 1998 - Science in Context 11 (3-4):439-453.
    The ArgumentSome have claimed that negative genetic interventions are morally permissible while positive ones are not, but the distinction cannot be used to draw this moral boundary. Underlying the negative/positive distinction is a distinction between treatment and enhancement. The treatment/enhancement distinction at best provides an imperfect guide to which health care services we are obliged to provide and which we are not. It offers only some “warning flags” to help us think about what is permissible or not.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark