Bioconservative commentators argue that parents should not take steps to modify the genetics of their children even in the name of enhancement because of the damage they predict for values, identities and relationships. Some commentators have even said that adults should not modify themselves through genetic interventions. One commentator worries that genetic modifications chosen by adults for themselves will undermine moral agency, lead to less valuable experiences and fracture people's sense of self. These worries are not justified, however, since the (...) effects of modification will not undo moral agency as such. Adults can still have valuable experiences, even if some prior choices no longer seem meaningful. Changes at the genetic level will not always, either, alienate people from their own sense of self. On the contrary, genetic modifications can help amplify choice, enrich lives and consolidate identities. Ultimately, there is no moral requirement that people value their contingent genetic endowment to the exclusion of changes important to them in their future genetic identities. Through weighing risks and benefits, adults also have the power to consent to—and assume the risks of—genetic modifications for themselves in a way not possible in prenatal genetic interventions. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 12-13, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 15-17, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 1-2, April 2012.

Bioconservative commentators argue that parents should not take steps to modify the genetics of their children even in the name of enhancement because of the damage they predict for values, identities and relationships. Some commentators have even said that adults should not modify themselves through genetic interventions. One commentator worries that genetic modifications chosen by adults for themselves will undermine moral agency, lead to less valuable experiences and fracture people's sense of self. These worries are not justified, however, since the (...) effects of modification will not undo moral agency as such. Adults can still have valuable experiences, even if some prior choices no longer seem meaningful. Changes at the genetic level will not always, either, alienate people from their own sense of self. On the contrary, genetic modifications can help amplify choice, enrich lives and consolidate identities. Ultimately, there is no moral requirement that people value their contingent genetic endowment to the exclusion of changes important to them in their future genetic identities. Through weighing risks and benefits, adults also have the power to consent to—and assume the risks of—genetic modifications for themselves in a way not possible in prenatal genetic interventions. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 26-28, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 17-19, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 28-29, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 21-22, April 2012.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis allows the detection of genetic abnormalities in embryos produced through in vitro fertilization. Current funding models in Australia provide governmental subsidies for couples undergoing IVF, but do not extend to PGD. There are strong reasons for publicly funding PGD that follow from the moral principles of autonomy, beneficence and justice for both parents and children. We examine the objections to our proposal, specifically concerns regarding designer babies and the harm of disabled individuals, and show why these are (...) substantially outweighed by arguments for subsidizing PGD. We argue that an acceptance of PGD is aligned with present attitudes towards procreative decision making and IVF use, and that it should therefore receive government funding. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 14-15, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 29-31, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 24-26, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 22-24, April 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 19-21, April 2012.