Human enhancement has emerged in recent years as a blossoming topic in applied ethics. With continuing advances in science and technology, people are beginning to realize that some of the basic parameters of the human condition might be changed in the future. One important way in which the human condition could be changed is through the enhancement of basic human capacities. If this becomes feasible within the lifespan of many people alive today, then it is important now to consider the (...) normative questions raised by such prospects. The answers to these questions might not only help us be better prepared when technology catches up with imagination, but they may be relevant to many decisions we make today, such as decisions about how much funding to give to various kinds of research. Enhancement is typically contraposed to therapy. In broad terms, therapy aims to fix something that has gone wrong, by curing specific diseases or injuries, while enhancement interventions aim to improve the state of an organism beyond its normal healthy state. However, the distinction between therapy and enhancement is problematic, for several reasons. First, we may note that the therapy-enhancement dichotomy does not map onto any corresponding dichotomy between standard-contemporary-medicine and medicineas-it-could-be-practised-in-the-future. Standard contemporary medicine includes many practices that do not aim to cure diseases or injuries. It includes, for example, preventive medicine, palliative care, obstetrics, sports medicine, plastic surgery, contraceptive devices, fertility treatments, cosmetic dental procedures, and much else. At the same time, many enhancement interventions occur outside of the medical framework. Office workers enhance their performance by drinking coffee. Make-up and grooming are used to enhance appearance. Exercise, meditation, fish oil, and St John’s Wort are used to enhance mood. Second, it is unclear how to classify interventions that reduce the probability of disease and death.. (shrink)

Annotated bibliography on eugenics and philosophy.

En este artículo sostengo que por más “fascinante” que resulte para muchos filósofos la posibilidad de dirigir los nacimientos, ésta requiere de una crítica ética. Sostengo también que el carácter ético de la eugenesia depende de las distintas biotecnologías (por selección o por manipulación genética) con los que ella puede realizarse, de los distintos modos (terapéutica o de diseño) y los diferentes niveles (en la línea somática o en la germinal). Se trata de una cuestión multívoca, cuya diferenciación es analizada (...) desde una “ética situacional” atenta a los siguientes aspectos: nuestra responsabilidad ante el conocimiento genómico, los riesgos de la manipulación genética, la libertad versus el determinismo de los sujetos intervenidos, la equidad social y el equilibrio entre el interés eugenésico y la atención a otros males que aquejan al mundo actual. La conclusión final es que, a pesar de ciertos problemas éticos, conviene aceptar la eugenesia hecha por selección y por manipulación de enfermedades monogénicas y, en cambio, seguir cuestionando la eugenesia frente a enfermedades polígénicas y el diseño de los hijos y de la especie humana. (shrink)

This article explores the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ recent report about non-invasive prenatal testing. Given that such testing is likely to become the norm, it is important to question whether there should be some ethical parameters regarding its use. The article engages with the viewpoints of Jeff McMahan, Julian Savulescu, Stephen Wilkinson and other commentators on prenatal ethics. The authors argue that there are a variety of moral considerations that legitimately play a significant role with regard to (prospective) parental decision-making (...) in the context of NIPT, for example, views on the morality of abortion and understandings of the impact of disability on quality of life. The variable nature of such considerations, both singularly and combined, suggests that any approach to NIPT should be sensitive to and understanding of similarly variable parental assessments and decisions. The implications of the approach developed for current and future policies in this area are explored, along with the impact of such arguments on ideas about procreative beneficence. (shrink)

In this article, I critically deal with Savulescu’s suggestion that human beings have a “moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life”, p. 274). I progress as follows. In part one, I will briefly describe the procedures with which Savulescu is concerned, and I will present Savulescu’s argument in favour of the principle of procreative beneficence which is the basis of his argumentation in favour of the aforementioned moral obligation. In part two, I will show (...) that the principle is inconsistent and that it violently attacks human beings who disagree with it which is the reason why I regard it as an immoral principle. In the conclusion, I will put forward some reasons for regarding the principle of procreative autonomy as morally more plausible than Savulescu’s principle of procreative beneficence concerning the questions he deals with. (shrink)

Human Enhancement Technology ranges from the commonplace, such as education, to the futuristic, with possible future developments including genetic modification or direct computer-brain interfaces. Public policies governing the supply of these technologies have the potential to greatly increase or mitigate economic inequality. Due to this potential harm, many have suggested prohibition of further developments of enhancement technologies. However, prohibition would in ineffective at preventing this harm and also would also prevent many positive aspects of enhancement technologies. On the other hand, (...) due to the expected benefits, many have suggested allowing access and development within a free-market system. However, this has the potential to increase inequality beyond acceptable levels. Consequently, Government policies must provide appropriate funding and regulation in order for these technologies to be distributed fairly to provide the most benefits and prevent the worst outcomes. (shrink)

Probablemente la mayor responsabilidad actual de la ética aplicada es hacerse cargo de las grandes dificultades teórico-prácticas generadas con el incipiente desarrollo de las nuevas tecnologías de biomejora. Dificultades más allá de las preferencias individuales, viéndose involucradas cuestiones en torno a nuestra comprensión de la justicia distributiva. La identificación de dos hechos importantes nos da la clave para orientar el debate. Por un lado, las situaciones de partida tan arbitrarias que proporciona la lotería natual con relación a las oportunidades de (...) bienestar individual. Por otro, la posibilidad de realizar una mejora cognitiva, de aquellos más desafortunados en su configuración genética, que incidirá en la amplificación de tales oportunidades. (shrink)