We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should selec.

Julian Savulescu argues for two principles of reproductive ethics: reproductive autonomy and procreative beneficence, where the principle of procreative beneficence is conceptualised in terms of a duty to have the child, of the possible children that could be had, who will have the best opportunity of the best life. Were it to be accepted, this principle would have significant implications for the ethics of reproductive choice and, in particular, for the use of prenatal testing and other reproductive technologies for the (...) avoidance of disability, and for enhancement. In this paper, it is argued that this principle should be rejected, and it is concluded that while potential parents do have important obligations in relation to the foreseeable lives of their future children, these obligations are not best captured in terms of a duty to have the child with the best opportunity of the best life. (shrink)

This article gives an overview about the ethical dispute on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), its legal status and its practical usage in Europe. We provide a detailed description of the situation in Germany wherein prenatal diagnosis is routinely applied, but PGD is prohibited on the basis of the internationally unique embryo protection act (EPA) that was put into force in 1991. Both PGD and stem cell research were vigorously debated in Germany during the last four years. As regards the PGD (...) debate specifically, the voices of the ones directly affected were not adequately taken into consideration. We describe the predominant lines of argumentation in this debate and some essential results of our "bioethical field study" of opinions on and usage of PGD in Germany and their implications for the German legislation and ethical theory. (shrink)

Parfit’s (1984) Non-Identity Problem provides a strong line of argument that we cannot be harmed by pre-conception choices or actions. I argue that we can no longer appeal to the Non-Identity problem in order to justify using pre-conception genetic screening and selection techniques as a harmless tool to determine the genetic constitution of future individuals. My criticism of the Non-Identity problem is based on a rejection of the metaphysical foundations of Parfit’s argument - Kripke’s (1980) essentialist arguments for the necessity (...) of origin. I offer an alternative account of modal harms based on counterpart theory such as that offered by David Lewis (1986). On this account, individuals can make legitimate harm claims in regard to pre-conception choices made in determining their genetic constitution by appeal to their counterparts across possible worlds. (shrink)