ABSTRACT Broome and others have argued that it makes no sense, or at least that it cannot be true, to say that it is better for a given person that he or she exist than not. That argument can be understood to suggest that, likewise, it makes no sense, or at least that it cannot be true, to say that it is worse for a given person that he or she exist than that he or she never have existed at (...) all. This argument is of critical importance to the question of whether consequentialist theory should take a traditional, aggregative form or a less conventional, person‐affecting, or person‐based, form. I believe that, potentially, the argument represents a far more serious threat to the person‐based approach than does, for example, Parfit's two medical programmes example. Parfit's example nicely illustrates the distinction between aggregative and person‐based approaches and raises important questions. But the example — though not, I think, by Parfit — is sometimes pressed into service as a full‐fledged counterexample against the person‐based approach. As such, I argue, the example is not persuasive. In contrast, the Broomeian argument, if correct, is definitive. For that argument relies on certain metaphysical assumptions and various uncontroversial normative claims — and hence nicely avoids putting into play the controversial normative claims that lie at the very heart of the debate. The purpose of the present paper, then, is to evaluate the Broomeian argument. I argue that this potentially definitive challenge to a person‐based approach does not in fact succeed. (shrink)

Suits that claim that a child would be better off never having been born often founder on conceptual and logical dilemmas. However, the correct interpretation of “wrongful life” does not require a comparison between existence and nonexistence. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in the Procanik case to limit damages to extraordinary medical expenses, barring recovery for pain and suffering, is a reasonable resolution.

Until recently, genetics counselors and medical geneticists considered themselves lucky if they could provide parents with predictive information about a small number of severe genetic disorders. Testing and counseling were indicated primarily for conditions of thithis s sort. Out of respect for the autonomy of parental reproductive decision making, the prevailing ethic of genetic counseling stressed nondirectiveness and value neutrality As summarized by Arthur Caplan, the hallmarks of this stance includea willingness to provide testing and counseling to all who voluntarily (...) seek it, the presentation of information concerning findings in a manner that is balanced and comprehensible to patients or clients, the fair and balanced presentation of all options for action if a problem is discovered, a willingness to answer all questions asked by those seeking services, and an obligation to protect privacy and confidentiality at all times regardless of societal needs or benefits. (shrink)

The term duty is used in philosophy and law to de scribe the obligation one person owes to another. Yet what these two disciplines mean by duty often differs. Perhaps even more important, a determination by the law that a duty exists has different social consequences than does a similar assessment by philosophy Moral or ethical obligations between individuals make living in society possible, but breach of these obligations usually results only in social opprobrium, personal guilt, or shame. A legal (...) duty, by contrast, enables a person to use the power of the state to enforce claims against another, either by injunction to make the duty-ower fulfill his/her responsibilities or more commonly by award of damages in the event the duty-ower fails to meet these obligations. In some cases, society itself chooses to impose criminal penalties on those who fail to meet certain important obligations.The use of the term duty in both disciplines creates the temptation to extend a definition formulated in one setting to the other discourse. Ronald Green does not bite this apple, but his efforts to draw on the law to support his moral arguments, while not clearly identifying the distinctions between legal and moral obligations, may make it easier for others to see moral and legal duties as the same. Yielding to the enticement to equate moral and legal duties can lead to a host of difficulties. My purpose here is to demonstrate why the duties and privileges proposed by Professor Green are not and should not be adopted and enforced by the law. (shrink)

This paper discusses the issues of deciding to have a child with mental retardation, and of terminating a pregnancy when the future child is known to have the same disability. I discuss these problems by criticizing a utilitarian argument, namely, that one should act in a way that results in less suffering and less limited opportunity in the world. My argument is that future parents ought to assume a strong responsibility towards the well-being of their prospective children when they decide (...) to reproduce. The moral point in cases in which our acts affect the well-being of future children should be expressed strictly in terms of parents' culpability. Future children thus do not have current moral standing but presently living persons have current obligations to consider the presumable effects of their actions on future people. I will also argue that there are morally significant differences between 'selective contraception' and selective abortion. (shrink)

I address that issue in a general way. I point out that the aim of making future people better adapted to the modern social environme.