Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):533-536 (2013)
|Abstract||The majority of embryos created in natural reproduction die spontaneously within a few weeks of conception. Some have argued that, therefore, if one believes the embryo is a person (in the normative sense) one should find ‘natural’ reproduction morally problematic. An extension of this argument holds that, if one accepts embryo deaths in natural reproduction, consistency requires that one also accepts embryo deaths that occur in (i) assisted reproduction via in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and (ii) embryo research. In a recent paper in this journal, Timothy Murphy criticises both the initial argument and its extension. Murphy argues that double-effect reasoning can justify embryo deaths both in natural reproduction and IVF, but not in embryo research. Thus, according to Murphy, one can, without being inconsistent, (1) believe the embryo is a person and accept natural reproduction and IVF, and (2) accept natural reproduction and IVF, while rejecting embryo research on the ground that it involves embryo deaths. I show that Murphy's argument is problematic because double effect cannot justify embryo deaths in standard IVF practices. The problem is that the proportionality criterion of double effect is not met by such practices. Thus, Murphy's argument fails to support (1) and (2). An implication of his argument failing to support (2) is that it does not defeat the position I have defended in the past—that if one accepts standard IVF practices one should also accept embryo research, including research with embryos created solely for that purpose|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ezio Di Nucci (2013). Embryo Loss and Double Effect. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):537-540.
David Albert Jones (2012). The “Special Status” of the Human Embryo in the United Kingdom: An Exploration of the Use of Language in Public Policy. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 17 (1):66-83.
Jeanne Salmon Freeman (1996). Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
Mark T. Brown (2007). The Potential of the Human Embryo. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (6):585 – 618.
Thomas F. Banchoff (2011). Embryo Politics: Ethics and Policy in Atlantic Democracies. Cornell University Press.
Richard Gordon (2009). Google Embryo for Building Quantitative Understanding of an Embryo As It Builds Itself. II. Progress Toward an Embryo Surface Microscope. Biological Theory 4 (4):396-412.
Bernard G. Prusak (2008). The Problem with the Problem of the Embryo. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 82 (3):503-521.
Jens Clausen (2010). Stem Cells, Nuclear Transfer and Respect for Embryos. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 16 (1):48-59.
Louis M. Guenin (2008). The Morality of Embryo Use. Cambridge University Press.
Katrien Devolder & John Harris (2007). The Ambiguity of the Embryo: Ethical Inconsistency in the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate. Metaphilosophy 38 (2-3):153–169.
García San José & I. Daniel (2010). International Bio Law: An International Overview of Developments in Human Embryo Research and Experimentation. Ediciones Laborum.
Françoise Baylis & Matthew Herder (2009). Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: A History (Part 1 of 2). [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):109-122.
Ronald M. Green (2010). Political Interventions in U.S. Human Embryo Research: An Ethical Assessment. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):220-228.
Peter Singer & Helga Kuhse (1986). Debate: Embryo Research The Ethics of Embryo Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 14 (3-4):133-138.
David Shaw (2008). Moral Qualms, Future Persons, and Embryo Research. Bioethics 22 (4):218–223.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-09
Total downloads2 ( #245,680 of 722,703 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,437 of 722,703 )
How can I increase my downloads?