218 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
Julian Savulescu [160]J. Savulescu [57]J. Savulescu [1]
  1. Brian D. Earp, Olga A. Wudarczyk, Anders Sandberg & Julian Savulescu (2013). If I Could Just Stop Loving You: Anti-Love Biotechnology and the Ethics of a Chemical Breakup. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (11):3-17.
    ?Love hurts??as the saying goes?and a certain amount of pain and difficulty in intimate relationships is unavoidable. Sometimes it may even be beneficial, since adversity can lead to personal growth, self-discovery, and a range of other components of a life well-lived. But other times, love can be downright dangerous. It may bind a spouse to her domestic abuser, draw an unscrupulous adult toward sexual involvement with a child, put someone under the insidious spell of a cult leader, and even inspire (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  2. Julian Savulescu (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics 15 (5-6):413-426.
    We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should selec.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   73 citations  
  3.  32
    Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2012). Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford University Press.
    Unfit for the Future argues that the future of our species depends on our urgently finding ways to bring about radical enhancement of the moral aspects of our own human nature. We have rewritten our own moral agenda by the drastic changes we have made to the conditions of life on earth. Advances in technology enable us to exercise an influence that extends all over the world and far into the future. But our moral psychology lags behind and leaves us (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  4. Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane (2009). The Moral Obligation to Create Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life. Bioethics 23 (5):274-290.
    According to what we call the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, couples who decide to have a child have a significant moral reason to select the child who, given his or her genetic endowment, can be expected to enjoy the most well-being. In the first part of this paper, we introduce PB, explain its content, grounds, and implications, and defend it against various objections. In the second part, we argue that PB is superior to competing principles of procreative selection such as (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   38 citations  
  5. Brian D. Earp, Anders Sandberg & Julian Savulescu (2015). The Medicalization of Love. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (3):323-336.
    Pharmaceuticals or other emerging technologies could be used to enhance (or diminish) feelings of lust, attraction, and attachment in adult romantic partnerships. While such interventions could conceivably be used to promote individual (and couple) well-being, their widespread development and/or adoption might lead to “medicalization” of human love and heartache—for some, a source of serious concern. In this essay, we argue that the “medicalization of love” need not necessarily be problematic, on balance, but could plausibly be expected to have either good (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  6. Guy Kahane, Katja Wiech, Nicholas Shackel, Miguel Farias, Julian Savulescu & Irene Tracey (2012). The Neural Basis of Intuitive and Counterintuitive Moral Judgement. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7 (4):393-402.
    Neuroimaging studies on moral decision-making have thus far largely focused on differences between moral judgments with opposing utilitarian (well-being maximizing) and deontological (duty-based) content. However, these studies have investigated moral dilemmas involving extreme situations, and did not control for two distinct dimensions of moral judgment: whether or not it is intuitive (immediately compelling to most people) and whether it is utilitarian or deontological in content. By contrasting dilemmas where utilitarian judgments are counterintuitive with dilemmas in which they are intuitive, we (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  7.  22
    Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Muelen & Guy Kahane (eds.) (2011). Enhancing Human Capabilities. Wiley-Blackwell.
    In general, to enhance something is to raise that thing in degree, intensity, magnitude, or in some sense improve upon it.2 In this context, we are concerned with enhancements, ie amplifications or extensions, of human capabilities, ...
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  8.  95
    Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (forthcoming). Disability and Mere Difference. Ethics.
  9. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2008). The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement and the Urgent Imperative to Enhance the Moral Character of Humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):162-177.
    abstract As history shows, some human beings are capable of acting very immorally. 1 Technological advance and consequent exponential growth in cognitive power means that even rare evil individuals can act with catastrophic effect. The advance of science makes biological, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction easier and easier to fabricate and, thus, increases the probability that they will come into the hands of small terrorist groups and deranged individuals. Cognitive enhancement by means of drugs, implants and biological (including (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   30 citations  
  10. Brian D. Earp, Anders Sandberg & Julian Savulescu (2012). Natural Selection, Childrearing, and the Ethics of Marriage (and Divorce): Building a Case for the Neuroenhancement of Human Relationships. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Technology 25 (4):561-587.
    We argue that the fragility of contemporary marriages—and the corresponding high rates of divorce—can be explained (in large part) by a three-part mismatch: between our relationship values, our evolved psychobiological natures, and our modern social, physical, and technological environment. “Love drugs” could help address this mismatch by boosting our psychobiologies while keeping our values and our environment intact. While individual couples should be free to use pharmacological interventions to sustain and improve their romantic connection, we suggest that they may have (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  11. Hannah Maslen, Brian D. Earp, Roi Cohen Kadosh & Julian Savulescu (2014). Brain Stimulation for Treatment and Enhancement in Children: An Ethical Analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8.
  12.  99
    J. Savulescu (2003). Institute of Medical Ethics Prize for the Most Innovative Web Publication. Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (1):1-1.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2013). Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability of Moral Bioenhancement. Bioethics 27 (3):124-131.
    We respond to a number of objections raised by John Harris in this journal to our argument that we should pursue genetic and other biological means of morally enhancing human beings (moral bioenhancement). We claim that human beings now have at their disposal means of wiping out life on Earth and that traditional methods of moral education are probably insufficient to achieve the moral enhancement required to ensure that this will not happen. Hence, we argue, moral bioenhancement should be sought (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  14.  65
    Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.) (2009). Human Enhancement. OUP Oxford.
    To what extent should we use technological advances to try to make better human beings? Leading philosophers debate the possibility of enhancing human cognition, mood, personality, and physical performance, and controlling aging. Would this take us beyond the bounds of human nature? These are questions that need to be answered now.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  15.  97
    Julian Savulescu (2001). A New Structure for the Journal of Medical Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):289-290.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  80
    Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2012). Moral Enhancement, Freedom and the God Machine. The Monist 95 (3):399-421.
  17. Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2012). The Concept of Harm and the Significance of Normality. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3):318.
    Many believe that severe intellectual impairment, blindness or dying young amount to serious harm and disadvantage. It is also increasingly denied that it matters, from a moral point of view, whether something is biologically normal to humans. We show that these two claims are in serious tension. It is hard explain how, if we do not ascribe some deep moral significance to human nature or biological normality, we could distinguish severe intellectual impairment or blindness from the vast list of seemingly (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  18.  15
    Pak-Hang Wong, Tom Douglas & Julian Savulescu, Compensation for Geoengineering Harms and No-Fault Climate Change Compensation. The Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Papers.
    While geoengineering may counteract negative effects of anthropogenic climate change, it is clear that most geoengineering options could also have some harmful effects. Moreover, it is predicted that the benefits and harms of geoengineering will be distributed unevenly in different parts of the world and to future generations, which raises serious questions of justice. It has been suggested that a compensation scheme to redress geoengineering harms is needed for geoengineering to be ethically and politically acceptable. Discussions of compensation for geoengineering (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  10
    J. Savulescu (2015). Bioethics: Why Philosophy is Essential for Progress. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):28-33.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  20.  38
    Katja Wiech, Guy Kahane, Nicholas Shackel, Miguel Farias, Julian Savulescu & Irene Tracey (2013). Cold or Calculating? Reduced Activity in the Subgenual Cingulate Cortex Reflects Decreased Emotional Aversion to Harming in Counterintuitive Utilitarian Judgment. Cognition 126 (3):364-372.
    Recent research on moral decision-making has suggested that many common moral judgments are based on immediate intuitions. However, some individuals arrive at highly counterintuitive utilitarian conclusions about when it is permissible to harm other individuals. Such utilitarian judgments have been attributed to effortful reasoning that has overcome our natural emotional aversion to harming others. Recent studies, however, suggest that such utilitarian judgments might also result from a decreased aversion to harming others, due to a deficit in empathic concern and social (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  21.  11
    Brian D. Earp, Anders Sandberg, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu, When is Diminishment a Form of Enhancement? : Rethinking the Enhancement Debate in Biomedical Ethics.
    The enhancement debate in neuroscience and biomedical ethics tends to focus on the augmentation of certain capacities or functions: memory, learning, attention, and the like. Typically, the point of contention is whether these augmentative enhancements should be considered permissible for individuals with no particular “medical” disadvantage along any of the dimensions of interest. Less frequently addressed in the literature, however, is the fact that sometimes the diminishment of a capacity or function, under the right set of circumstances, could plausibly contribute (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  22.  19
    Julian Savulescu & Christopher Gyngell (forthcoming). Ethics and the Risks of Gene Editing. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  5
    Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (forthcoming). Moral Bioenhancement, Freedom and Reason. Neuroethics:1-6.
    In this paper we reply to the most important objections to our advocacy of moral enhancement by biomedical means – moral bioenhancement – that John Harris advances in his new book How to be Good. These objections are to effect that such moral enhancement undercuts both moral reasoning and freedom. The latter objection is directed more specifically at what we have called the God Machine, a super-duper computer which predicts our decisions and prevents decisions to perpertrate morally atrocious acts. In (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Bennett Foddy & Julian Savulescu (2010). A Liberal Account of Addiction. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 17 (1):1-22.
    Philosophers and psychologists have been attracted to two differing accounts of addictive motivation. In this paper, we investigate these two accounts and challenge their mutual claim that addictions compromise a person’s self-control. First, we identify some incompatibilities between this claim of reduced self-control and the available evidence from various disciplines. A critical assessment of the evidence weakens the empirical argument for reduced autonomy. Second, we identify sources of unwarranted normative bias in the popular theories of addiction that introduce systematic errors (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  25.  74
    Julian Savulescu & Anders Sandberg (2008). Neuroenhancement of Love and Marriage: The Chemicals Between Us. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 1 (1):31-44.
    This paper reviews the evolutionary history and biology of love and marriage. It examines the current and imminent possibilities of biological manipulation of lust, attraction and attachment, so called neuroenhancement of love. We examine the arguments for and against these biological interventions to influence love. We argue that biological interventions offer an important adjunct to psychosocial interventions, especially given the biological limitations inherent in human love.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  26.  61
    Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2010). Moral Transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (6):656-669.
    In its basic sense, the term "human" is a term of biological classification: an individual is human just in case it is a member of the species Homo sapiens . Its opposite is "nonhuman": nonhuman animals being animals that belong to other species than H. sapiens . In another sense of human, its opposite is "inhuman," that is cruel and heartless (cf. "humane" and "inhumane"); being human in this sense is having morally good qualities. This paper argues that biomedical research (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  27.  7
    G. Owen Schaefer & Julian Savulescu (forthcoming). Procedural Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics:1-12.
    While philosophers are often concerned with the conditions for moral knowledge or justification, in practice something arguably less demanding is just as, if not more, important – reliably making correct moral judgments. Judges and juries should hand down fair sentences, government officials should decide on just laws, members of ethics committees should make sound recommendations, and so on. We want such agents, more often than not and as often as possible, to make the right decisions. The purpose of this paper (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2009). Brain-Damaged Patients and the Moral Significance of Consciousness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (1):6-26.
    Neuroimaging studies of brain-damaged patients diagnosed as in the vegetative state suggest that the patients might be conscious. This might seem to raise no new ethical questions given that in related disputes both sides agree that evidence for consciousness gives strong reason to preserve life. We question this assumption. We clarify the widely held but obscure principle that consciousness is morally significant. It is hard to apply this principle to difficult cases given that philosophers of mind distinguish between a range (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  29. Neil Levy & Julian Savulescu (2009). Moral Significance of Phenomenal Consciousness. Progress in Brain Research.
    Recent work in neuroimaging suggests that some patients diagnosed as being in the persistent vegetative state are actually conscious. In this paper, we critically examine this new evidence. We argue that though it remains open to alternative interpretations, it strongly suggests the presence of consciousness in some patients. However, we argue that its ethical significance is less than many people seem to think. There are several different kinds of consciousness, and though all kinds of consciousness have some ethical significance, different (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30.  14
    Hannah Maslen, Thomas Douglas, Roi Cohen Kadosh, Neil Levy & Julian Savulescu, The Regulation of Cognitive Enhancement Devices : Extending the Medical Model.
    This article presents a model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices . Recently, it has become very easy for individuals to purchase devices which directly modulate brain function. For example, transcranial direct current stimulators are increasingly being produced and marketed online as devices for cognitive enhancement. Despite posing risks in a similar way to medical devices, devices that do not make any therapeutic claims do not have to meet anything more than basic product safety standards. We present the case for extending (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  31. J. Savulescu (2003). Is the Sale of Body Parts Wrong? Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):138-139.
    In late August 2002, a general practitioner in London, Dr Bhagat Singh Makkar, 62, was struck off the medical register after he was discovered to have bragged to an undercover journalist about being able to obtain a kidney from a live donor in exchange for a fee. He told the journalist, who posed as the son of a patient with renal failure: “No problem, I can fix that for you. Do you want it done here, do you want it done (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  32.  42
    T. Douglas & J. Savulescu (2010). Synthetic Biology and the Ethics of Knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (11):687-693.
    Synthetic biologists aim to generate biological organisms according to rational design principles. Their work may have many beneficial applications, but it also raises potentially serious ethical concerns. In this article, we consider what attention the discipline demands from bioethicists. We argue that the most important issue for ethicists to examine is the risk that knowledge from synthetic biology will be misused, for example, in biological terrorism or warfare. To adequately address this concern, bioethics will need to broaden its scope, contemplating (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  33.  18
    Guy Kahane, Jim A. C. Everett, Brian D. Earp, Miguel Farias & Julian Savulescu (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ Judgments in Sacrificial Moral Dilemmas Do Not Reflect Impartial Concern for the Greater Good. Cognition 134:193-209.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  34.  12
    Edgar Dahl & Julian Savulescu (2000). Sex Selection and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: A Response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Human Reproduction 15 (9):1879-1880.
    In its recent statement 'Sex Selection and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis', the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine concluded that preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sex selection for non-medical reasons should be discouraged because it poses a risk of unwarranted gender bias, social harm, and results in the diversion of medical resources from genuine medical need. We critically examine the arguments presented against sex selection using preimplantation genetic diagnosis. We argue that sex selection should be available, at least within (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  78
    Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2009). The Welfarist Account of Disability. In K. Brownlee & A. Cureton (eds.), Disability and Disadvantage. OUP 14-53.
  36.  47
    J. Savulescu (2007). In Defence of Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):284-288.
    Why potential parents should select the best child of possible children, and the necessity of a dialogue about the context of a reproductive decision.The principle of Procreative Beneficence is the principle of selecting the best child of the possible children one could have. This principle is elaborated on and defended against a range of objections. In particular, focus is laid on four objections that Michael Parker raises: that it is underdetermining, that it is insensitive to the complex nature of the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  37.  79
    Bennett Foddy & Julian Savulescu (2006). Addiction and Autonomy: Can Addicted People Consent to the Prescription of Their Drug of Addiction? Bioethics 20 (1):1–15.
    It is often claimed that the autonomy of heroin addicts is compromised when they are choosing between taking their drug of addiction and abstaining. This is the basis of claims that they are incompetent to give consent to be prescribed heroin. We reject these claims on a number of empirical and theoretical grounds. First we argue that addicts are likely to be sober, and thus capable of rational thought, when approaching researchers to participate in research. We reject behavioural evidence purported (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  38. Dominic Wilkinson & Julian Savulescu (2014). A Costly Separation Between Withdrawing and Withholding Treatment in Intensive Care. Bioethics 28 (3):127-137.
    Ethical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree with the conclusions of ethical analysis. Resource allocation is considered by clinicians to be a legitimate reason to withhold but not to withdraw intensive care treatment. We analyse five arguments in favour of non-equivalence, and find only relatively (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39.  4
    Julian Savulescu & Ingmar Persson (2016). Conjoined Twins: Philosophical Problems and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (1):41-55.
    We examine the philosophical and ethical issues associated with conjoined twins and their surgical separation. In cases in which there is an extensive sharing of organs, but nevertheless two distinguishable functioning brains, there are a number of philosophical and ethical challenges. This is because such conjoined twins: 1. give rise to puzzles concerning our identity, about whether we are identical to something psychological or biological;2. force us to decide whether what matters from an ethical point of view is the biological (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu (2011). Unfit for the Future? Human Nature, Scientific Progress, and the Need for Moral Enhancement. In Guy Kahane, Julian Savulescu & Ruud Ter Meulen (eds.), Enhancing Human Capacities. 486--500.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  41.  81
    Dominic Wilkinson & Julian Savulescu (2012). Should We Allow Organ Donation Euthanasia? Alternatives for Maximizing the Number and Quality of Organs for Transplantation. Bioethics 26 (1):32-48.
    There are not enough solid organs available to meet the needs of patients with organ failure. Thousands of patients every year die on the waiting lists for transplantation. Yet there is one currently available, underutilized, potential source of organs. Many patients die in intensive care following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment whose organs could be used to save the lives of others. At present the majority of these organs go to waste.In this paper we consider and evaluate a range of ways (...)
    Direct download (18 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  42.  43
    G. Owen Schaefer, Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2014). Autonomy and Enhancement. Neuroethics 7 (2):123-136.
    Some have objected to human enhancement on the grounds that it violates the autonomy of the enhanced. These objections, however, overlook the interesting possibility that autonomy itself could be enhanced. How, exactly, to enhance autonomy is a difficult problem due to the numerous and diverse accounts of autonomy in the literature. Existing accounts of autonomy enhancement rely on narrow and controversial conceptions of autonomy. However, we identify one feature of autonomy common to many mainstream accounts: reasoning ability. Autonomy can then (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  43. Bennett Foddy & Julian Savulescu (2010). Relating Addiction to Disease, Disability, Autonomy, and the Good Life. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 17 (1):35-42.
    Concepts We thank all three commentators for extremely constructive, insightful, and gracious commentaries. We cannot address all their valuable points. In this response, we elucidate and relate the concepts of addiction, disease, disability, autonomy, and well-being. We examine some of the implications of these relationships in the context of the helpful responses made by our commentators. We begin with the definitions of the relevant concepts which we employ: ¥? ? ? Addiction (Liberal Concept): An addiction is a strong appetite. ¥? (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44.  34
    Guy Kahane & Julian Savulescu (2015). Normal Human Variation: Refocussing the Enhancement Debate. Bioethics 29 (2):133-143.
    This article draws attention to several common mistakes in thinking about biomedical enhancement, mistakes that are made even by some supporters of enhancement. We illustrate these mistakes by examining objections that John Harris has recently raised against the use of pharmacological interventions to directly modulate moral decision-making. We then apply these lessons to other influential figures in the debate about enhancement. One upshot of our argument is that many considerations presented as powerful objections to enhancement are really strong considerations in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  45.  7
    Julian Savulescu (2013). A Liberal Consequentialist Approach to Regulation of Cognitive Enhancers. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7):53-55.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  46. Nick Bostrom & Julian Savulescu (2009). Human Enhancement Ethics: The State of the Debate. In . Oxford University Press 1--22.
  47.  79
    Julian Savulescu, Bennett Foddy & M. Clayton (2004). Why We Should Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 38:666-670.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  48.  88
    J. Savulescu & R. W. Momeyer (1997). Should Informed Consent Be Based on Rational Beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics 23 (5):282-288.
    Our aim is to expand the regulative ideal governing consent. We argue that consent should not only be informed but also based on rational beliefs. We argue that holding true beliefs promotes autonomy. Information is important insofar as it helps a person to hold the relevant true beliefs. But in order to hold the relevant true beliefs, competent people must also think rationally. Insofar as information is important, rational deliberation is important. Just as physicians should aim to provide relevant information (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  49.  2
    D. J. Wilkinson, G. Kahane, M. Horne & J. Savulescu (2009). Functional Neuroimaging and Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment From Vegetative Patients. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (8):508-511.
    Recent studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging of patients in a vegetative state have raised the possibility that such patients retain some degree of consciousness. In this paper, the ethical implications of such findings are outlined, in particular in relation to decisions about withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. It is sometimes assumed that if there is evidence of consciousness, treatment should not be withdrawn. But, paradoxically, the discovery of consciousness in very severely brain-damaged patients may provide more reason to let them die. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  50.  75
    Imogen Goold & Julian Savulescu (2009). In Favour of Freezing Eggs for Non-Medical Reasons. Bioethics 23 (1):47-58.
    This article explores the social benefits and moral arguments in favour of women and couples freezing eggs and embryos for social reasons. Social IVF promotes equal participation by women in employment; it offers women more time to choose a partner; it provides better opportunities for the child as it allows couples more time to become financially stable; it may reduce the risk of genetic and chromosomal abnormality; it allows women and couples to have another child if circumstances change; it offers (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
1 — 50 / 218