Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Should We Hold the (Germ) Line?Erik Parens - 1995 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 23 (2):173-176.
    In 1982, the President's Commission produced its report on human gene therapy. One of that report's recommendations was to expand the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health to include a subcommittee on human gene therapy. In 1984, the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee was established, and in 1989 it produced a document—“Points to Consider for Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA into Human Subjects”—that stated the RAC's position on what sorts of protocols it would approve.In assessing (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Should We Hold the (Germ) Line?Erik Parens - 1995 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 23 (2):173-176.
    In 1982, the President's Commission produced its report on human gene therapy. One of that report's recommendations was to expand the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to the National Institutes of Health to include a subcommittee on human gene therapy. In 1984, the Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee was established, and in 1989 it produced a document—“Points to Consider for Protocols for the Transfer of Recombinant DNA into Human Subjects”—that stated the RAC's position on what sorts of protocols it would approve.In assessing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Human Genome Project.Lisa Gannett - 2009 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Thinking Theologically About Reproductive and Genetic Enhancements: The Challenge.G. Khushf - 1999 - Christian Bioethics 5 (2):154-182.
    Current philosophical and legal bioethical reflection on reprogenetics provides little more than a rationalization of the interests of science. There are two reasons for this. First, bioethicists attempt to address ethical issues in a “language of precision” that characterizes science, and this works against analogical and narratological modes of discourse that have traditionally provided guidance for understanding human nature and purpose. Second, the current ethical and legal debate is framed by a public/private distinction that banishes robust norms to the private (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods.Fritz Allhoff - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):39-56.
    : Genetic interventions raise a host of moral issues and, of its various species, germ-line genetic enhancement is the most morally contentious. This paper surveys various arguments against germ-line enhancement and attempts to demonstrate their inadequacies. A positive argument is advanced in favor of certain forms of germ-line enhancements, which holds that they are morally permissible if and only if they augment Rawlsian primary goods, either directly or by facilitating their acquisition.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • Seeking Perfection: A Kantian Look at Human Genetic Engineering.Martin Gunderson - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (2):87-102.
    It is tempting to argue that Kantian moral philosophy justifies prohibiting both human germ-line genetic engineering and non-therapeutic genetic engineering because they fail to respect human dignity. There are, however, good reasons for resisting this temptation. In fact, Kant’s moral philosophy provides reasons that support genetic engineering—even germ-line and non-therapeutic. This is true of Kant’s imperfect duties to seek one’s own perfection and the happiness of others. It is also true of the categorical imperative. Kant’s moral philosophy does, however, provide (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Germ-Line Enhancement of Humans and Nonhumans.J. Robert Loftis - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):57-76.
    : The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Altering Humans—The Case For and Against Human Gene Therapy.Nils Holtug - 1997 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (2):157-174.
    The case in favor of gene therapy is quite simple. Gene therapy is likely to improve the health and well-being of some people that are among the worst off in society, namely patients with painful and life-threatening diseases. However, two types of objection have been raised.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Trust in Science: CRISPR–Cas9 and the Ban on Human Germline Editing.Stephan Guttinger - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (4):1077-1096.
    In 2015 scientists called for a partial ban on genome editing in human germline cells. This call was a response to the rapid development of the CRISPR–Cas9 system, a molecular tool that allows researchers to modify genomic DNA in living organisms with high precision and ease of use. Importantly, the ban was meant to be a trust-building exercise that promises a ‘prudent’ way forward. The goal of this paper is to analyse whether the ban can deliver on this promise. To (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Reproductive Technology: A Critical Analysis of Theological Responses in Christianity and Islam.Mohd Shuhaimi Bin Ishak & Sayed Sikandar Shah Haneef - 2014 - Zygon 49 (2):396-413.
    Reproductive medical technology has revolutionized the natural order of human procreation. Accordingly, some have celebrated its advent as a new and liberating determinant of kinship at the global level and advocate it as a right to reproductive health while others have frowned upon it as a vehicle for “guiltless exchange of sexual fluid” and commodification of human gametes. Religious voices from both Christianity and Islam range from unthinking adoption to restrictive use. While utilizing this technology to enable the married couple (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark