Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (2):319-340 (2018)

Authors
Thomas Douglas
Oxford University
Abstract
Selection against embryos that are predisposed to develop disabilities is one of the less controversial uses of embryo selection technologies. Many bio-conservatives argue that while the use of ESTs to select for non-disease-related traits, such as height and eye-colour, should be banned, their use to avoid disease and disability should be permitted. Nevertheless, there remains significant opposition, particularly from the disability rights movement, to the use of ESTs to select against disability. In this article we examine whether and why the state could be justified in restricting the use of ESTs to select against disability. We first outline the challenge posed by proponents of ‘liberal eugenics’. Liberal eugenicists challenge those who defend restrictions on the use of ESTs to show why the use of these technologies would create a harm of the type and magnitude required to justify coercive measures. We argue that this challenge could be met by adverting to the risk of harms to future persons that would result from a loss of certain forms of cognitive diversity. We suggest that this risk establishes a pro tanto case for restricting selection against some disabilities, including dyslexia and Asperger's syndrome.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016, 2018
DOI 10.1111/japp.12199
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

The Case for Conserving Disability.Rosemarie Garland-Thomson - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (3):339-355.
Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono?Jakob Elster - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Expressivism at the Beginning and End of Life.Philip Reed - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (8):538-544.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Everworse: What's Wrong with Selecting for Disability?Mark Greene & Steven Augello - 2011 - Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (2):131-140.
The Case for Conserving Disability.Rosemarie Garland-Thomson - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (3):339-355.
Eugenics and Disability.Robert A. Wilson & Joshua St Pierre - 2016 - In Beatriz Mirandaa-Galarza Patrick Devlieger (ed.), Rethinking Disability: World Perspectives in Culture and Society. Antwerp, Belgium: pp. 93-112.
Responsibility, Agency, and Cognitive Disability.David Shoemaker - 2010 - In Eva Feder Kittay & Licia Carlson (eds.), Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 201--223.
Disability, Minority, and Difference.Elizabeth Barnes - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (4):337-355.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-26

Total views
302 ( #26,245 of 2,404,055 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #24,323 of 2,404,055 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes