Journal of Applied Philosophy 35 (2):319-340 (2018)
Authors |
|
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 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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.
Deliberation, Cognitive Diversity, and Democratic Inclusiveness: An Epistemic Argument for the Random Selection of Representatives.Hélène Landemore - 2013 - Synthese 190 (7):1209-1231.
Citations of this work BETA
Great Minds Think Different: Preserving Cognitive Diversity in an Age of Gene Editing.Jonny Anomaly, Julian Savulescu & Christopher Gyngell - 2020 - Bioethics 34 (1):81-89.
Moral Reasons to Edit the Human Genome: Picking Up From the Nuffield Report.Christopher Gyngell, Hilary Bowman-Smart & Julian Savulescu - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):514-523.
Genome Editing and Assisted Reproduction: Curing Embryos, Society or Prospective Parents?Giulia Cavaliere - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2):215-225.
Expressivism at the Beginning and End of Life.Philip Reed - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (8):538-544.
Subsidizing PGD: The Moral Case for Funding Genetic Selection.James M. Kemper, Christopher Gyngell & Julian Savulescu - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (3):405-414.
Similar books and articles
Everworse: What's Wrong with Selecting for Disability?Mark Greene & Steven Augello - 2011 - Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (2):131-140.
Cognitive Disability, Paternalism, and the Global Burden of Disease.Daniel Wikler - 2010 - In Eva Feder Kittay & Licia Carlson (eds.), Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 183--199.
The Case for Conserving Disability.Rosemarie Garland-Thomson - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (3):339-355.
Introduction: Rethinking Philosophical Presumptions in Light of Cognitive Disability.Licia Carlson & Eva Feder Kittay - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):307-330.
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.
Cognitive Diversity in the Global Academy: Why the Voices of Persons with Cognitive Disabilities Are Vital to Intellectual Diversity. [REVIEW]Maeve M. O’Donovan - 2010 - Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):171-185.
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.
Rethinking Disability in Amartya Sen’s Approach: ICT and Equality of Opportunity. [REVIEW]Mario Toboso - 2011 - Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):107-118.
Disability, Gene Therapy and Eugenics - a Challenge to John Harris.S. M. Reindal - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (2):89 - 94.
Eugenics, Embryo Selection, and the Equal Value Principle.Stephen Wilkinson - 2006 - Clinical Ethics 1 (1):46-51.
Liberal Democracy and the Challenge of Ethical Diversity.Enzo Rossi - 2008 - Human Affairs 18 (1):10-22.
The Limits of the Medical Model : Historical Epidemiology of Intellectual Disability in the United States.Jeffrey P. Brosco - 2010 - In Eva Feder Kittay & Licia Carlson (eds.), Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 26--54.
Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy.Eva Feder Kittay & Licia Carlson (eds.) - 2010 - Wiley-Blackwell.
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 )
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