In defence of Procreative Beneficence

Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):284-288 (2007)
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 good, that it is self-defeating and that it is overly individualistic. Procreative Beneficence is a useful principle in reproductive decision-making. It is necessary to be more active in making selection decisions about what kind of child to have.Parker1 raises four objections to the principle of Procreative Beneficence . I will address these in turn. Procreative Beneficence is underdeterminingParker claims that Procreative Beneficence is underdetermining. By “underdetermining”, he means that the principle will not give clear and determinate answers as to which lives are better or best. Parker argues that “ranking possible lives as “better” or “worse” is “highly problematic”.Ranking lives is a very complex matter. Let us distinguish between: the value of a whole life and the value of an individual feature of a life .We should also distinguish between valuation ex ante and ex post . In Procreative Beneficence, I likened genetic testing to playing the wheel of fortune.2 Just because we have a weak chance of winning, does not mean we should not play the game. The only reason not to play a game that …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2006.018184
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,587
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Reproductive Choice, Enhancement, and the Moral Continuum Argument.E. Malmqvist - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):41-54.
Procreative Beneficence, Intelligence, and the Optimization Problem.Ben Saunders - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):653-668.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono?Jakob Elster - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.
Intelligence, Wellbeing and Procreative Beneficence.J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon - 2013 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):122-135.
Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics.Robert Sparrow - 2007 - Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics.Sparrow Robert - 2007 - Genomics, Society, and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
Procreative Beneficence and the Prospective Parent.P. Herissone-Kelly - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (3):166-169.
Storks, Cabbage Patches, and the Right to Procreate.Yvette E. Pearson - 2007 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (2):105-115.
Dignity Promotion and Beneficence.Diego S. Silva - 2010 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7 (4):365-372.
Coercive Population Policies, Procreative Freedom, and Morality.R. Juha - 2001 - Philosophy and Geography 4 (1):67 – 77.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
82 ( #73,398 of 2,235,688 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #35,918 of 2,235,688 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature