The article investigates the validity of two different versions of the slippery slope argument construed in relation to human gene therapy: the empirical and the conceptual argument. The empirical version holds that our accepting somatic cell therapy will eventually cause our accepting eugenic medical goals. The conceptual version holds that we are logically committed to accepting such goals once we have accepted somatic cell therapy. It is argued that neither the empirical nor the conceptual version of the argument can provide a conclusive moral reason for banning somatic cell therapy. According to a third interpretation, referred to as the arbitrary result argument, the many apparent similarities between somatic cell therapy and eugenic-based human genetic engineering drive us to make principled choices concerning what differences and similarities between the two practices should be regarded as morally (ir)relevant. Decisions of this kind are likely to have unpredictable moral consequences. Thus formulated, the slippery slope argument has much plausibility. One objects to somatic cell therapy not so much because of what is at the bottom of the slope on which it lies, but because it is on a slope of which one does not know what is at the bottom. While the arbitrary result argument does not provide a conclusive reason for prohibiting human gene therapy, it reminds of a very important thing: when making bioethical decisions, we should be as specific and as consistent as possible about our basic moral and medical concepts
Keywords disease  eugenics  germ-line gene therapy  slippery slope argument  somatic cell gene therapy
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/A:1016052122403
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,581
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

Causes and Conditions.J. L. Mackie - 1965 - American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (4):245 - 264.
Human Gene Therapy and Slippery Slope Arguments.T. McGleenan - 1995 - Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (6):350-355.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Basic Slippery Slope Argument.Douglas Walton - 2015 - Informal Logic 35 (3):273-311.
Value-Impregnated Factual Claims and Slippery-Slope Arguments.Gert Helgesson, Niels Lynøe & Niklas Juth - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (1):147-150.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Debunking the Slippery Slope Argument Against Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy.David Resnik - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):23-40.
Human Gene Therapy: Why Draw a Line?W. French Anderson - 1989 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (6):681-693.
Human Gene Therapy and Slippery Slope Arguments.T. McGleenan - 1995 - Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (6):350-355.
Should We Change the Human Genome?Torbjörn Tännsjö - 1993 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (3).
Slippery Slope Arguments.Douglas Walton - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research.Jeanne Salmon Freeman - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.
Consequentialism and the Slippery Slope: A Response to Clark.Jonathan Hughes - 2000 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):213–220.


Added to PP index

Total views
56 ( #194,547 of 2,461,470 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #448,382 of 2,461,470 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes