Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (2):169-179 (2002)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments.Thomas Douglas - 2010 - Utilitas 22 (2):184-197.
Value-Impregnated Factual Claims and Slippery-Slope Arguments.Gert Helgesson, Niels Lynøe & Niklas Juth - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (1):147-150.
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.
Ethical Issues in and Beyond Prospective Clinical Trials of Human Gene Therapy.John C. Fletcher - 1985 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (3):293-310.
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).
Mechanizmy „staczania się” po równi pochyłej.Krzysztof A. Wieczorek - 2011 - Filozofia Nauki 19 (2).
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.
Commentary: How Do We Think About the Ethics of Human Germ-Line Genetic Therapy?Kathleen Nolan - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (6):613-619.
Interventions in the Human Genome: Some Moral and Ethical Considerations.Gerd Richter & Matthew D. Bacchetta - 1998 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (3):303 – 317.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads29 ( #176,667 of 2,168,588 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #346,837 of 2,168,588 )
How can I increase my downloads?