Author:
De Melo‐Martín Inmaculada
Subject
Health Policy,Philosophy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science),Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,Environmental Engineering
Reference49 articles.
1. The genome editing revolution: review
2. Altered Inheritance
3. I am not committed here to a particular principle or theory of distributive justice. My arguments are clearly consistent with a utilitarian framework. However my claim that we should reject funding for reproductive embryo editing given that the goal it seeks to achieve can be achieved with other appropriate means for more people is quite minimal and is arguably consistent with any of the major principles or theories of distributive justice from egalitarianism to the difference principle to utilitarianism. At least in principle it seems that achieving the same valuable goal for more people is something that no theory of distributive justice would oppose. Of course people might disagree about whether the goal achieved by the various interventions is the same or about what the benefits obtained by the different interventions are—and I address some of these issues below. My claim is that accepting that the goal obtained by reproductive embryo editing can also be obtained with other safe and effective means for more people—and indeed with greater benefits—and thus that we should pursue those other interventions aligns with the main principles of distributive justice.I believe that this constitutes an additional strength of my argument.
4. Khalil “The Genome Editing Revolution.”
5. Ibid.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Conclusions;Feminist Bioethics in Space;2024-10-02
2. Antinatalism, Environmental Ethics, and Feminism;Feminist Bioethics in Space;2024-10-02
3. Feminist Bioethics of Human Enhancement;Feminist Bioethics in Space;2024-10-02
4. Disability in Space;Feminist Bioethics in Space;2024-10-02
5. Power and Exclusion in Space Exploration;Feminist Bioethics in Space;2024-10-02