Affiliation:
1. Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
Abstract
Abstract
In recent years, the question of whether prospective parents might have a moral obligation to select against disability in their offspring has piqued the attention of many prominent philosophers and bioethicists, and a large literature has emerged surrounding this question. Rather than looking to the most common arguments given in support of a positive response to the abovementioned question, such as those focusing on the harms disability may impose on the child created, duties and role-specific obligations, and impersonal ‘harms’, a less commonly made set of arguments is focused upon which looks to the harms that a decision not to select against disability may impose on others. Three different possible arguments supporting a limited duty of disability avoidance are thus identified and subsequently explored: harms to parents themselves, harms to existing family members, and harms to other existing members of society.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Philosophy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference66 articles.
1. A critique of arguments supporting disability avoidance;Anstey;Disability and Society,2008
2. Disability equality and prenatal testing: Contradictory or compatible?;Asch;Florida State University Law Review,2003
3. Care and Commitment
4. Rights, equality and procreation;Casal;Analyse & Kritik,1995
5. Equality of resources and procreative justice;Burley,2004
Cited by
4 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