值得活下去的生命,以及忽视基因偏好的非同一性限制的危险。

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Marcus T L Teo
{"title":"值得活下去的生命,以及忽视基因偏好的非同一性限制的危险。","authors":"Marcus T L Teo","doi":"10.1136/jme-2025-110888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the <i>Journal of Medical Ethics</i>, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children\". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lives worth living and the danger of ignoring non-identity limits on genetic preference.\",\"authors\":\"Marcus T L Teo\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2025-110888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the <i>Journal of Medical Ethics</i>, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children\\\". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110888\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110888","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇短文中,我详细介绍了一个反对Guido Pennings博士在《医学伦理学杂志》上的最新出版物的案例,题为“有基因相关的孩子的道德义务”。我认为,尽管潘宁斯提高了人们对生物伦理和科学重要性问题的认识,但他致命地忽视了与生殖伦理的一个核心辩论:非同一性问题(NIP)的互动。认真对待NIP,我们可以看到,潘宁斯所主张的道德义务与潘宁斯也引用的生殖慈善原则一样,受到了同样的问题的影响。如果不加批判地解读潘宁斯的观点,这种回应就会考虑到破坏性结果的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lives worth living and the danger of ignoring non-identity limits on genetic preference.

In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信