Article Text
Abstract
In this brief response to Joona Räsänen’s argument for the coherence and desirability of being able legally to change one’s age, I outline a couple of reasons for thinking that the case he makes is deeply flawed. As such, I contend that we have no reason to think that age should be the kind of thing that one should be able to change legally. Moreover, we have at least one good reason for thinking that legal age change would be positively undesirable.
- legal aspects
- legal philosophy
- philosophical ethics
- public policy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Sole author.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Linked Articles
- Original research
- Response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral case for legal age change
- Against the nihilism of ‘legal age change’: response to Räsänen
- Age change, official age and fairness in health
- On legal age change
- Age change in healthcare settings: a reply to Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen
- Further defence of legal age change: a reply to the critics
- Is ageing undesirable? An ethical analysis
- Age-dependent prognostic value of exercise capacity and derivation of fitness-associated biologic age
- On Ageing and Maturing
- Construction of the secondary care administrative records frailty (SCARF) index and validation on older women with operable invasive breast cancer in England and Wales: a cohort study