Article Text
Controversy
Bach to the future: response to: Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: medical and non-medical uses
Abstract
Professor Robertson sketches an elegant framework for policy evaluation and regulation of the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for various medical, medical related, and non-medical purposes. In criticism of his position, I argue that the distinction between policy and ethics upon which his argument relies is highly unstable, and the approach taken to ethical evaluation of particular parental interests leaves open many issues which the policy approach would hope to exclude. In conclusion I argue that while his position ultimately fails, the onus is on his critics to come up with a viable and satisfying alternative.
- bioethics
- preimplantation genetic diagnosis
- public policy
- reproductive choice
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: medical and non-medical uses
- Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women?
- Britain’s new preimplantation tissue typing policy: an ethical defence
- Gender “tailored” conceptions: should the option of embryo gender selection be available to infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology?
- Preimplantation genetic testing
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a step by step guide to recent Italian ethical and legislative troubles
- An analysis of US fertility centre educational materials suggests that informed consent for preimplantation genetic diagnosis may be inadequate
- Just diagnosis? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and injustices to disabled people
- Should selecting saviour siblings be banned?
- Clinical applications of preimplantation genetic testing