rss
J Med Ethics 2005;31:291-294 doi:10.1136/jme.2003.007526
  • Law, ethics, and medicine

Sex selection and regulated hatred

  1. John Harris
  1. Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics, Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 John Harris
 Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics, School of Law, Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL; john.m.harrisman.ac.uk
  • Received 27 November 2003
  • Accepted 9 February 2004
  • Revised 1 December 2003

Abstract

This paper argues that the HFEA’s recent report on sex selection abdicates its responsibility to give its own authentic advice on the matters within its remit, that it accepts arguments and conclusions that are implausible on the face of it and where they depend on empirical claims, produces no empirical evidence whatsoever, but relies on reckless speculation as to what the “facts” are likely to be. Finally, having committed itself to what I call the “democratic presumption”, that human freedom will not be constrained unless very good and powerful reasons can be produced to justify such infringement of liberty, the HFEA simply reformulates the democratic presumption as saying the opposite—namely that freedom may only be exercised if powerful justifications are produced for any exercise of liberty.

Footnotes

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.