rss
J Med Ethics 2007;33:1-4 doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016477
  • General ethics

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics

  1. S Holm1,
  2. T Takala2
  1. 1Cardiff Law School, Cardiff, UK; Section for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Norway
  2. 2Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Prof S Holm
 Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, PO Box 427, Cardiff, UK; holms{at}cardiff.ac.uk
  • Received 23 February 2006
  • Accepted 2 March 2006
  • Revised 23 February 2006

Abstract

Two protechnology arguments, the “hopeful principle” and the “automatic escalator”, often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

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.