Article Text
Response
Grim news for an unoriginal position: a reply to Seth Baum
Abstract
Seth Baum suggests that my claim that it is better never to come into existence “can readily be rejected not just out of reflexive distaste for the claim but also out of sound ethical reasoning”. In my reply, I argue that Mr Baum fails to state accurately what my arguments are, and then attempts to refute them by association with other views that he dismisses perfunctorily. Where he does actually engage in my views, his response is effectively merely to assert the opposite.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Better to exist: a reply to Benatar
- Herpes genitalis and the philosopher's stance
- Ethics, economics, and public financing of health care
- Imperfect by design: the problematic ethics of surgical training
- Concordance of the management of chronic gout in a UK primary-care population with the EULAR gout recommendations
- Grim news from the original position: a reply to Professor Doyal
- Is once always enough? Revisiting the single use item
- New insights into an old disease: advanced imaging in the diagnosis and management of gout
- What sort of bioethical values are the evidence-based medicine and the GRADE approaches willing to deal with?
- EULAR evidence based recommendations for gout. Part I: Diagnosis. Report of a task force of the standing committee for international clinical studies including therapeutics (ESCISIT)