Article info
PDFReproductive ethics
Paper
Embryo loss and double effect
- Correspondence to Dr Ezio Di Nucci, Institut für Philosophie, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45117, Germany; ezio.dinucci{at}uni-due.de
Citation
Embryo loss and double effect
Publication history
- Received October 17, 2012
- Revised November 23, 2012
- Accepted November 26, 2012
- First published January 3, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson’s analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- Embryo deaths in reproduction and embryo research: a reply to Murphy's double effect argument
- Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life
- Double-effect reasoning and the conception of human embryos
- Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells
- The “future like ours” argument and human embryonic stem cell research
- Stem cell research on other worlds, or why embryos do not have a right to life
- Embryo as epiphenomenon: some cultural, social and economic forces driving the stem cell debate
- A natural stem cell therapy? How novel findings and biotechnology clarify the ethics of stem cell research