Article info
PDFThe concise argument
Highlights from this issue
Citation
Highlights from this issue
Publication history
- First published February 17, 2012.
Online issue publication
February 17, 2012
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
© 2012, 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
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Genetic Enhancement, Post-persons, and Moral Status: Author reply to commentaries
- Self-serving bias and the structure of moral status
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong
- Why we ca n't really say what post-persons are
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- Still unconvinced, but still tentative: a reply to DeGrazia
- ‘ My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm ’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Devoured by our own children: the possibility and peril of moral status enhancement
- Persons, post-persons and thresholds