Article info
The concise argument
Substituted judgment, procreative beneficence, and the Ashley treatment
Citation
Substituted judgment, procreative beneficence, and the Ashley treatment
Publication history
- First published August 24, 2015.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
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
- On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?
- Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent
- The best possible child
- In defence of Procreative Beneficence
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Agency, duties and the “Ashley treatment”
- Do we need an alternative ‘relational approach’ to saviour siblings?
- Is there a moral obligation to select healthy children?
- Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women?