Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Räsänen has attempted to make a moral case for permitting some people to change their legal age: if someone considers that their chronological age does not correspond to their emotional age or biological age, and they face age-based discrimination as a result, they may change the legal record of their age. This response considers some of the problems with Räsänen’s paper, including its reliance on equivocation. It concludes that what is billed as a moral argument turns out to be a conflicted case for deception which relies on a nihilistic outlook on reality.
- ethics
- social aspects
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors TCS is the sole and original contributor to this submission.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Linked Articles
- Original research
- Response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral case for legal age change
- What a drag it is getting old: a response to Räsänen
- Age change, official age and fairness in health
- Age change in healthcare settings: a reply to Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen
- On legal age change
- Is ageing undesirable? An ethical analysis
- Further defence of legal age change: a reply to the critics
- Age-dependent prognostic value of exercise capacity and derivation of fitness-associated biologic age
- On Ageing and Maturing
- Construction of the secondary care administrative records frailty (SCARF) index and validation on older women with operable invasive breast cancer in England and Wales: a cohort study