Article info
PDFCommentary
Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al
- Correspondence to Dr Peter Mills, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London WC1B 3JS, UK; pmills{at}nuffieldbioethics.org
Citation
Goldilocks and the two principles. A response to Gyngell et al
Publication history
- Received January 30, 2019
- Accepted January 31, 2019
- First published February 28, 2019.
Online issue publication
August 27, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (28 February 2019).
- 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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Moral reasons to edit the human genome: picking up from the Nuffield report
- Future of global regulation of human genome editing: a South African perspective on the WHO Draft Governance Framework on Human Genome Editing
- Genome editing, Goldilocks and polygenic risk scores
- Heritable human genome editing is ‘currently not permitted’, but it is no longer ‘prohibited’: so says the ISSCR
- The moral argument for heritable genome editing requires an inappropriately deterministic view of genetics
- We need to talk about imperatives
- Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique
- Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Is procreative beneficence obligatory?