Article Text
Abstract
In ‘Moral case for legal age change’, I argue that sometimes people should be allowed to change their age. I refute six immediate objections against the view that age change is permissible. I argue that the objections cannot show that legal age change should always be prohibited. In this paper, I consider some further objections against legal age change raised by Iain Brassington, Toni Saad and William Simkulet. I argue that the objections fail to show that age change should never be allowed.
- legal aspects
- legal philosophy
- philosophical ethics
- public policy
- social aspects
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors JR is the sole author of this paper.
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 Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Linked Articles
- Original research
- Response
- Response
- Response
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- On legal age change
- 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
- Against the nihilism of ‘legal age change’: response to Räsänen
- Age change in healthcare settings: a reply to Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen
- Epigenetic clocks in neurodegenerative diseases: a systematic review
- 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
- A novel somatic mutation achieves partial rescue in a child with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome
- Is ageing undesirable? An ethical analysis