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.
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was first published online. The author’s changes were not applied to the original version.
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