Article Text
PDF
Abstract
In this paper, I respond to criticisms by John Harris, contained in a commentary on my article “Harris, harmed states, and sexed bodies”, which appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics, volume 37, number 5. I argue that Harris's response to my criticisms exposes the strong eugenic tendencies in his own thought, when he suggests that the reproductive obligations of parents should be determined with reference to a claim about what would enhance ‘society’ or ‘the species’.
- Bioethics
- biomedical enhancement
- genetic enhancement
- human enhancement
- John Harris
- harm
- philosophical ethics
- history of health ethics/bioethics
- enhancement
- sex predetermination/selection
- eugenics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The research for this paper was supported under the Australian Research Council's Future Fellowships funding scheme (project FT100100481). The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Genetic modification of characteristic masculine traits: enhancement or deformity?
- Sexism and human enhancement
- Harris, harmed states, and sexed bodies
- Sexual dimorphism and human enhancement
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Is obesity associated with depression in children? Systematic review and meta-analysis
- School restrictions on outdoor activities and weight status in adolescent children after Japan’s 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster: a mid-term to long-term retrospective analysis
- Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes
- A Nietzschean critique of liberal eugenics
- Good parents would not fulfil their obligation to genetically enhance their unborn children