Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):508-513 (2019)
AbstractCurrent advances in assisted reproductive technologies aim to promote the health and well-being of future children. They offer the possibility to select embryos with the greatest potential of being born healthy and may someday correct faulty genes responsible for heritable diseases in the embryo ). Most laws and policy statements surrounding HGGM refer to the notion of ‘serious’ as a core criterion in determining what genetic diseases should be targeted by these technologies. Yet, this notion remains vague and poorly defined, rendering its application challenging and decision making subjective and arbitrary. By way of background, we begin by briefly presenting two conceptual approaches to ‘health’ and ‘disease’: objectivism and constructivism. The basic challenge under both is sorting out whether and to what extent social and environmental factors have a role in helping to define what qualifies as a ‘serious’ disease beyond the medical criteria. We then focus on how a human rights framework could integrate the concepts of objectivism and constructivism so as to provide guidance for a more actionable consideration of ‘serious’. Ultimately, it could be argued that a human rights framework, by way of its legally binding nature and its globally accepted norms and values, provides a more universal foundation for discussions of the ethical, legal and social implications of emerging or disruptive technologies.
Similar books and articles
Human Genetic Technology, Eugenics, and Social Justice.W. Malcolm Byrnes - 2001 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1 (4):555-581.
In Genes We Trust: Germline Engineering, Eugenics, and the Future of the Human Genome.Russell Powell - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):669-695.
CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing – New and Old Ethical Issues Arising From a Revolutionary Technology.Martina Baumann - 2016 - NanoEthics 10 (2):139-159.
‘Human Enhancement’? It’s All About ‘Body Modification’! Why We Should Replace the Term ‘Human Enhancement’ with ‘Body Modification’.Stefanie Rembold - 2014 - NanoEthics 8 (3):307-315.
The Ecological Imperative and its Application to Ethical Issues in Human Genetic Technology.W. Malcolm Byrnes - 2003 - Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2003:63-65.
Will CRISPR Germline Engineering Close the Door to an Open Future?Rachel L. Mintz, John D. Loike & Ruth L. Fischbach - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (5):1409-1423.
Taming Our Brave New World.Joshua A. Reagan - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):621-632.
Future Generations and the Justifiability of Germline Engineering.Ioana Petre - 2017 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42 (3):328-341.
Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning, Germline Therapy, and Purchase of Gametes and Embryos: Comments on Canadian Legislation Governing Reproduction Technologies.L. Bernier - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (6):527-532.
Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds.John Harris - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):30-34.
New Reproductive Technologies in the Treatment of Human Infertility and Genetic Disease.Lee M. Silver - 1990 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 11 (2).
Emerging Medical Technologies and Emerging Conceptions of Health.William E. Stempsey - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):227-243.
The Role of Biological and Social Factors in Determining Gender Identity.M. I. Boichenko, Z. V. Shevchenko & V. V. Pituley - 2019 - Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research 15:11-21.
Shaping Individuality: Human Inheritable Germ Line Gene Modification.Maurizio Salvi - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (6):527-542.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Serious Factor in Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing.Vardit Ravitsky, Anne-Marie Laberge, Marie-Christine Roy, Bartha Knoppers, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh & Erika Kleiderman - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (2):23-25.
Is the ‘Serious’ Factor in Germline Modification Really Relevant? A Response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers.Iñigo De Miguel Beriain - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (2):151-152.
‘Serious’ Science: A Response to Kleiderman, Ravitsky and Knoppers.Satvir Kalsi - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (2):156-157.
‘Serious’ Factor—a Relevant Starting Point for Further Debate: A Response.Erika Kleiderman, Vardit Ravitsky & Bartha Maria Knoppers - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (2):153-155.
Expanded Prenatal Testing: Maintaining a Non-Directive Approach to Promote Reproductive Autonomy.Anne-Marie Laberge, Tierry M. Laforce, Marie-Françoise Malo, Julie Richer, Marie-Christine Roy & Vardit Ravitsky - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (2):39-42.
References found in this work
A Second Rebuttal On Health.Christopher Boorse - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (6):683-724.
Moral Reasons to Edit the Human Genome: Picking Up From the Nuffield Report.Christopher Gyngell, Hilary Bowman-Smart & Julian Savulescu - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (8):514-523.
Normal Functioning and the Treatment-Enhancement Distinction.Norman Daniels - 2000 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (3):309--322.
Genome Editing and Assisted Reproduction: Curing Embryos, Society or Prospective Parents?Giulia Cavaliere - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2):215-225.