Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (2):225-235 (2019)
Abstract:This article examines the moralistic language and arguments used in relation to genetics. The focus is on three practices: the claims that there is a duty to know about one’s own genetic makeup, assertions that genetic information should be used to inform reproductive decisions, and the proposition that there are moral reasons to participate in biobank research. With these three, the author contends that there are equally good, if not better, arguments to challenge them from a Millian perspective. Furthermore, especially in the current political climate, there is a need to respect people’s privacy concerns.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Genetic Links, Family Ties, and Social Bonds: Rights and Responsibilities in the Face of Genetic Knowledge.Rosamond Rhodes - 1998 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (1):10 – 30.
Justice and the Possibility of Good Moralism in Bioethics.Matti Häyry - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (2):236-263.
Health as the Moral Principle of Post-Genomic Society: Data-Driven Arguments Against Privacy and Autonomy.Karoliina Snell - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (2):201-214.
Citations of this work
The Right Not to Know and the Obligation to Know.Ben Davies - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (5):300-303.
The Right Not to Know: Some Steps Towards a Compromise.Ben Davies & Julian Savulescu - 2021 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24 (1):137-150.
Editorial: Dogmas, Stigmas, and Questionable Arguments for Better Health.Johanna Ahola-Launonen, Tuija Takala & Matti Häyry - 2019 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (2):191-199.
Editorial: Examining the Links.Tuija Takala & Matti Häyry - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (2):167-173.
Similar books and articles
Genetic Nondiscrimination and Health Care as an Entitlement.B. M. Kious - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):86-100.
Genetic Engineering and the Risk of Harm.Matti Häyry & Tuija Takala - 1998 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1 (1):61-64.
Genetic Knowledge is a Civil Right. Towards a New Model of Health Contract as Social Contract.Hans-Martin Sass - 2010 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 20 (1):2-9.
A Defence of Prudential Moralism.Benjamin Lovett - 2005 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):161–170.
A Defence of Prudential Moralism.Benjamin Lovett - 2005 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):161-170.
‘Medicine’s Next Goldmine?’ The Implications of New Genetic Health Technologies for the Health Service.Michael Calnan, David Wainwright, Peter Glasner, Ruth Newbury-Ecob & Ewan Ferlie - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (1):33-41.
The Notion of Health and the Morality of Genetic Intervention.Erik Malmqvist - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (2):181-192.
Genetic Information in the Age of Genohype.Péter Kakuk - 2006 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 9 (3):325-337.
The Importance of Genetic Services for the Theory of Health: A Basis for an Integrating View of Health. [REVIEW]Juan Manuel Torres - 2002 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (1):43-51.
Distinguishing Genetic From Nongenetic Medical Tests: Some Implications for Antidiscrimination Legislation.Joseph S. Alper & Jon Beckwith - 1998 - Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (2):141-150.
‘Just a Bit of Fun’: How Recreational is Direct-to-Customer Genetic Testing?Heike Felzmann - 2015 - The New Bioethics 21 (1):20-32.