On the relation between moral, legal and evaluative justifications of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Ethical Perspectives Pub Date : 2003-01-01 DOI:10.2143/ep.10.3.503885
Georg Lohmann
{"title":"On the relation between moral, legal and evaluative justifications of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).","authors":"Georg Lohmann","doi":"10.2143/ep.10.3.503885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Germany the question whether to uphold or repeal the judicial prohibition on Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is being debated from quite different standpoints. This paper differentiates the major arguments according to their reasons as a) moral, b) evaluative (i.e. cultural/religious), and c) legal. The arguments for and against PGD can be divided by content into three groups: arguments relating to the status of the embryo, focusing on individual actions in the implementation of PGD, and relating to the foreseeable or probable consequences of PGD. In Germany, from a legal perspective, the status of the embryo does not permit the intervention of PGD; from a purely moral perspective, a prohibition on PGD does not appear defensible. It remains an open question, however, whether the moral argument permitting PGD should be restricted for evaluative (cultural) reasons. The paper discusses the species-ethical reasons, for which Jurgen Habermas sees worrisome consequences in the wake of PGD to the extent that we comprehend it as the forerunner of a 'positive eugenics'. It would so disrupt the natural preconditions of our universal morality. The question of whether to prohibit or allow PGD is not merely a question of simple moral and/or legal arguments, but demands a choice between evaluative, moral and (still to be specified) species-ethical arguments, and the question remains open.</p>","PeriodicalId":54109,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Perspectives","volume":"10 3-4","pages":"196-203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/ep.10.3.503885","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/ep.10.3.503885","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In Germany the question whether to uphold or repeal the judicial prohibition on Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) is being debated from quite different standpoints. This paper differentiates the major arguments according to their reasons as a) moral, b) evaluative (i.e. cultural/religious), and c) legal. The arguments for and against PGD can be divided by content into three groups: arguments relating to the status of the embryo, focusing on individual actions in the implementation of PGD, and relating to the foreseeable or probable consequences of PGD. In Germany, from a legal perspective, the status of the embryo does not permit the intervention of PGD; from a purely moral perspective, a prohibition on PGD does not appear defensible. It remains an open question, however, whether the moral argument permitting PGD should be restricted for evaluative (cultural) reasons. The paper discusses the species-ethical reasons, for which Jurgen Habermas sees worrisome consequences in the wake of PGD to the extent that we comprehend it as the forerunner of a 'positive eugenics'. It would so disrupt the natural preconditions of our universal morality. The question of whether to prohibit or allow PGD is not merely a question of simple moral and/or legal arguments, but demands a choice between evaluative, moral and (still to be specified) species-ethical arguments, and the question remains open.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论胚胎植入前遗传学诊断(PGD)的道德、法律和评价正当性的关系。
在德国,是否支持或废除对胚胎植入前遗传学诊断(PGD)的司法禁令的问题正在从完全不同的立场进行辩论。本文根据其原因将主要论点区分为a)道德,b)评估(即文化/宗教)和c)法律。支持和反对PGD的论点可以根据内容分为三组:与胚胎状态有关的论点,关注PGD实施中的个人行为,以及与PGD可预见或可能的后果有关的论点。在德国,从法律的角度来看,胚胎的状态不允许PGD的干预;从纯粹的道德角度来看,禁止PGD似乎站不住脚。然而,允许PGD的道德论证是否应该出于评估(文化)原因而受到限制,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。这篇论文讨论了物种伦理的原因,尤尔根·哈贝马斯看到了PGD之后令人担忧的后果,以至于我们将其理解为“积极优生学”的先驱。它会破坏我们普遍道德的自然前提。是否禁止或允许PGD的问题不仅仅是一个简单的道德和/或法律争论的问题,而是需要在评估、道德和(尚待明确的)物种伦理争论之间做出选择,这个问题仍然是开放的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Proposing a new loan recommendation framework for loan allocation strategies in online P2P lending
IF 0 Ind. Manag. Data Syst.Pub Date : 2023-01-26 DOI: 10.1108/imds-07-2022-0399
Yuting Rong, Shangjie Liu, Shuo Yan, Wei Huang, Yanxia Chen
Improving building resilience in the face of future climate uncertainty: A comprehensive framework for enhancing building life cycle performance
IF 6.7 2区 工程技术Energy and BuildingsPub Date : 2023-11-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.113761
Ruijun Chen , Holly Samuelson , Yukai Zou , Xianghan Zheng , Yifan Cao
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A particularist account of moral principles Experimenting with Basic Income Inspired Experiments Relational Normative Economics: An African Approach to Justice Précis of John Rawls: Reticent Socialist A comparison of approaches to virtue for nursing ethics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1