Is a deaf future an "Open" future? Reconsidering the open future argument against deaf embryo selection.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-24 DOI:10.1007/s40592-023-00175-x
Paul A Tubig
{"title":"Is a deaf future an \"Open\" future? Reconsidering the open future argument against deaf embryo selection.","authors":"Paul A Tubig","doi":"10.1007/s40592-023-00175-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One prominent argument against the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a deaf embryo with the aim of creating a deaf child is that it violates the child's right to an open future. This paper challenges the open future argument against deaf embryo selection, criticizing its major premise that deafness limits a child's opportunity range in ways that compromise their future autonomy. I argue that this premise is not justified and is supported by negative presumptions about deaf embodiments that are suspect and in need of further argumentation. First, available interpretations of the open future concept fail to justify the devaluation of deaf traits as inherently autonomy-diminishing. Second, arguing against deaf embryo selection requires demonstrating that a deaf trait generally constrains opportunity ranges independent of social context. But such analyses neglect important social and relational components of autonomy. For these reasons, merely appealing to the child's right to an open future does not sufficiently support the conclusion that deaf embryo selection is wrong.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-023-00175-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One prominent argument against the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a deaf embryo with the aim of creating a deaf child is that it violates the child's right to an open future. This paper challenges the open future argument against deaf embryo selection, criticizing its major premise that deafness limits a child's opportunity range in ways that compromise their future autonomy. I argue that this premise is not justified and is supported by negative presumptions about deaf embodiments that are suspect and in need of further argumentation. First, available interpretations of the open future concept fail to justify the devaluation of deaf traits as inherently autonomy-diminishing. Second, arguing against deaf embryo selection requires demonstrating that a deaf trait generally constrains opportunity ranges independent of social context. But such analyses neglect important social and relational components of autonomy. For these reasons, merely appealing to the child's right to an open future does not sufficiently support the conclusion that deaf embryo selection is wrong.

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
聋人的未来是“开放”的未来吗?重新考虑反对聋人胚胎选择的开放未来论点。
反对使用植入前遗传学诊断来选择一个聋哑胚胎以创造一个聋哑儿童的一个突出的论点是,它侵犯了儿童享有开放未来的权利。本文对反对聋人胚胎选择的开放未来观点提出了挑战,批评其主要前提是聋人限制了儿童的机会范围,从而损害了他们未来的自主性。我认为,这个前提是不合理的,并且是由关于聋人的负面假设所支持的,这些假设是可疑的,需要进一步的论证。首先,对开放未来概念的现有解释无法证明失聪特征的贬值是固有的自主性减弱。其次,反对耳聋胚胎选择需要证明耳聋特征通常会限制与社会背景无关的机会范围。但这种分析忽视了自主性的重要社会和关系组成部分。由于这些原因,仅仅呼吁儿童拥有开放未来的权利并不能充分支持失聪胚胎选择是错误的结论。
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
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
A duty to enhance? Genetic engineering for the human Mars settlement. Personal reflections on navigating plural values in the implementation of voluntary assisted dying in Victoria, Australia. Antibiotic prescription, dispensing and use in humans and livestock in East Africa: does morality have a role to play? Book review: ethics of artificial intelligence. Coercive public health policies need context-specific ethical justifications.
×
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