Advertisement

Using and Misusing Embryos: The Ethical Debates

  • Brenda Almond
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 102)

Abstract

Many areas of biomedicine have become the subject of intense debate and moral soul-searching in the last few decades, and there are a number of issues of practical policy where the moral map seems unclear and opinion is divided. Some of these have emerged in the last few years, and more are on the horizon. In particular, discoveries in the biomedical sciences, especially genetics, are increasingly presenting us with questions at themargins of life. On the one hand, there is the unprecedented controlwe already have over human life at the embryonic stage and the decisionswe must make about how to handle that control; on the other, issues of lifespan, aging and deterioration, our attitude to death and dying, and the use we now find that the living can make of the dead—from organ transplants to transplants of hand and face.

Keywords

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Therapeutic Cloning Reproductive Purpose Nuffield Council Hastings Center Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almond, B. (2006a). The Fragmenting Family, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Almond, B. (2006b). Genetic Profiling of Newborns: Ethical and Social Issues, Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 1–4, [On-line]. Available: http://www.nature.com/reviews/genetics.
  3. Anscombe, G.E.M. (1985). Were You a Zygote? in A.P. Griffiths (Ed.), Philosophy and Practice p. 111, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Brosius, J. & Kreitman, M. (2000). ‘Eugenics: Evolutionary Nonsense?’ Nature Genetics, 25, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchanan, A., Brock, D, Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (Eds.) (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Council of Europe (1997). ‘European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,’ ETS, 164, available at: <conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/164.htm>.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health (2000). Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility: A report from the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group, Reviewing the Potential of Developments in Stem Cell Research to Benefit Human Health, June 2000, Department of Health. Available at: <http://www.dh.gov.uk/cegc/>.
  8. Dworkin, R. (1995). Life’s Dominion: an Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia, Harper Collins, London.Google Scholar
  9. Dyson, A. & Harris, J. (Eds.) (1991). Experiments on Embryos, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  10. Gerrand, N. (1993). ‘Creating Embryos for Research,’ Journal of Applied Philosophy, 10, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunning, J. & English, V. (1993). Human In Vitro Fertilization: A Case Study in the Regulation of Medical Innovation, Dartmouth Pub. Co., Brookfield, VT.Google Scholar
  12. Gitter, D.M. (2005). ‘Am I My Brother’s Keeper? The Use of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Create a Donor or Transplantable Stem Cells for an Older Sibling Suffering from a Genetic Disorder,’ George Mason Law Review, 13, 5, 975–1035.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, J. & Holm, S. (Eds.) (1998). The Future of Human Reproduction: Choice and Regulations, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Holland, A. (1990). ‘A Fortnight of my Life is Missing,’ Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7, 25–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Human Genetics Commission. (2000). Inside Information: Balancing Interests in the Use of Personal Genetic Data, Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
  16. Human Genetics Commission, (2005). Profiling the Newborn: A Prospective Gene Technology? Department of Health, London.Google Scholar
  17. Lanza, R., Cibelli, J., & West, M. (1999). ‘Human Therapeutic Cloning,’ Nature Medicine, 5, 9, 975–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marteau, T. & Richards, M. (Eds.) (1996). The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Meilaender, G. (2001). ‘The Point of a Ban, or, How to Think About Stem Cell Research,’ Hastings Center Report, 31, 9–16.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, M.J. & Nelson, L.J. (2001). ‘Respecting What We Destroy,’ Hastings Center Report, 31, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, H.I. et al. (August 9, 2001). ‘Definitions of Human Fertilization and Preimplantation Growth Revisited,’ RBM Online webpaper, 127, 90–93.Google Scholar
  22. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Discussion Paper, April, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights (1989). The Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: <www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm>.
  24. Paul, D.B. (1998). The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine and the Nature-Nurture Debate, State University of New York Press, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Parfit, D. (1984, 1987). Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Pennings, G. (1996). ‘Ethics of Sex Selection for Family Balancing’, Human Reproduction, 11, 11, 2339–2345.Google Scholar
  27. Quintavalle v Secretary of State for Health (2002) EWCACiv29.Google Scholar
  28. Robertson, J. (1994). Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  29. Rose v. Sec. of State for Health and the HFEA. (2002). EWHC 1593.Google Scholar
  30. Ryan, M.A. (1990). ‘The Argument for Unlimited Procreative Liberty,’ Hastings Center Report, 20, 4, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott, R. (2005). ‘Prenatal Testing, Reproductive Autonomy, and Disability Interests,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shakespeare, T. (1998). ‘Choices and Rights: Eugenics, Genetics and Disability Equality,’ Disability and Society, 13, 5, pp. 665–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thom, D. & Jennings, M. (1996). ‘Human Pedigree and the “Best Stock”: From Eugenics to Genetics,’ in T. Marteau and M. Richards (Eds.), The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. (December 07, 2001). The Times, London.Google Scholar
  35. Van Den Burgh, W. (1996). ‘Legislation on Human Embryos: From Status Theories to Value Theories,’ Archiv fuer Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 82, 73–84.Google Scholar
  36. Velleman, J.D. (2005). ‘Family History,’ Philosophical Papers, 34, 3, 357–378.Google Scholar
  37. Warnock, M. (1985). A Question of Life: the Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Mary Ann Warren (1997). Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Whipp, C. (2004). Western Daily Press, UK, January 23, 2004.Google Scholar
  40. Wolf, S.M., Kahn, J.P., & Wagner, J.E. (2003). ‘Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis to Create a Stem Cell Donor: Issues, Guidelines and Limits,’ Journal of Medicine and Ethics, 31, 3, 327–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda Almond
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HullUK

Personalised recommendations