Abstract
In this paper I would like to argue that paternalism is sometimes appropriate to promote autonomy. However this is only possible because autonomy and paternalism are not necessarily mutually excluding principles. Contrary to common opinion on this issue, I will show that paternalism can be understood as more than the opposite principle of autonomy. For this purpose, I will present an interpretation of the concept of “paternalism” from Emmanuel Levinas’ understanding of “paternity” with the aim of elucidating the relation between “paternalism” and the concept of autonomy. Finally, I will argue that by accepting a “soft” paternalism in medicine it is possible to make better and more ethically acceptable choices concerning PGD.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In a blastocyst biopsy, the embryonic cells are in the eight-cell stage and are pluripotent. At this stage, it can be clearly distinguished between cells that belong to the constitution of the embryo itself (embryoblast) and other cells that form the outer layer of the blastocyst and develop into a large part of the placenta (trophoblast).
- 2.
The PGD is defined by the German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) as follows: “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is the (invasive) diagnostics performed on cultured embryos created by way of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) before transferring embryos into the uterus while taking into consideration changes in the genetic material, which could lead to serious illness.” (German Medical Association 2011)
References
Agar, N. 2004. Liberal eugenics. In Defense of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell.
Baruch, S., D. Kaufman, and K.L. Hudson. 2008. Genetic testing of embryos: Practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinic. Fertility and Sterility 89(5): 1053–1058.
Düwell, M. 2008. Bioethik: Methoden, Theorien und Bereiche [Bioethics: Methods, Theories, and Areas]. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Dworkin, R. 1994. Life’s dominion. New York: Vintage Books.
Dworkin, G. 2010. Paternalism. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), ed. N. Zalta Edward. Available online: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/paternalism/.
German Medical Association. 2011. Memorandum zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) [Memorandum on Pre-inplantazion Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)]. Available online: http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/Memorandum-PID_Memorandum_17052011.pdf.
Glover, J. 2006. Choosing children: Genes, disability, and design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, R. 1997. Parental autonomy and the obligation not to harm one’s child genetically. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 25(1): 5–15.
Harris, J. 1998. Rights and reproductive choice. In The future of human reproduction: Ethics, choice, and regulation, ed. J. Harris and S. Holm, 5–37. Oxford: Clarendon.
Heidegger, M. 1976. Sein und Zeit [Being and Time], GA 2, ed. F.W. von Herrmann. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Klemperer, D. 2006. Vom Paternalismus zur Partnerschaft: Der Arztberuf im Wandel. In Professionalisierung im Gesundheitswesen, ed. J. Pundt, 61–75. Bern: Huber.
Lévinas, E. 1982. Éthique et infini. Dialogues avec Philippe Nemo. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard et Radio-France.
Lévinas, E. 2011. Le temps et l’autre. Paris: Press Universitaires de France.
Mills, C. 2003. The child’s right to an open future. Journal of Social Philosophy 34(4): 499–509.
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.
Robertson, J.A. 1995. Children of choice, freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sanghavi, D.M. 2006. Wanting babies like themselves, some parents choose genetic defects. New York Times, 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/health/05essa.html.
Savulescu, J. 2002. Deaf lesbians, “designer disability”, and the future of medicine. British Medical Journal 325: 771–775.
Sparrow, R. 2008. Is it “every man’s right to have babies if he wants them”? Male pregnancy and the limits of reproductive liberty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18(3): 275–299.
Sparrow, R., and D. Cram. 2010. Saviour embryos? Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as a therapeutic technology. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 20(5): 667–674.
Spriggs, M. 2002. Lesbian couple create a child who is deaf like them. Journal of Medical Ethics 28: 283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aurenque, D. (2015). Selecting Embryos with Disabilities? A Different Approach to Defend a “Soft” Paternalism in Reproductive Medicine. In: Schramme, T. (eds) New Perspectives on Paternalism and Health Care. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17960-5_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17960-5_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17959-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17960-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)