Liberal eugenics, coercion and social pressure

  1. Blanca Rodríguez López 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Enrahonar: an international journal of theoretical and practical reason

ISSN: 0211-402X,  2014-881X

Año de publicación: 2024

Título del ejemplar: Un gir polític al debat sobre la millora genètica

Número: 72

Páginas: 73-89

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5565/REV/ENRAHONAR.1520 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Enrahonar: an international journal of theoretical and practical reason

Resumen

La discusión de la mejora prenatal ha sido a menudo criticada comparándola con la eugenesia. Los que la defienden intentan en ocasiones evitar el término y en otras añaden el término «liberal». Al hablar de eugenesia liberal se afirma que lo que era problemático en la antigua eugenesia era, fundamentalmente, su carácter coercitivo. Se establece un contraste entre la antigua eugenesia, que iba en contra de la libertad reproductiva, y la nueva eugenesia liberal, que, por el contrario, la promueve ofreciendo nuevas posibilidades de elección a los individuos. Esta es la razón por la que una de las objeciones más insidiosas contra la mejora prenatal es la que afirma que, si permitimos que los individuos elijan las características de sus hijos, sus elecciones no serán libres.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AGAR, Nicholas (1998). “Liberal Eugenics”. Public Affairs Quarterly, 12 (2), 137-155.
  • AGAR, Nicholas (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • BIRCH, Patricia; ADAM, S.; COE, R. R.; PORT, A. V.; VORTEL, M.; FRIEDMAN, J. M. & LÉGARÉ, F. (2019). “Assessing Shared Decision-Making Clinical Behaviors Among Genetic Counsellors”. J Genet Couns., 28 (1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0285-x
  • CAVALIERE, Giulia (2020). “The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators’ interests”. Med Health Care and Philos, 23, 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-019-09917-3
  • DANIELS, Norman (2000). “Normal Functioning and the Treatment-Enhancement Distinction”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9 (3), 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180100903037
  • DEGRAZIA, David (2012). Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • DWORKIN, Gerald (1982). “Is More Choice Better than Less?”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7 (1), 47-61.
  • DWORKIN, Gerald (1998). “Physician Assisted Suicide and Public Policy”. Philosophical Studies, 89, 133-141.
  • ERLER, Alexsandre (2017). “The limits of the treatment-enhancement distinction as a guide to public policy”. Bioethics, 31 (8), 608-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12377
  • FRANKFURT, Harry (1971). “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”. The Journal of Philosophy, 68 (1), 5-20.
  • GARVER, Kenneth & GARVER, Bettylee (1991). “Eugenics: Past, Present, and the Future”. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 49, 1109-1118.
  • HABERMAS, Jurgen (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • HARRIS, John (2007). Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  • JOHNSON, Kate M.; JIAO, Boshen; RAMSEY, Scott D.; BENDER, M. A.; DEVINE, Beth & BASU, Anirban (2023). “Lifetime medical costs attributable to sickle cell disease among nonelderly individuals with commercial insurance.” Blood Advances, 7 (3), 365-374. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006281
  • KEVLES, Daniel (2011). “From Eugenics to Patents: Genetics, Law, and Human Rights”. Annals of Human Genetics, 75, 326-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00648.x
  • KIANI, Aysha et al. (2020). “Prenatal genetic diagnosis: Fetal therapy as a possible solution to a positive test”. Acta Biomedica, 91 (Suppl. 13). https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i13-S.10534
  • KING, David (1999). “Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the ‘new’ eugenics”. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 176-182.
  • MCCABE, Linda & MCCABE, Edward (2011). “Down syndrome: Coercion and eugenics”. Genet Med, 13 (8), 708-710.
  • NEW YORK STATE TASK FORCE ON LIFE AND THE LAW (1994). When death is sought: Assisted suicide and euthanasia in the medical context. New York State Task Force on Life and the Law.
  • PAUL, Diane (1992). “Eugenic Anxieties, Social Realities, and Political Choices”. Social Research, 59 (3), 663-683.
  • RESNIK, David (2000). “The moral significance of the therapy-enhancement distinction in human genetics”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 9 (3), 365-377. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180100903086
  • RODRÍGUEZ LÓPEZ, Blanca (2012). “Sobre la relevancia moral de la distinción mejora-tratamiento”. Dilemata, 10, 307-328.
  • SANDEL, Michel J. (2007). Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
  • SCHWARTZ, Barry (2004). “The Tyranny of choice”. Scientific American, 290 (4), 70-75.
  • SPARROW, Robert (2011). “A not-so-new Eugenics”. Hastings Center Report, 41 (1), 32-42.
  • SUTER, Sonia M. (2018). “The tyranny of choice: reproductive selection in the future”. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5 (2), 262-300.
  • TESTART, Jacques and SÈLE, Bernard (1995). “Towards an efficient medical eugenics: Is the desirable always the feasible?”. Human Reproduction, 10 (12), 3086-3090. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135863
  • VELLEMAN, J. David (1992). “Against the Right to Die”. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 17, 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/17.6.665
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet