Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:10:16.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: From Liberal Eugenics to Political Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

NATHAN EMMERICH  and
BERT GORDIJN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Genome Editing: Biomedical and Ethical Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Agar, N. Why we should defend gene editing as eugenics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2018; this issue. fn.3Google Scholar

2. Agar, N. Liberal eugenics. Public Affairs Quarterly 1998;12(2):137–55.Google ScholarPubMed

3. See note 2, Agar 1998.

4. See note 1, Agar 2018.

5. See note 1, Agar 2018.

6. See note 1, Agar 2018, note 3.

7. See note 1, Agar 2018. It is worth noting that Agar’s argument is that if a eugenic intervention is to be ethical, other necessary conditions must be fulfilled as well as the absence of state compulsion. For example, it must be based on sound science.

8. Wilkinson, S. ‘Eugenics talk’ and the language of bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 2008;34(6):467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Meloni, M. Political Biology: Science and Social Values in Human Heredity From Eugenics to Epigenetics. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016:92.Google Scholar

10. See note 9, Meloni 2016,72.

11. Mayes, C. The Biopolitics of Lifestyle: Foucault, Ethics and Healthy Choices. New York: Routledge; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. See note 9, Meloni 2016.

13. See note 1, Agar 2018.

14. Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (London: Macmillan, 1883), p. 17, fn 1; cited in Agar 2018 (see note 1).

15. Agar suddenly introduces PGD into his analysis next to gene editing. As it turns out the paper is really more about PGD than gene editing.

16. See note 1, Agar 2018.

17. See note 1, Agar 2018.

18. See note 1, Agar 2018.

19. See note 1, Agar 2018.

20. See note 1, Agar 2018.

21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics Working Group. Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2017.

22. Rapp, R. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge; 1999;Google Scholar Verbeek, P-P. Obstetric ultrasound and the technological mediation of morality: A postphenomenological analysis. Human Studies 2008;31(1):11–26;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Verbeek, P-P. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Bosk, CL. All God’s Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1995.Google Scholar

24. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html [Accessed 23/5/18]; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37500189 [Accessed 23/5/18]