PHIL2001 Bioethics Notes - Reproductive Technologies and Parental Choice

Reproductive Technologies and Parental Choice

Overview of Ethical Framework

• Key Authors:

• Savulescu, Julian and Guy Kahane (2009) - The Moral Obligation to Create Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life, Bioethics.

• Barker, Matthew J. & Robert A. Wilson (2019) - Well-Being, Disability, & Choosing Children, Mind.

• Primary Theme: The moral implications behind choosing embryos based on predicted life quality.

• Reading Prompts:

• Procreative beneficence requires disability: True or false?

• Barker and Wilson’s skepticism regarding appeals to well-being.

Background on Parents' Responsibilities

• Parents strive to ensure:

• Protection

• Safety

• Nurturance (Good nutrition, education)

• Use of Reproductive Technologies:

• Influence traits in children (e.g., through IVF).

• Ethical considerations surrounding selection of traits.

Selective Implantation Thought Experiment

• Scenario: Choose between two embryos:

• One with a genetic profile predicting disability.

• One without disability predictions.

• Moral Question: Which embryo to implant?

Structure of Barker and Wilson (2019)

• Disability-Free Intuition:

• Preference for procreating disability-free children.

• Argument Construction:

• Links disability and well-being through Procreative Beneficence.

• Version A: Moderate Disability Principle (MDP).

• Version B: Bold Disability Principle (BDP).

• Critical Views:

• Challenges on subjective vs. objective well-being.

• Competing moral reasons against versions A and B.

Savulescu & Kahane on Procreative Beneficence

• Moral Imperative:

• If selecting a child, it should be one expected to have the best life.

• Consensus on traits that improve life quality.

Barker and Wilson’s Scrutiny of Welfarism

• Welfarism Defined:

• Disabilities seen as states reducing well-being.

• Empirical question regarding recognized disabilities.

• Disability-Free Procreation Principle:

• If disabilities reduce well-being, parents should select embryos resistant to these disabilities.

Argument Structure Analysis

• Simple Argument Form: (Modus Ponens)

1. If disabilities reduce well-being, parents have reasons against creating a child with disabilities.

2. Disabilities reduce well-being (Conceptualization issues).

3. Conclusion: Significant moral reasons against selecting children with disabilities.

Ambiguities in the Argument

• Reduction of well-being needs precise definition (substantial vs. trivial).

• The implications of perceived reductions in well-being are under scrutiny.

Comparing Argument Versions

• Version A (MDP) vs. Version B (BDP):

• A claims significant reduction in well-being from disabilities, while B requires any reduction to warrant moral consideration.

• Empirical Support for A:

• Self-reports indicate individuals with disabilities report a higher quality of life than assumed by non-disabled perspectives.

• Critiques of A stem from the claim that not all disabilities lead to substantial reductions in life quality.

Subjective vs. Objective Well-Being

• Objective Well-Being (OW) has criteria independent of how individuals perceive their well-being.

• Dependent OW: Goods that enhance SW.

• Independent OW: Goods valued for their own sake.

• Issues arise from epistemic challenges related to understanding the relationship between OW and SW.

Epistemic Injustice in Bioethics

• Discussion on the lack of representation of disabled individuals in philosophical discourse.

• Philosophical Hubris: Underestimating the experiences and perspectives of disabled individuals.

• Types of Epistemic Injustice:

• Testimonial: Who is acknowledged as knowledgeable?

• Hermeneutical: How do we understand and evaluate moral significance?

Conclusion and Future Examinations

• Ethical implications of reproductive choices tied to perceptions of disability and well-being.

• Upcoming discussions on Transhumanist values and well-being in the health context, emphasizing the need for inclusive philosophical ethics.

general principal whether to accept it

he has reservations

what do you need to add to it

2 different versions to the argument

show each of those arguments have a different premise that is harder to defend

what is the “secret for people watching