Critique of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence and Abortion for Abnormalities
Akhlāq-i zīstī i.e., Bioethics Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 37 (1401),
20 June 2022
,
Page 1-18
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v12i37.34628
Abstract
Background and Aim: The development of reproductive technologies and the advancement of prenatal diagnostic tests have posed many ethical challenges to abortion for abnormalities. The purpose of this article is to critique Savulescu's argument on the permissible abortion license based on the Principle of Procreative Beneficence and to provide a detailed interpretation of this principle based on the separation of pre-pregnancy and post-pregnancy period.
Methods: In this analytical study, after a purposeful search and review of the literature, the Principle of Procreative Beneficence regarding abortion of the disabled is explained and the criticisms that others have applied about this principle are examined and analyzed with a rational approach.
Ethical Considerations: In this research, ethical aspects including the authenticity of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.
Results: A number of principles have been introduced in the decision to become pregnant and to select non-diseased genes; Including the principle of Procreative Autonomy, Principle of Non-Directive Counselling and the `Best Interests of the Child' Principle, however, according to Savulescu, none of these principles can provide the right path for the selection of diseased and non-diseased genes. Thus, Savulescu introduces the Principle of Procreative Beneficence and focuses on the selection of non-diseased genes in the application of this principle. In the examples presented by him, there is no distinction in applying this principle to before and after pregnancy; While the principle of post-pregnancy reproductive benefits leads to termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality; it is therefore not morally acceptable, even though, it is acceptable in the period before pregnancy.
Conclusion: Although the application of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence in the post-pregnancy period has morally problems; But this principle can be used to select non-diseased or healthy genes before attempting to conceive and help parents to have a healthy child.
Please cite this article as:
Molavi M, Alebouyeh AR, Rezaei Aderiani M. Critique of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence and Abortion for Abnormalities. Akhlaq-i zisti, i.e., Bioethics Journal. 2022; 12(37): e14.
- Principle of Procreative Beneficence; Abortion; Fetus; Abnormal; Genetic Disease
How to Cite
References
Mousavi Rokni FS, Mousavi Rokni SH. Abnormal child’s right to life from ethics and public interests. Medical Law Journal. 2014; 8(31): 71-114. [Persian]
Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics. 2001; 15(5‐6): 413-426.
Holm S, Bennett R. The proper scope of the principle of procreative beneficence revisited. Monash Bioethics Review. 2014; 32(1-2): 22-32.
Savulescu J, Kahane G. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics. 2009; 23(5): 274-290.
Petersen TS. On the partiality of procreative beneficence: a critical note. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015; 41(9): 771-774.
Savulescu J. Procreative beneficence: reasons to not have disabled children. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
Sparrow R. Procreative beneficence, obligation and eugenics. Genomics, Society and Policy. 2007;3(3):1-17.
Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Librach C, Cowan L, of the Canadian IDG. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2006 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertility and Sterility. 2010; 93(7): 2189-21201.
Maheshwari A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: An analysis of 112.432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertility and Sterility. 2016; 106(7): 1703-8.
Hotke A. The principle of procreative beneficence: old arguments and a new challenge. Bioethics. 2014; 28(5): 255-262.
Buchanan A, Brock DW, Daniels N, Wikler D. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. New Genetics and Society. 2002; 21: 80-80.
Carter JA, Gordon EC. Intelligence, wellbeing and procreative beneficence. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2013; 30(2): 122-35.
Newson A, Williamson R. Should we undertake genetic research on intelligence? Bioethics. 1999; 13(3‐4): 327-342.
Dworkin R. Life's dominion: an argument about abortion, euthanasia and individual freedom. New York: Vintage; 2011.
Harris J. "Goodbye Dolly?" The ethics of human cloning. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1997; 23(6): 353-360.
Harris J, Holm S. Rights and reproductive choice: New York: Clarendon Press; 1998.
Bennett R. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics. 2009; 23(5): 265-273.
Roberts JAF, Pembrey ME. An introduction to medical genetics. London: Oxford University Press; 1963.
McCandless J, Sheldon S. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (2008) and the Tenacity of the Sexual Family Form 1. The Modern Law Review. 2010; 73(2): 175-207.
Herissone‐Kelly P. Wrongs, Preferences and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. Bioethics. 2012; 26(8): 447-454.
Robertson JA. Preconception gender selection. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2001; 1(1): 2-9.
Harris J. One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001; 27(6): 383-387.
Parker M. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2007; 33(5): 279-283.
Savulescu J. In defence of procreative beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2007; 33(5): 284-288.
Herissone-Kelly P. Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006; 32(3): 166-169.
Sandel MJ. The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 2007.
Murphy TF. Gay science: Assisted reproductive technologies and the sexual orientation of children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2005; 10: 102-106.
Murphy TF. Choosing disabilities and enhancements in children: A choice too far? Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 2009; 18: 43-49.
Parfit D. Reasons and persons. New York: OUP Oxford; 1984.
Aramesh K. This identity and personality on the shores of life. Ethics and History of Medicine. 2009; 3(Special Letter): 48-59. Persian
Mashayekhi J, Derakhshan Z, Parsapoor A. A Review of the Basis of Fetal Dignity in Some Contemporary Medical Ethics Theories. Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2019; 12(1): 127-139. Persian
Fariba HA. Abortion, sanctity or permission. Articles and Reviews. 2004; 84(Ministry of Science): 55-82. Persian
khodabakhshi koolaee ADM. Effectiveness of hope-oriented group therapy on life meaning and resilience in mothers with physical-motor disabled children. JPEN. 2015; 1(3):15-25. Persian
Zare N, Ravanipour M, Bahreini M, Motamed N, Nemati H. The effect of self-management empowering model on spiritual health of mothers with cerebral palsy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2016; 3(1): 61-70. Persian
Assadi Gandomani R, Nesayan A. The Effect of Life Skills Training on Resiliency and Adaptation in Adolescents with Physical Disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2017; 3(3): 20-25. Persian
- Abstract Viewed: 367 times
- PDF (فارسی) Downloaded: 182 times