Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 473–484 | Cite as

Just Ignore It? Parents and Genetic Information

  • Simo Vehmas
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses whether prospectiveparents ought to find out about their geneticconstitution for reproductive reasons. It isargued that ignoring genetic information can bein line with responsible parenthood or perhapseven recommendable. This is because parenthoodis essentially an unconditional project inwhich parents ought to commit themselves tonurturing any kind of child. Besides, thetraditional reasons offered for theunfortunateness of impairments and the tragicfate of families with disabled children are notconvincing. Other morally problematic outcomesof genetics, such as discrimination againstindividuals with impairments, and limiting freeparental decision making, are alsoconsidered.

genetic information ignorance impairment parenthood reproduction responsibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Rhodes R. Genetic links, family ties, and social bonds: rights andresponsibilities in the face of genetic knowledge. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998; 23: 10–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Takala T. Häyry M. Genetic ignorance, moralobligations and social duties. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000; 25: 107–113.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis DS. Genetic dilemmas and the child's right to an open future.Hastings Center Report 1997; 27: 7–15.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andre J. Role morality asa complex instance of ordinary morality. American Philosophical Quarterly 1991; 28: 73–80.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rhodes R. Abortion and assent. Cambridge Quarterly ofHealthcare Ethics 1999; 8: 416–427.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vehmas S. Is it wrong todeliberately conceive or give birth to a child with mental retardation? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2002; 27: forthcoming.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vehmas S. Assent and selectiveabortion: a response to Rhodes and Häyry. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2001; 10: 433–440.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer JM. Ravizza M. Responsibility andControl: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics (trans. by David Ross).Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andre J. Fleck LM. Tomlinson T.On being genetically “irresponsible”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2000; 10: 129–146.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vehmas S. Newborn infants and the moral significance ofintellectual disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 1999; 24: 111–121.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weir R. Selective Nontreatment of HandicappedNewborns: Moral Dilemmas in Neonatal Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parens E. Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetictesting: reflections and recommendations. Hastings Center Report 1999; 29: S1–22.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buchanan A, Brock DW, Daniels N and Wikler D. From Chance toChoice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hudson J. What kinds of people should we create? Journal of AppliedPhilosophy 2000; 17: 131–143.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silvers A. Formal justice. In:Silvers A. Wasserman D. Mahowald MB, Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998: 13–145.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacMahan J. Cognitive disability, misfortune, andjustice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 1996; 25: 3–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shakespeare T. Choices and rights: eugenics, genetics and disability equality.Disability & Society 1998; 13: 665–681.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruddick W. Parents andlife prospects. In: O'Neill O. Ruddick W, eds Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979: 123–137.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shakespeare T. Watson N. The social model of disability: anoutdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability 2001; 2: 9–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simo Vehmas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Practical PhilosophyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations