Parental Responsibility: A Moving Target

  • Kristien Hens
  • Daniela Cutas
  • Dorothee Horstkötter
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 69)

Abstract

Beliefs about the moral status of children have changed significantly in recent decades in the Western world. At the same time, knowledge about likely consequences for children of individual, parental, and societal choices has grown, as has the array of choices that (prospective) parents may have at their disposal. The intersection between these beliefs, this new knowledge, and these new choices has created a minefield of expectations from parents and a seemingly ever-expanding responsibility towards their children. Some of these new challenges have resulted from progress in genetics and neuroscience. It is these challenges that we focus on in this introduction and volume.

Keywords

Parental responsibility Genetics Neuroscience Childhood Parenting 

References

  1. Archard, D. 2004. Children: Rights and childhood. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, R. 2009. The fallacy of the principle of procreative beneficence. Bioethics 23(5): 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, R. 2014. When intuition is not enough. Why the principle of procreative beneficence must work much harder to justify its eugenic vision. Bioethics 28(9): 447–455.Google Scholar
  4. Blustein, J. 1982. Parents and children: The ethics of the family. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, S. 2014. The goods of childhood and children’s rights. In Family-making, Contemporary ethical challenges, ed. F. Baylis and C. McLeod, 29–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, S., and A White. 2007. Responsibility and children’s rights: The case for restricting parental smoking. In Taking responsibility for children, ed. Samantha Brennan and Robert Noggle, 97–112. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collier, R., and S. Sheldon. 2008. Fragmenting fatherhood. A socio-legal study. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Earp, Brian D. 2013. The ethics of infant male circumcision. Journal of Medical Ethics 39(7): 418–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gheaus, A. 2012. The right to parent one’s biological baby. Journal of Political Philosophy 20(4): 432–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gheaus, A. 2015. Unfinished adults and defective children: On the nature and value of childhood. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 9(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glover, J. 2006. Choosing children: Genes, disability, and design. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, J. 2001. One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics 27(6): 383–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hens, K. 2017. The ethics of postponed fatherhood. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 10(1): 1.Google Scholar
  14. Herissone-Kelly, P. 2006. Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(3): 166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holm, S. 2008. Parental responsibility and obesity in children. Public Health Ethics 1(1): 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthews, G. 1996. The philosophy of childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. McDougall, R. 2005. Acting parentally: An argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(10): 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Parker, M. 2007. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(5): 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Purdy, L. 1996. Reproducing persons. Issues in feminist bioethics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Re George 1982. 630 S.W.2d 614.Google Scholar
  22. Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5–6): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Savulescu, J. 2002. Deaf lesbians, “designer disability”, and the future of medicine. British Medical Journal 325: 771.Google Scholar
  24. Savulescu, J., and G. Kahane. 2009. The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Suren, P., C. Roth, M. Bresnahan, M. Haugen, M. Hornig, D. Hirtz, … , C. Stoltenberg. 2013. Association between maternal use of folic acid supplements and risk of Autism in children. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association 309(6): 570–577.Google Scholar
  26. Woolley, S. 2005. Children of Jehovah’s witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s witnesses: What are their rights? Archives of Disease in Childhood 90(7): 715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristien Hens
    • 1
  • Daniela Cutas
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dorothee Horstkötter
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious StudiesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Department of Health, Ethics and Society, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS)University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations