Disabilities, justice and the new eugenics of gene therapy

Eugenics is a difficult matter for discussion because, even as a term, it has fallen into disrepute. Yet a eugenic mindset pervades the discourses of reproduction and genetics in the West. I utilise the futures scenario of gene therapy to explore conceptually how the intersecting trajectories of science and religion make a new eugenics possible. The problematic of an inherent elitism within these sources, combined with a quest for power, leads me to renew the call for an adequate moral space within which to explore the requirements of social justice.

Response to Orr and Siegler - collective intentionality and procreative desires: the permissible view on consent to posthumous conception

Orr and Siegler have recently defended a restrictive view concerning posthumous sperm retrieval and conception, which would limit insemination to those cases where the deceased man has provided explicit consent for such a procedure. The restrictive view dominates current law and practice. A permissible view, in contrast, would allow insemination and conception in all but those cases where the posthumous procedure has been explicitly refused, or where there is no reasonable evidence that the deceased person desired children. I describe a phenomenology of procreative desires which supports the permissible view, and which is compatible with requirements concerning the interests of the decedent, concepts of medical infertility, and the welfare of the future child. The account illustrates how our current obsession with individual rights and autonomy can be self-defeating and repressive.

Blowing the virtue-ethics whistle: Response to Faunce

The author elaborates some issues raised in the theoretical basis of whistleblowing put forward by Faunce. The author considers the relationship between bioethics teaching and professional behaviour and the role of principlism in teaching bioethics and medical ethics.

End games: Euthanasia under interminable scrutiny

It is increasingly asserted that the disagreements of abstract principle between adversaries in the euthanasia debate fail to account for the complex, particular and ambiguous experiences of people at the end of their lives. A greater research effort into experiences, meaning, connection, vulnerability and motivation is advocated, during which the euthanasia 'question' should remain open. I argue that this is a normative strategy, which is felicitous to the status quo and further medicalises the end of life, but which masquerades as a value-neutral assertion about needing more knowledge.

Does being against euthanasia legislation equate to being anti-euthanasia?

This study investigated issues raised in qualitative data from our previous studies of health professionals and community members, which suggested that being opposed to euthanasia legislation did not necessarily equate to being anti-euthanasia per se. A postal survey of 1002 medical practitioners, 1000 nurses and 1200 community members was undertaken. In addition to a direct question on changing the law to allow active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), four statements assessed attitudes to euthanasia with or without a change in legislation. Responses were received from 405 doctors (43%), 429 nurses (45%) and 405 community members (38%). Compared with previous studies there was a slight increase in support for a change in the law from medical practitioners, a slight decrease in support from community members and almost no change among nurses. Different interpretations of the results of the four attitude questions are possible, depending on the perspective of the interpreter.