<p>In this thesis the scope and limits of reprogenetic choices - refering to reproductive applications of genetics made in the medical context - is adressed.</p><p>Through posing four analytical questions concerning who should cecide about what in reprogenetics an analysis of possible answers is made. The method consists of an analysis of texts of ethicists Robertson, Strong, Davis, Murray, Peters and Buchanan et al, chosen to reflect a diversity concerning the scope of reproductive autonomy and what values that need to be taken into consideration.</p><p>The most justified position found, concerning a possible policy of reprogenetic choices, is that there are several good reasons for leaving the reprogenetic choices with the parents, foremost since reproduction indeed is central to individuals identity, dignity and meaning of life. There are also good reasons to avoid governmental steering. This for instance since steering risks promoting perfectibilism, which would threaten human dignity. But also the reprogenetic choices cannot be left unrestricted. It is then argued that restrictions of parental reproductive autonomy should serve to protect the childs right to an open future, and that choices that reflect a search for perfectibilism should be cautioned. Autonomous reprogenetic choices should mean qualified choices - where relevant information is given and also an opportunity to make more than one choice is fostered.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:liu-1643 |
| Date | January 2004 |
| Creators | Nordell, Madeleine |
| Publisher | Linköping University, Centre for Applied Ethics |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
Page generated in 0.0028 seconds