Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:10:53.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There Can Be No Moral Obligation to Eradicate All Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

REBECCA BENNETT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Rationality, Morality, and Disability
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 30 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Bennett, R, Harris, J. Are there lives not worth living? When is it morally wrong to reproduce? In: Dickenson, D, ed. Ethical Issues in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:321–34, at 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Harris, J. One principle and three fallacies of disability studies. Journal of Medical Ethics 2001;27:383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. See note 1, Bennett, Harris 2002.

4. Harris, J. The wrongs of wrongful life. In: Clones, Genes, and Immortality: Ethics and the Genetic Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998:99–119, at 117.Google Scholar

5. Harris, J. Is there a coherent social conception of disability? Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:95–100, at 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. See note 4, Harris 1998, at 111.

7. See note 1, Bennett, Harris 2002.

8. Herrisone-Kelly, P. Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent. Journal of Medical Ethics 2006;32:166–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Parker, M. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;33:279–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. See note 4, Harris 1998, at 109.

11. See note 1, Bennett, Harris 2002, at 325.

12. See note 5, Harris 2000.

13. See note 5, Harris 2000.

14. Harris, J. Reproductive liberty, disease and disability. Reproductive Medicine Online 2005;10(1):14.Google ScholarPubMed

15. See note 5, Harris 2000.

16. Parfit D. The non-identity problem. In: Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1987:352–79, at 363.

17. See note 16, Parfit 1987.

18. See note 16, Parfit 1987, at 378.

19. See note 16, Parfit 1987, at 388.

20. See note 16, Parfit 1987, at 388.

21. See note 16, Parfit 1987.

22. Hurka, T. Value and population size. Ethics 1983;93:496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Kavka, GS. The paradox of future individuals. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1982;11:93–112.Google Scholar

24. Feldman, F. Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert: Essays in Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Temkin, LS. Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1987;16:138–87.Google Scholar

26. Bennett R. When intuition is not enough: Why the principle of procreative beneficence must work much harder to justify its eugenic vision. Bioethics 2013 July;10. Published online DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12044.

27. See note 2, Harris 2001.

28. See note 1, Bennett, Harris 2002.

29. See note 1, Bennett, Harris 2002, at 30.

30. See note 5, Harris 2000, at 31.