Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:38:43.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Longer Lives—Whose Good?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Daniel Callahan
Daniel Callahan
Affiliation:
The Hastings Centre and Harvard Medical School
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
Book Symposium/Tribune du livre
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , Summer 2006 , pp. 567 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2006

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 These categories are more fully developed in Callahan, Daniel, What Price Better Health: Hazards of the Research Imperative (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 129ff.Google Scholar

2 Stock's debate can be found in Stock, Gregory and Callahan, Daniel, “Point-Counterpoint: Would Doubling the Human Life Span Be a Net Positive or Negative for Us as Individuals or as a Society?” Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences, 59a, 6 (2004): 554–59.Google Scholar

3 United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision (New York: United Nations, 2005), p. 47.Google Scholar

4 Grant, Jonathan et al. , Low Fertility and Population Aging: Causes, Consequences, and Policy Options (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Boulding, Kenneth, “The Menace of Methuselah: Possible Consequences of Increased Life Expectancy,” Washington Academy of Sciences, 55, 7 (03 1965): 171–79Google Scholar; reprinted in the Population and Development Review, 29, 3 (09 2003): 493–504Google Scholar (page references are to this version).