Titlebook: Contemporary Issues in Biomedical Ethics; John W. Davis,Barry Hoffmaster,Sarah Shorten Book 1978 The HUMANA Press Inc. 1978 Biomedical eth

无能力之人

Linda-Dianne Willis,Beryl Exleyal risks involved in acquiring the knowledge needed to manipulate genes effectively, or on the valuational questions associated with the use of positive eugenics to improve the species. In illustration of the former sort of issue, the highly touted Asilomar Conference endorsed limitation of research

patriot

Amélie Lemieux,Kelly C. Johnston,Fiona Scotttion—to various governmental and legislative bodies. They justify these proposals by citing the need to protect the interests of society and of the as-yet-unconceived person who, if born, would suffer from a serious genetic defect. Perhaps the most articulate spokesman for the latter position is Pro

杀子女者

Opponent

啜泣

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6944-6ates a basic right to privacy, not many will be satisfied with his argument that this is unrelated to a right to procreate, and that the latter interest in procreation is not an “important” interest to individuals. As he notes, having robbed procreation of both the strong status of a right, and the

Brain-Imaging

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7538-6 to privacy, so that if involuntary sterilization is impermissible, it is not because of any “right to procreate.” But I pointed out that sterilization which, given present technology, and perhaps any technology, involves an invasion of the body, does seem to violate the right to privacy in what I d

制造

Palgrave Studies in Economic Historyussion is itself so remarkable, and so contrary to the morality of the Hippocratic Oath, that I shall take its existence as the starting point for my present reflections. The existence of bioethics is remarkable because it presupposes a common ground of dialog between philosophers and physicians, a

adduction

Go-Slows, Strikes and Effort Bargainingg this statement. She sees the medical profession in the past as having been a largely secret religious society, closed to outsiders, deceitful to its patients, and nonscientific in nature. In some ways, she is correct. She is correct in saying that this has changed, and I am sure that there are few

AVOID

Harridan

Meenakshi Rajeev,Supriya Bhandarkarations between individual primary-care physicians and individual patients without a life-threatening disease. Consequently, I made no claims about, nor do I wish to here pursue, what she calls “stand-in situations,” patients who are terminally ill or have seriously life-threatening diseases, policy