Document Detail


Market stimulus and genomic justice: evaluating the effects of market access to human germ-line enhancement.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20653251     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The concept of "market stimulus"--the idea that free markets can play a role in widening access to new technologies--may help support the view that parents should be permitted to purchase germ-line enhancements. However, a critical examination of the topic shows that market stimulus, even if it applies to human genomic interventions, does not provide sufficient reason for deregulating germ-line enhancements because: (1) it could widen the gap between the rich and the poor; (2) even if it does not widen the gap, it might not sufficiently benefit the poor; and (3) it could have harmful effects for future generations.
Authors:
G K D Crozier; Christopher Hajzler
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal     Volume:  20     ISSN:  1054-6863     ISO Abbreviation:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J     Publication Date:  2010 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-07-26     Completed Date:  2010-08-20     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9109135     Medline TA:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  161-79     Citation Subset:  E; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Genetic Enhancement / ethics*
Genome, Human*
Health Services Accessibility / ethics*
Humans
Social Justice / ethics*
Socioeconomic Factors*
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
//Canadian Institutes of Health Research

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Cognitive enhancement, cheating, and accomplishment.
Next Document:  What's the harm? An evolutionary theoretical critique of the precautionary principle.