PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David Heyd

Publications and source records attributed to David Heyd.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Human nature: an oxymoron?

The concept of human nature played an important role in the Aristotelian attempt to characterize the specific difference of humans from other animals and serves as a normative guide. But with the positivistic turn in the modern conception of nature and the denaturalization of reason (typically since Kant), the essential characteristic of human beings can no more be thought of as "natural". The idea of human nature is more commonly conceived as open-ended, and is associated, since Pico della Mirandola, with the human power of self-shaping or transcendence of one's nature. This rift between the human and the natural undermines the coherence of the traditional concept of human nature. Since the concept of human nature is often used in the debates about the moral legitimacy of contemporary genetic technologies, the critical analysis suggested in the first part of the article is used in the second part to assess the force of the argument from human nature in the context of germ line genetic manipulation, genetic engineering, eugenics, and cloning.

Cloning, Organism↗
PubMed2003

Male or female, we will create them: the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons.

The article examines the arguments for and against the practice of sex selection for non-medical reasons (e.g. parental preferences, family balancing, religious reasons) in light of the new technology of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). It distinguishes between arguments about the risks to the future child, the mother and society, on the one hand, and the inherent wrongness of the practice as an illegitimate interference in the natural course of reproduction, on the other. The article tries to show that at least in the well defined context of sex selection by PGD, when IVF was performed for independent medical reasons, there is no danger to either the child or the mother and hence that the practice should be permitted. Furthermore, the alleged dangers to society are demonstrated to be mostly illusory. On the one hand, the demographic danger is usually overstated and lacks historical support. On the other hand, the feminist claim that sex selection is necessarily discriminatory is found to be both theoretically and empirically groundless. The article's conclusion is that despite widespread intuitive objection to the practice of sex selection, it can be justified in terms of parental autonomy and falls within the value of family planning. This liberal view does not, however, imply that having a child of the desired sex is the parents' right, nor does it apply to sex selection in later phases of gestation (abortions and obviously, infanticide).

Choice Behavior↗
PubMed1996

Experimenting with embryos: can philosophy help?

Beyond the well-known ethical issues involved in medical experimentation on human subjects, experimenting with embryos raises unique and particularly hard problems. Besides the psychological obstacles connected with the fear of "playing God" and the awe with which we hold the process of the creation of human beings, there are three philosophical problems which are the main subject of the article: 1. The logical problem of circularity: the morality of experimenting on embryos is dependent on the status of the embryo, which in turn is partly decided by experimentation; 2. The metaphysical problem: experiments are justified by the benefits they bring to human subjects; but it is doubtful whether an early embryo is a "subject" and whether coming into being is a "benefit"; 3. The moral problem: the standard constraint on medical experiments is that they benefit either the individual subject or at least members of a relevantly defined group of patients suffering from the same syndrome. But embryo experimentation is often associated with potential cure to people of a completely different category (like geriatric patients). Finally, the article discusses the limits of the force of philosophical arguments in the formation of actual policies for regulating such practices as experimenting with embryos. The widely-shared fourteen-day limit is shown to be a sound practical compromise despite the difficulties in justifying it philosophically.

Attitude↗