Procreative Ethics

general courses

The seminar explores ethics of human procreation. Its primary goal is to provide students with conceptual, theoretical and methodological tools necessary to understand and analyze problems of procreative ethics. The course covers following topics: (1) ethics of new reproductive technologies; (2) ethics of prenatal testing and prenatal selection; (3) ethics of abortion.

The seminar explores ethics of human procreation. Its primary goal is to provide students with conceptual, theoretical and methodological tools necessary to understand and analyze problems of procreative ethics. Secondarily, it is designed to help students develop analytical and argumentative skills necessary for identifying, examining and resolving ethical dilemmas brought about by the advances in reproductive medicine.

The course covers following topics:

(1) ETHICS OF NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

-- Nature of Human Procreation & New Reproductive Technologies

-- Gamete Donation

-- Surrogate Motherhood

-- Redefining the Family

-- Reproductive Cloning

-- Status of Human Embryos

(2) ETHICS OF PRENATAL TESTING AND PRENATAL SELECTION

-- Ethics of Prenatal Testing and Genetic Counseling

-- Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights

-- Genetic Selection

-- Procreative Responsibility

(3) ETHICS OF ABORTION

-- Abortion and Personhood

-- Abortion and the Right to Bodily Integrity

-- Abortion and the Interest Principle

-- Abortion and the FLO Argument

-- Abortion and the Golden Rule

These topics are analyzed mainly from an ethical perspective. However, since bioethics an interdisciplinary field, attention is paid to their medical, legal, political, and sociological aspects of human procreation as well. The course is conducted in a seminar format. It involves teaching methods such as short interactive lectures, students’ presentations, discussions, group works, text analyses, and case analyses.

ETYKA POWOŁYWANIA LUDZI DO ISTNIENIA

- H. LaFollette, Licensing Parents, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1980 (9)2: 182-197.L.E. Frisch, On Licentious Licensing: A Reply to Hugh LaFollette, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1982 (11)2: 173-180.

- O. O’Neill, ‘Reproductive autonomy’ and new technologies, in: Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2002: 49-70.J. Robertson, The Presumptive Primacy of Procreative Freedom, in: Idem, Children of Choice, Princeton University Press 1994: 22-42. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions, Rome 2008 (selected parts).

- B. Smith, B. Brogaard, Sixteen Days, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2003 (23)1: 45-78; Damschen G., Gómez-Lobo A., Schönecker S., Sixteen Days? A Reply to B. Smith and B. Brogaard on the Beginning of Human Individuals, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2006 31(2): 165-175; B. Steinbock, The Morality of Killing Human Embryos, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2006 34 (1): 26–34.

- Singer P., Wells D., The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies (co-author with Deane Wells), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984 (selected chapters).

- M. Lyndon Shanley, Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and Eggs, Law & Society Review 2002 36(2): 257-284. B. Steinbock, Payment for egg donation, The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 2004 71(4): 255-265. D. Callahan, Bioethics and Fatherhood, in: B. Steinbock (ed.), Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington MA 2002: 241-252.

- L.M. Purdy, Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment?, in: H. Kuhse, P. Singer (ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2006: 90-99.S. Dodds, Jones K., A Response to Purdy, in: H. Kuhse, P. Singer (ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2006: 100-103. B. Steinbock, Surrogate Motherhood as Prenatal Adoption, in: B. Steinbock (ed.), Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington MA 2002: 263-269.

- Maklin R., Artificial Means of Reproduction and Our Understanding of the Family, „The Hastings Center Report” 1991 (21)1: 5-11. Charo A., And Baby Makes Three – Or Four, Or Five, Or Six: Redefining the Family After the Reprotech Revolution, in: Steinbock B. (ed.), Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction, Ashgate Publishing Company, Burlington MA 2002: 215-237.

- M. Tooley, The Moral Status of the Cloning of Humans, in: H. Kuhse, P. Singer (ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2006: 162-77. Kass L., Why we Should Ban Human Cloning, Texas Review of Law & Politics 1999 (4)1: 41-50.

ETYCZNE ASPEKTY DIAGNOSTYKI I SELEKCJI PRENATALNEJ

- Clarke A.J., Genetic Counseling, in: Chadwick R. (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of the Ethics of New Technologies, Academic Press 2001: 131-147; Wachbroit R., Wasserman D., Patient Autonomy and Value-Neutrality in Nondirective Genetic Counseling, Stanford Law & Policy Review 1994-1995, 6: 103-121.

- Buchanan A., Brock D.W., Daniels N., Wikler D., From Chance to Choice. Genetic and Justice, Cambridge University Press, New York 2000: Chapter 2: Eugenics and Its Shadow: 27-60; Agar N., Liberal Eugenics, [in:] Kuhse H., Singer P. (ed.), Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2006 :171-81; Fox D., The Illiberality of ‘Liberal Eugenics’, Ratio (New Series) 2007 (20)1: 1-25.

- A. Asch, E. Parens, The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Reflections and Recommendations, in: E. Parens, A. Asch (eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, Georgetown University Press, Washington 2000: 3-43; B. Steinbock, Disability, Prenatal Testing and Selective Abortion, in: E. Parens, A. Asch (eds.), Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, Georgetown University Press, Washington 2000: 108-123.

- J.A. Robertson, Genetic Selection of Offspring Characteristics, Boston University Law Review 1996, 76: 421-482.

[a] D.C. Wertz, J.C. Fletcher, Fatal Knowledge? Prenatal Diagnosis and Sex Selection, The Hastings Center Report 1989 19(3): 21-27.; R. McDougall, Acting Parentally: an Argument Against Sex Selection, Journal of Medical Ethics 2005, 31: 601-605.

[b] D. King, Why We Should not Permit Embryos to be Selected as Tissue Donors, in: H. Kuhse, P. Singer (eds), Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2006: 158-161; S. Sheldon, S. Wilkinson, Should Selecting Saviour Siblings be Banned?, Journal of Medical Ethics 2004 (3): 533-537.

[c] D.S. Davis, Genetic Dilemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future, The Hastings Center Report” 1997 (27)2: 7-15; M. Spriggs, Lesbian Couple Create a Child who is Deaf Like Them, Journal of Medical Ethics 2002 (28): 283;

[d] Holm S., Ethical Issues in PGD in: Harris J., Holm S. (eds.), The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice, and Regulation, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1998: 176-190; Habermas J., The Future of Human Nature, Polity Press 2003 (selected parts).

- B. Steinbock, Wrongful Life and Procreative Decisions, in: M. Roberts, D. Wasserman (eds), Harming Future Persons. Ethics, Genetics and the Nonidentity Problem. Springer, Dordrecht 2009: 155-178; Steinbock, B., The Logical Case for "Wrongful Life", „The Hastings Center Report” 1986 (16)2: 15-20; Savulescu J., Procreative Beneficence: Why we Should Select the Best Children, Bioethics 2001 5/6(15): 413-26.

ETYKA PRZERYWANIA CIĄŻY

- Warren, M.A., On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, in Biomedical Ethics, T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 4th edition1996, pp. 434-440; J. Fletcher, Indicators of Humanhood: A Tentative Profile of Man, The Hastings Center Report 1972 5(2): 1-4.

- J.J. Thomson, A Defense of Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1971 (1): 47-66; Baruch B., Thompson on Abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs” 1972(1)3: 335-340.

- Perrett R. Taking Life and the Argument from Potentiality, “Midwest Studies in Philosophy” 2000, vol. 24, no. 1: 186-197. Buckle S., Arguing from Potential, w: Singer P., Kuhse H. i in., Embryo Experimentation, Cambridge University Press 1990: 90-108.

- M. Tooley, Abortion and Infanticide, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1972 (2)1: 37-65.

- D. Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral?, The Journal of Philosophy 1989, 4: 183-202; Gelfand S.D., Marqius: A Defense of Abortion?, Bioethics” 2001 (15): 135-145.

- R.M. Hare, Abortion and the Golden Rule, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1975 (4)3: 201-222; Sher G., Hare, Abortion, and the Golden Rule, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1977 (6)2: 184-190.

Knowledge

At the end of the course, the student has knowledge and understanding of:

- the role of ethics and bioethics in reproductive medicine, prenatal diagnosis and reprogenetics;

- multi- and interdisciplinary terminology used in procreative ethics;

- main issues and problems of procreative ethics, as well as main philosophical positions, axiological and normative approaches, and argumentation strategies used in procreative ethics;

- the importance of socio-cultural, legal, political and economic factors for the practice and development of reproductive medicine, prenatal diagnostics and reprogenetics.

Skills

At the end of the course, the student is able to:

- identify and analyze ethical problems in reproductive medicine, prenatal diagnostics and reprogenetics;

- critically examine views and arguments developed by other authors, including other students, or presented in the seminar readings;

- prepare a written critical analysis of an article on the subject of the seminar;

- prepare and deliver oral presentation on the subject of the seminar.

Social Competences

At the end of the course, the student is able and ready to:

- critically evaluate the quality of received or acquired information;

- recognize the importance of ethics and bioethics as well as bioethical education for solving moral dilemmas in reproductive medicine, prenatal diagnostics and reprogenetics;

- engage in developing bioethics in general, and procreative ethics in particular, both in theory and practice;

- recognize ethical problems and challenges related to his or her own research and professional activity, to promote relevant ethical standards.

The final grade will be based on:

(1) student’ preparation and activity (insightful participation in the seminar discussions and class group works) – 40%;

(2) oral presentation on a seminar topic – 30%;

(3) written critical analysis of an article on a seminar topic – 30%

Final grades will be assigned on the following percentages:

100-90% – 5,0; 89-85% – 4,5; 84-75% – 4,0; 74-70% – 3,5; 69-60% – 3,0; 59-0% – 2,0

Permissible number of absences: 2 in a semester