Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Deaf by design: disability and impartiality.

David Shaw1

  • 1Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. d.shaw@dental.gla.ac.uk

Bioethics
|May 15, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Fossil ferns of the Asian tropics: Salvinia and Acrostichum macrofossils and diverse fern spores from the early Eocene Ghazij Formation (Balochistan, Pakistan).

Annals of botany·2026
Same author

A Need for Societal Involvement in Promoting a Culture of Care in Animal Research.

Journal of bioethical inquiry·2026
Same author

Dry needling directly into trigger points is associated with improved gait parameters: a randomized controlled trial.

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy·2026
Same author

Correction: Chemical fingerprints of cooking emissions and their impact on indoor air quality.

Environmental science. Processes & impacts·2026
Same author

Artificial Intelligence and the Doctor-Patient Relationship Expanding the Paradigm of Shared Decision Making.

Bioethics·2025
Same author

Dead as a dodo: applying harm-benefit analysis and the 3R principles to animal studies of homeopathy.

Journal of medical ethics·2025
Same journal

Transhumanism Without Transindividuation in the Age Without Epochality: Stiegler, Vice, and Radical Human Enhancement.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Between Safeguard and Constraint: Navigating Patient Autonomy in Protective Laws for Medical Assistance in Dying.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

The Concept of Harm in Medical Ethics.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

On the Destruction and Humanitarianisation of the Health System in Gaza and the Need for a Biopolitical Bioethics.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Shaping Future Children, Sex Selection, and "Normal" Human Capacities.

Bioethics·2026
Same journal

Health Research Funders and Justice: Obligations to Coordinate and Counterbalance.

Bioethics·2026
See all related articles

This paper critiques Hallvard Lillehammer's argument on reproductive choices and disability. It argues that impartial perspectives are more powerful than Lillehammer suggests in evaluating the ethics of having disabled children.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Reproductive Ethics

Background:

  • The non-identity problem raises complex ethical questions about reproductive choices.
  • Hallvard Lillehammer's work examines the morality of creating disabled children through reproductive decisions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate Hallvard Lillehammer's arguments in 'Benefit, Disability and the Non-Identity Problem'.
  • To demonstrate the underestimated power of impartial perspectives in reproductive ethics.
  • To challenge the ethical justifications for reproductive choices concerning disability.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical analysis of Lillehammer's case study involving a couple choosing to have deaf children.
  • Critique of the application of impartial versus partial perspectives in moral decision-making.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the ethical implications of the non-identity problem in reproductive choices.

    • Main Results:

    • Lillehammer's analysis underestimates the efficacy of impartial perspectives in assessing reproductive ethics.
    • The paper argues that Lillehammer's reliance on partial perspectives leads to weak ethical justifications.
    • The traditional approach to the non-identity problem may yield flawed conclusions regarding the creation of disabled individuals.

    Conclusions:

    • Impartial perspectives offer a robust framework for evaluating the morality of reproductive choices concerning disability.
    • Partial perspectives, while relevant, should not overshadow the insights gained from impartial ethical analysis.
    • A more thorough application of impartial viewpoints is necessary to avoid erroneous conclusions in reproductive ethics.