Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Nurs Inq. 1996 Dec;3(4):225-30.

Avoiding the slippery slope in ethics and bioethics: 'ought' entails 'can' and vice versa.

Author information

1
Faculty of Humanities, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.

Abstract

This article addresses the slippery slope argument in ethics and bioethics, and demonstrates that a lack of consensus about human nature and what constitutes a person contributes to its frequent use in such areas. Rationality and autonomy are contrasted with sentence, and a utilitarian quality of life approach with a deontological sanctity of life approach as defining criteria of personhood. It is argued that the concept 'quality of life' is itself a slippery slope. Genetic engineering is discussed as a paradigm of the slippery slope argument in use, as well as IVF, and the distinction between experimental and therapeutic research-both issues of concern to feminists. Australia has been a leader of scientific research in the new reproductive technologies, with regulative thinking following the technological breakthroughs. The question is posed whether biotechnology will repeat a similar pattern.

PMID:
9117771
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center