Abstract

In Reply.— We are pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the previous critiques. While we agree with Dr Gillette that biomedical technology often outstrips our moral and social resources, we reject the notion that society should catch up to technology by sacrificing important human values. Philosophical and religious conceptions of the value of human life have endured for a long time and do not depend on technology for their validity. We must certainly come to terms with new technology, but not at the cost of becoming its servants. Mr Minogue seriously misrepresents both our position and the history of the brain death debate. We have never maintained that any use of anencephalic infants, or children in general, for research purposes is immoral. We do maintain that the accepted criteria for research in children (ie, that it be of minimal risk and/or of direct benefit to the child) also

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call