Abstract

Jürgen Habermas is regarded as a central bioconservative commentator in the debate on the ethics of human prenatal genetic manipulations. While his main work on this topic, The Future of Human Nature, has been widely examined in regard to his position on prenatal genetic enhancement, his arguments regarding prenatal genetic therapeutic interventions have for the most part been overlooked. In this work I do two things. First, I present the three necessary conditions that Habermas establishes for a prenatal genetic manipulation to be regarded as morally permissible. Second, I examine if mitochondrial replacement techniques meet these necessary conditions. I investigate, specifically, the moral permissibility of employing pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer. I conclude that, according to a Habermasian perspective on prenatal genetic manipulation, maternal spindle transfer (without using a preselected sperm and egg) and pronuclear transfer are morally impermissible. Maternal spindle transfer is, in principle, morally permissible, but only when we have beforehand preselected a sperm and an egg for our reproductive purpose. These findings are relevant for bioconservatives, both for those who hold a Habermasian stance and for those who hold something akin to a Habermasian stance, because they answer the question: what should bioconservatives do regarding mitochondrial replacement techniques? In fact, the answer to this question does not only normatively prescribe what bioconservatives should do in terms of their personal morality, but it also points towards what kind of legislation regulating mitochondrial replacement techniques they should aim at.

Highlights

  • In order to establish if intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) would satisfy the conditions of MSTpg what we need to examine is whether the gamete selection occurs before any procedure takes place and before we even consider carrying out the procedure

  • In this article I investigated the ethics of mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs) from a Habermasian perspective

  • I concluded that pronuclear transfer (PNT) is a form of prenatal genetic therapy and it is morally permissible according to this standard

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

How should bioconservatives ethically regard mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs)?1 If they were to. It is true that there is a diverse array of bioconservative positions concerning human cloning and human prenatal genetic manipulations that could be applied to the case of MRTs, for example those of Sandel,[8] Annas[9] or Kass.[10] Even though this is the case I focus on Habermass stance because his is the most sophisticated: the depth of his analysis makes The Future of Human Nature an unparalleled work, among the conservative ones.[11] At this point I want to make an important methodological clarification.

MITOCHONDRIAL REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUES
HABERMAS ON PRENATAL GENETIC INTERVENTIONS
Findings
CONCLUSION
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