ReviewJournal of medical ethics2006
Procreative beneficence and the prospective parent.
Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Abstinence to Assistance: Antinatalism's Unexpected Endorsement of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.Bioethics · 2025Article
- Impairing the impairment argument.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Modular Ontologies for Genetically Modified People and their Bioethical Implications.Nanoethics · 2024Article
- Polygenic risk score for embryo selection-not ready for prime time.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Rationality and the genetic challenge revisited.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2011Article
- Reasons, rationalities, and procreative beneficence: need Häyry stand politely by while Savulescu and Herissone-Kelly disagree?Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Julian Savulescu has given clear expression to a principle-that of "procreative beneficence"-which underlies the thought of many contemporary writers on bioethics. The principle of procreative beneficence (PPB) holds that parents or single reproducers are at least prima facie obliged to select the child, out of a range of possible children they might have, who will be likely to lead the best life. My aim in this paper is to argue that prospective parents, just by dint of their being prospective parents, are in fact not obliged to act on PPB. That is, there is something about their filling the role of prospective parents that exempts them from selecting the child with the best life. I urge that it is more realistic to view prospective parents as bound by a principle of acceptable outlook, which holds that they ought not to select children whose lives will contain an unacceptable amount of suffering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.