ArticleMonash bioethics review2018
Defending eugenics : From cryptic choice to conscious selection.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic Medicine and Individual Autonomy: Reflections on Knowledge Societies and Governmentality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations.Human reproduction update · 2024Review
- Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Values in Psychometrics.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022Article
- Enhancing the collectivist critique: accounts of the human enhancement debate.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Eugenics offended.Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- Can 'eugenics' be defended?Monash bioethics review · 2021Article
- The problem with reproductive freedom. Procreation beyond procreators' interests.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2020Article
- Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing.Bioethics · 2020Article
- Eugenics Undefended.Monash bioethics review · 2019Article
- Lives Not Worth Living in Modern Euthanasia Regimes.Journal of policy and practice in intellectual disabilities · 2019Article
- Ethical Challenges of Germline Genetic Enhancement.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For most of human history children have been a byproduct of sex rather than a conscious choice by parents to create people with traits that they care about. As our understanding of genetics advances along with our ability to control reproduction and manipulate genes, prospective parents have stronger moral reasons to consider how their choices are likely to affect their children, and how their children are likely to affect other people. With the advent of cheap and effective contraception, and the emergence of new technologies for in vitro fertilization, embryo selection, and genetic engineering, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify rolling the genetic dice by having children without thinking about the traits they will have. It is time to face up to the awesome responsibilities that accompany our reproductive choices.
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.