Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31277715›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Is the non-identity problem relevant to public health and policy? An online survey.

Keyur Doolabh, Lucius Caviola, Julian Savulescu, Michael J Selgelid, Dominic Wilkinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Rethinking advanced motherhood: a new ethical narrative.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Keyur DoolabhFaculty of Medicine, Nursing, and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Keyurd12@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8263-0932
Lucius CaviolaOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michael J SelgelidMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Dominic WilkinsonOxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBMonash Health · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

Wellcome Trust 104848Wellcome Trust WT 104848/Z/14/ZWellcome Trust WT106587/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe non-identity problem arises when our actions in the present could change which people will exist in the future, for better or worse. Is it morally better to improve the lives of specific future people, as compared to changing which people exist for the better? Affecting the timing of fetuses being conceived is one case where present actions change the identity of future people. This is relevant to questions of public health policy, as exemplified in some responses to the Zika epidemic. There is philosophical disagreement about the relevance of non-identity: some hold that non-identity is not relevant, while others think that the only morally relevant actions are those that affect specific people. Given this disagreement, we investigated the intuitions about the moral relevance of non-identity within an educated sample of the public, because there was previously little empirical data on the public's views on the non-identity problem.

methodsWe performed an online survey with a sample of the educated general public. The survey assessed participants' preferences between person-affecting and impersonal interventions for Zika, and their views on other non-identity thought experiments, once the non-identity problem had been explained. It aimed to directly measure the importance of non-identity in participants' moral decision-making.

resultsWe collected 763 valid responses from the survey. Half of the participants (50%) had a graduate degree, 47% had studied philosophy at a university level, and 20% had read about the non-identity problem before. Most participants favoured person-affecting interventions for Zika over impersonal ones, but the majority claimed that non-identity did not influence their decision (66% of those preferring person-affecting interventions, 95% of those preferring impersonal ones). In one non-identity thought experiment participants were divided, but in another they primarily answered that impersonally reducing the quality of life of future people would be wrong, harmful and blameworthy, even though no specific individuals would be worse off.

conclusionsNon-identity appeared to play a minor role in participants' moral decision-making. Moreover, participants seem to either misunderstand the non-identity problem, or hold non-counterfactual views of harm that do not define harm as making someone worse off than they would have been otherwise.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPersonhoodAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingEpidemicsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultZika Virus InfectionEthicsHarmImpersonalNon-identity problemPerson-affectingSurveyZika

Identifiers

PMID31277715
PMCPMC6612186
OpenAlexW2955550917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.