Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40500975›Full record

ArticleBioethics2025

From Abstinence to Assistance: Antinatalism's Unexpected Endorsement of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.

Marcus T L Teo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Marcus T L TeoCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8088-4621

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This essay begins from the point that developments in antinatalism, or the view that it is wrong to bear children, place legitimate pressures on prospective parents to seriously consider the harms of bringing their prospective children into existence. This essay does not defend antinatalism but instead considers an upshot of bioethical import if one takes these antinatalist pressures seriously. Attending to the debate on the normative legitimacy of Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB), I argue that antinatalist pressures give rise to reasons that count in favor of the PPB. I show how an antinatalist-corollary version of the PPB might be derived and how we might respond to the PPB's main criticisms and conceptual difficulties.

Indexed as

BeneficenceParentsChildEthical TheoryFemaleHumansantinatalismPrinciple of Procreative Beneficencereproductive ethics

Identifiers

PMID40500975
PMCPMC12392239

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.