Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40801099›Full record

ArticleBioethics2026

Self-Giving and Reflections on Life Extension: How Love Might Shape the Choice of Whether to Live Past a Natural Human Lifespan.

Andrew Moeller, Ann-Marie Shorrocks, Keith Lemna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Andrew MoellerUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-1356-9488
Ann-Marie ShorrocksUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Keith LemnaSaint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology, Saint Meinrad, Indiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drawing upon a deprivationist account of the badness of death, Ingemar Patrick Linden advocates for a hypothetical state called "contingent immortality." The future Linden champions is one in which every person would be able to live for as long as they would like, save for events like accidents or murder. We recognize Linden's foundational claims in defense of contingent immortality as weighty and reasonable, but consider whether there are defensible reasons to forgo the inhibition of aging and living well past a natural human lifespan. Drawing partly upon the work of Carter Snead and Alasdair MacIntyre, we outline the nature of self-giving love, how love provides for many persons a measure of meaning and purpose in life, and the ways in which given and self-imposed limitations can help imbue our actions as embodied beings with a particular and richer sense of that meaning and purpose. We conclude that love provides defensible grounds as to why one might reasonably choose to accept our shared human identity as creatures with naturally bounded lifespans. This conclusion takes into account both the benefits and costs of love, especially in light of our existence as embodied beings.

Indexed as

AgingChoice BehaviorLife ExpectancyLongevityLoveHumanshuman lifespanlife extensionlovemeaningpurpose

Identifiers

PMID40801099
PMCPMC13179014

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.