Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42262684›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2026

Clashing Perspectives? Two Approaches to the Desirability of Biological Aging.

Joan Llorca Albareda, Pablo García-Barranquero

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The success-failure inversion in modern medicine.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Article
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

2 authors.

Joan Llorca AlbaredaDepartment of Philosophy I, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. joanllorca@ugr.es.
Pablo García-BarranqueroDepartment of Philosophy, University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain. pablogarcia@uma.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biotechnological interventions in biological aging could provide substantial opportunities to reduce, mitigate, or even eliminate this process, and could create better conditions for the pursuit of meaningful life projects. In this article, we contrast two (allegedly) opposing ethical perspectives on these interventions: on the one hand, individual welfarist approaches; and on the other, those rooted in social-structural considerations. After providing an overview of the current state of the literature on the ethics of aging, we show why it is generally believed that both perspectives offer distinct assessments of biotechnological interventions in biological aging, relying on arguments that seem a priori irreconcilable. However, in the second and third section, we argue that this idea is misguided and that both perspectives are intertwined and complement each other. First, we argue that the concepts of well-being, disability, and aging encompass both individual and social dimensions. Second, we critically discuss how both perspectives are essential for assessing the desirability of these biotechnological interventions.

Indexed as

Biological agingEthicsIndividual welfareSocial structures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.