ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2026
Clashing Perspectives? Two Approaches to the Desirability of Biological Aging.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The success-failure inversion in modern medicine.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42262684What 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.