Mauron A, Thévoz J M
Louis Jeantet Foundation for Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
J Med Philos. 1991 Dec;16(6):649-66. doi: 10.1093/jmp/16.6.649.
We have surveyed various recent European opinions on germ-line engineering. The majority express more or less severe reservations about any interventions on the human germ-line, including therapeutic ones. However, they are divided over the pragmatic, or categorical-ethical nature of the relevant arguments. This split reflects two competing views of technology. The 'pessimistic' one is deeply concerned by the slippery slope leading from bona fide therapeutic applications of genetic engineering to eugenic practices. It insists that, if anything can defend us against these evils, it must be a set of strong, ethically-based prohibitions. The other, 'optimist' view is more confident in the discriminating powers of societal regulation. We argue for the latter view and suggest that the pragmatic arguments brought to this debate are less problematic than the ethical ones.
我们调查了近期欧洲人对生殖系工程的各种观点。大多数人对任何针对人类生殖系的干预,包括治疗性干预,都或多或少地表达了强烈的保留意见。然而,他们在相关论点的务实性或绝对伦理性质上存在分歧。这种分歧反映了两种相互竞争的技术观。“悲观”的一方对从基因工程的善意治疗应用滑向优生实践的滑坡深感担忧。它坚持认为,如果有什么能保护我们免受这些罪恶的侵害,那一定是一套强有力的、基于伦理的禁令。另一种“乐观”观点则对社会监管的辨别能力更有信心。我们支持后一种观点,并认为这场辩论中提出的务实论点比伦理论点问题更少。