J Med Ethics. 2016 Oct;42(10):685-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103453. Epub 2016 Mar 15.
In his concise argument, 'A relational approach to saviour siblings?', Selgelid reiterates some of the arguments raised in the author meets critics discussion of my book, Saviour Siblings In this response, I highlight an important misunderstanding in one of the arguments put forward by Selgelid, which forms the basis of a large portion of his analysis. Contrary to what Selgelid contends, I do not use the deafness case in my discussion of the non-identity problem to contend that the case of selecting for deafness is ethically different from the case of saviour siblings. As I state in my reply, I use the case of deafness not as a comparator for saviour siblings but rather to illustrate the different categories of risk that apply in selection cases Given this confusion, I restate my objection to relying on the non-identity problem in evaluating risk of harm associated with the embryo biopsy process for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Finally, I reiterate that the individual interests of saviour siblings remain important in the decision-making matrix and emphasise that Saviour Siblings offers a more contextualised approach to the welfare of the child in selective reproduction, which includes both individual and collective interests.
在他简明扼要的论证“救亲兄弟姐妹的关系方法？”中，Selgelid 重申了作者与评论家讨论我书《救亲兄弟姐妹》时提出的一些论点。在这一回应中，我强调了 Selgelid 提出的论点之一中的一个重要误解，该误解构成了他分析的很大一部分基础。与 Selgelid 所争辩的相反，我在讨论非同一性问题时并未使用耳聋案例来主张选择耳聋的案例在伦理上与救亲兄弟姐妹的案例不同。正如我在我的回复中所述，我使用耳聋案例不是为了将其与救亲兄弟姐妹进行比较，而是为了说明适用于选择案例的不同风险类别。鉴于这种混淆，我再次反对在评估与胚胎活检过程相关的伤害风险时依赖非同一性问题，因为该过程用于植入前基因诊断。最后，我再次强调，救亲兄弟姐妹的个人利益在决策矩阵中仍然很重要，并强调《救亲兄弟姐妹》在选择性生殖中为孩子的福利提供了一种更具背景化的方法，其中包括个人和集体利益。
