Freeman J S
Institutional Review Board, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, USA.
J Med Philos. 1996 Feb;21(1):61-81. doi: 10.1093/jmp/21.1.61.
One frequent argument in the debate over federal funding of human embryo research is the slippery slope argument. Slope arguments can be of several types: either logical, empirical, or full (a combination of logical and empirical slope arguments, with an additional psychological premise). A full slope argument against human embryo research suggests that funding embryo research could undermine current protections for human subjects research, erode respect for persons with disabilities, and encourage eugenics practices. While the Panel commissioned by the National Institutes of Health to issue funding guidelines regarding human embryo research acknowledges some slippery slope concerns, the Panel's final report fails to address such concerns in any depth. Given this failure seriously to address these valid concerns, federal funding of embryo research should not proceed at this time.
在关于联邦政府对人类胚胎研究提供资金的辩论中,一个常见的论点是滑坡论证。滑坡论证可以有几种类型:逻辑型、经验型或完整型(逻辑型和经验型滑坡论证的结合,并附加一个心理前提)。一个反对人类胚胎研究的完整滑坡论证表明,为胚胎研究提供资金可能会破坏目前对人体研究对象的保护,侵蚀对残疾人的尊重,并助长优生学做法。虽然美国国立卫生研究院委托发布有关人类胚胎研究资金指南的小组承认了一些滑坡方面的担忧,但该小组的最终报告未能深入探讨这些担忧。鉴于未能认真解决这些合理担忧,目前不应进行联邦政府对胚胎研究的资金投入。