Premium
Avoiding the slippery slope in ethics and bioethics: ‘ought’ entails ‘can’ and vice versa
Author(s) -
Tulloch Gail
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
nursing inquiry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.66
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1440-1800
pISSN - 1320-7881
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-1800.1996.tb00045.x
Subject(s) - slippery slope , bioethics , versa , environmental ethics , sociology , engineering ethics , epistemology , law , political science , philosophy , computer science , engineering , database
This article addresses the slippery slope argument in ethics and bioethics, and demonstrates that a lack of consensus about human nature and what constitutes a person contributes to its frequent use in such areas. Rationality and autonomy are contrasted with sentience, and a utilitarian quality of life approach with a deontological sanctity of life approach as defining criteria of personhood. It is argued that the concept ‘quality of life’ is itself a slippery slope. Genetic engineering is discussed as a paradigm of the slippery slope argument in use, as well as IVF, and the distinction between experimental and therapeutic research—both issues of concern to feminists. Australia has been a leader of scientific research in the new reproductive technologies, with regulative thinking following the technological breakthroughs. The question is posed whether biotechnology will repeat a similar pattern.