Lives worth living and the danger of ignoring non-identity limits on genetic preference

In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the <i>Journal of Medical Ethics</i>, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Published
2025-08-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110888
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Lives worth living and the danger of ignoring non-identity limits on genetic preference

Marcus T. L. Teo
1 citations
Journal of Medical Ethics
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
article

Lives worth living and the danger of ignoring non-identity limits on genetic preference

Marcus T. L. Teo
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In this short paper, I detail a case against Dr Guido Pennings's latest publication in the <i>Journal of Medical Ethics</i>, titled 'The moral obligation to have genetically related children". I argue that Pennings, despite raising awareness of issues of bioethical and scientific import, fatally neglects to interact with a central debate in reproductive ethics: the non-identity problem (NIP). Taking the NIP seriously, we can see that the moral obligation that Pennings argues for falls victim to the same kinds of issues as the principle of procreative beneficence, which Pennings also cites. This response then considers the possibility of damaging upshots if Pennings's arguments were read uncritically.

Journal of Medical EthicsVol. 52(2)
National University of Singapore (SG)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.