Доклад А. Эрлера "The relevance of the treatment-enhancement distinction for the regulation of new biomedical technologies"
«Технонаука в контексте социальных ожиданий»
"The relevance of the treatment-enhancement distinction
for the regulation of new biomedical technologies"
«Влияние различия лечение / улучшение
на регулирование новых биомедицинских технологий»
23 января 2018 года Институт философии РАН, к. 416.
The treatment-enhancement distinction (TED) is frequently appealed to for the purpose of drawing an ethical boundary to shape public policy on biomedical interventions: for instance, for the sake of deciding what kinds of research into such interventions are legitimate, or which interventions we have an obligation to provide to people via medical insurance. A recent example of that approach is found in the 2017 report on human genome editing issued by the US Academies of Science and Medicine. I will argue that a certain category of interventions, which can be referred to as “therapeutic enhancements”, defy the dichotomy between treatment and enhancement often associated with the TED – at least based on the most plausible formulation of the distinction, which follows Norman Daniels’s line of thought. My conclusion will be that appeals to the TED as regulatory criterion are bound to be inadequate if they ignore the existence of such hybrid interventions. While there are alternative ways of spelling out the TED that avoid the need to recognize that special category, they have counterintuitive implications.
DPhil, Oxon, Research Assistant Professor,
CUHK Centre for Bioethics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong