@article{4109100,
  abstract     = {{Recent developments in biogerontology—the study of the biology of ageing—suggest that it may eventually be possible to intervene in the human ageing process. This, in turn, offers the prospect of significantly postponing the onset of age-related diseases. The biogerontological project, however, has met with strong resistance, especially by deontologists. They consider the act of intervening in the ageing process impermissible on the grounds that it would (most probably) bring about an extended maximum lifespan—a state of affairs that they deem intrinsically bad. In a bid to convince their deontological opponents of the permissibility of this act, proponents of biogerontology invoke an argument which is grounded in the doctrine of double effect. Surprisingly, their argument, which we refer to as the ‘double effect argument’, has gone unnoticed. This article exposes and critically evaluates this ‘double effect argument’. To this end, we first review a series of excerpts from the ethical debate on biogerontology in order to substantiate the presence of double effect reasoning. Next, we attempt to determine the role that the ‘double effect argument’ is meant to fulfil within this debate. Finally, we assess whether the act of intervening in ageing actually can be justified using double effect reasoning.}},
  author       = {{Capitaine, Laura and Devolder, Katrien and Pennings, Guido}},
  issn         = {{1386-7415}},
  journal      = {{THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS}},
  keywords     = {{LONGEVITY,Double effect principle,BIOGERONTOLOGY,PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE,Geriatrics,Longevity,Biomedical enhancement}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{207--226}},
  title        = {{Lifespan extension and the doctrine of double effect}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-013-9257-1}},
  volume       = {{34}},
  year         = {{2013}},
}

Altmetric

View in Altmetric

Web of Science

Times cited: