DOCSLIB.ORG

Transhumanist Utopias

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transhumanist Utopias TRANSHUMANIST UTOPIAS: RETHINKING ENHANCEMENT AND DISABILITY By Melinda Hall Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School at Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Philosophy August, 2013 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor Kelly Oliver Professor Lisa Guenther Professor Charles Scott Professor Eva Kittay Copyright © 2013 by Melinda C. Hall All Rights Reserved This work is dedicated in memory of philosopher, feminist, and my advisor at American University, Lucinda Joy Peach iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest thanks go to Kelly Oliver, the chair of my committee and my mentor. Her “response-ability” and the generosity with which she gives of her time, energy and resources are truly astounding. Thanks are also due to Lisa Guenther, who provided me with detailed and invaluable comments on earlier drafts (the impact of which is sprinkled throughout these pages), and to Charles Scott, whose incredible kindness supported me at key moments in my project. Eva Kittay generously agreed to read this project; my admiration of her work stems from my time as an undergraduate philosophy major—she helped clarify my interest in philosophical issues surrounding disability. I am grateful to my friends and fellow graduate students at Vanderbilt University, who were always remarkably ready with listening ears and friendly beers. I was also sustained by my family, especially my mother Linda’s willingness to read every word I write. The final product and truly, my work in graduate school, would not have been possible without the support of Steven Smallpage. He encourages me in every way. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS* Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv Chapter INTRODUCTION: WHY ENHANCEMENT? BIOETHICS AND TRANSHUMANISM ........................................................................................................................................... vii Contemporary Debate ............................................................................................ ix Transhumanism .................................................................................................... xxi Methodology ......................................................................................................... xli Chapter Outline ................................................................................................... xliv I: FROM PHYSICAL CULTURE TO GENETIC CULTURE: A GENEALOGY OF GENE-OLOGY....................................................................................................................1 The Quest for Enhancement: Anchors in History and Culture ................................2 Physical Culture, Discipline, and Healthy Choices .................................................5 The Birth of Endocrinology ...................................................................................15 Post-War Rehabilitation of Eugenic Ideals ............................................................19 Genetic Visions ......................................................................................................24 Conclusion .............................................................................................................40 II: NEGATIVE GENETIC SELECTION: ENHANCING RISK, ENHANCING DISABILITY .....................................................................................................................45 Explanation of Terms .............................................................................................50 Procreative Beneficence .........................................................................................53 The Disability Critique ..........................................................................................58 On Whom Does the Onus Rest? ............................................................................72 Enhancing Risk, Enhancing Disability ..................................................................87 Rationing ..............................................................................................................100 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................102 III: MODELS OF DISABILITY: MEDICAL, SOCIAL, POLITICAL ..........................106 Thinking Disability ..............................................................................................107 Models of Disability ............................................................................................113 Social Constructions of Disability .......................................................................132 Stigma and Identity ..............................................................................................135 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................144 v IV: RECIPROCITY AND TROPE: DISABILITY AND LIBERALISM ......................145 John Rawls and the Heritage of Liberalism .........................................................146 A Contractualist Account of Liberalism ..............................................................148 The Magic Negro, Black Oppression, and Disability Oppression .......................157 Possibilities for Transformed Theorizing ............................................................167 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................175 CONCLUSION: TRANSHUMANIST UTOPIAS IN CONTEXT .................................177 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................182 *Note on the contents: chapter two is a revised version of “Reconciling the Disability Critique and Reproductive Liberty: The Case of Negative Genetic Selection,” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 121-143. Reprinted here by permission of copyright holder, Indiana University Press. Material appearing in the Introduction will also appear in “Vile Sovereigns in Bioethical Debate,” forthcoming in the Disability Studies Quarterly Special Issue: “Improving Feminist Philosophy and Theory by Taking Account of Disability” (September 2013). vi INTRODUCTION WHY ENHANCEMENT? BIOETHICS AND TRANSHUMANISM Enhancement is the use of medical and technological strategies to augment human traits. The strategy of genetic enhancement, perhaps the most controversial, would use genetic engineering technology to achieve this end. Bioethicist John Harris claims that enhancement is good and desirable by definition; according to him, “if it wasn’t good for you it wouldn’t be enhancement” (2011, 131). Yet, “enhancement” is a loose concept that could apply to a variety of things humans can use; for example, anything from shoes and caffeine to neural implants and prosthetics could count as enhancements (e.g. Buchanan 2011, Preface and Bostrom and Savulescu 2011, 2). Indeed, for some proponents of enhancement, the moral acceptability of enhancement strategies stems directly from their supposed similarity to everyday activities of improvement, such as learning (cf. Bostrom and Savulescu 2011, 3).1 Ethically separating, for example, strength training and steroids seems to require uneasy notions of the “natural” or the “authentic,” wherein strength training is morally acceptable while steroids involve “cheating.” Or, the invocation of the long-contested divide between therapy and enhancement could separate reconstructive plastic surgery from cosmetic plastic surgery. Some bioethicists maintain that only therapeutic or natural “enhancements” are morally acceptable, while others such as Harris argue that all enhancements are not only morally acceptable but also possibly morally obligatory. 1 Some counter that novel medical interventions are a unique set of means for everyday ends – i.e., beauty (social acceptability) and the like (e.g. Parens 1998). vii Meanwhile, many feminists and disability theorists find it suspect that critics of enhancement often seem forced to prove why one shouldn’t do what is obviously good for one or one’s children (Buchanan et al. 2000, Ch. 5; Ida 2011, Sandel 2004 and 2007). Usually debates over enhancement are debates over what types of enhancements are morally acceptable. Many times they revolve around the difference between negative eugenics, which aims to cure diseases and prevent so-called birth defects, and positive eugenics, which aims, in Harris’s words, to “make better people.” I seek to reframe these debates in terms of the explicit and implicit goals and desired futures proposed by proponents of enhancement. Rather than enter debates over where we should draw the lines between therapeutic interventions or enhancements, negative or positive eugenics, I critically analyze the ways that proponents’ discussions of the ethics of enhancement for humans not only involves specific goals and desired futures, but also are often less about available technology than potential technology deemed worthy of investment. For them, investment in the research and development of potential futures becomes a moral obligation. I argue that the burden in the debate should fall to proponents of enhancement, not critics, especially in light of the goals of proposed enhancements themselves, which often are couched in fantasies of possible transhuman futures that presuppose
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Susan W. Brenner, At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 379 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0379 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97. No. 2 Copyright 0 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity. Schoolof Low Printedin U.S.A. "AT LIGHT SPEED": ATTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TO CYBERCRIME/TERRORISM/WARFARE SUSAN W. BRENNER* This Article explains why and how computer technology complicates the related processes of identifying internal (crime and terrorism) and external (war) threats to social order of respondingto those threats. First, it divides the process-attribution-intotwo categories: what-attribution (what kind of attack is this?) and who-attribution (who is responsiblefor this attack?). Then, it analyzes, in detail, how and why our adversaries' use of computer technology blurs the distinctions between what is now cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare. The Article goes on to analyze how and why computer technology and the blurring of these distinctions erode our ability to mount an effective response to threats of either type.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Westworld
    “We Don’t Know Exactly How They Work”: Making Sense of Technophobia in 1973 Westworld, Futureworld, and Beyond Westworld Stefano Bigliardi Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane - Morocco Abstract This article scrutinizes Michael Crichton’s movie Westworld (1973), its sequel Futureworld (1976), and the spin-off series Beyond Westworld (1980), as well as the critical literature that deals with them. I examine whether Crichton’s movie, its sequel, and the 1980s series contain and convey a consistent technophobic message according to the definition of “technophobia” advanced in Daniel Dinello’s 2005 monograph. I advance a proposal to develop further the concept of technophobia in order to offer a more satisfactory and unified interpretation of the narratives at stake. I connect technophobia and what I call de-theologized, epistemic hubris: the conclusion is that fearing technology is philosophically meaningful if one realizes that the limitations of technology are the consequence of its creation and usage on behalf of epistemically limited humanity (or artificial minds). Keywords: Westworld, Futureworld, Beyond Westworld, Michael Crichton, androids, technology, technophobia, Daniel Dinello, hubris. 1. Introduction The 2016 and 2018 HBO series Westworld by Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy has spawned renewed interest in the 1973 movie with the same title by Michael Crichton (1942-2008), its 1976 sequel Futureworld by Richard T. Heffron (1930-2007), and the short-lived 1980 MGM TV series Beyond Westworld. The movies and the series deal with androids used for recreational purposes and raise questions about technology and its risks. I aim at an as-yet unattempted comparative analysis taking the narratives at stake as technophobic tales: each one conveys a feeling of threat and fear related to technological beings and environments.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Electric Amateurs Literary encounters with computing technologies 1987-2001 Dorothy Butchard PhD in English Literature The University of Edinburgh 2015 DECLARATION is is to certify that the work contained within has been composed by me and is entirely my own work. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or professional quali"cation. ABSTRACT is thesis considers the portrayal of uncertain or amateur encounters with new technologies in the late twentieth century. Focusing on "ctional responses to the incipient technological and cultural changes wrought by the rise of the personal computer, I demonstrate how authors during this period drew on experiences of empowerment and uncertainty to convey the impact of a period of intense technological transition. From the increasing availability of word processing software in the 1980s to the exponential popularity of the “World Wide Web”, I explore how perceptions of an “information revolution” tended to emphasise the increasing speed, ease and expansiveness of global communications, while more doubtful commentators expressed anxieties about the pace and effects of technological change.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement
    18 TheWisdomofNature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg∗ Abstract Human beings are a marvel of evolved complexity. Such systems can be difficult to enhance. When we manipulate complex evolved systems, which are poorly understood, our interventions often fail or backfire. It can appear as if there is a ‘‘wisdom of nature’’ which we ignore at our peril. Sometimes the belief in nature’s wisdom—and corresponding doubts about the prudence of tampering with nature, especially human nature—manifest as diffusely moral objections against enhancement. Such objections may be expressed as intuitions about the superiority of the natural or the troublesomeness of hubris, or as an evaluative bias in favor of the status quo. This chapter explores the extent to which such prudence-derived anti-enhancement sentiments are justified. We develop a heuristic, inspired by the field of evolutionary medicine, for identifying promising human enhancement interventions. The heuristic incorporates the grains of truth contained in ‘‘nature knows best’’ attitudes while providing criteria for the special cases where we have reason to believe that it is feasible for us to improve on nature. 1.Introduction 1.1. The wisdom of nature, and the special problem of enhancement We marvel at the complexity of the human organism, how its various parts have evolved to solve intricate problems: the eye to collect and pre-process ∗ Oxford Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy and James Martin 21st Century School, Oxford University. Forthcoming in Enhancing Humans, ed. Julian Savulescu and Nick Bostrom (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 376 visual information, the immune system to fight infection and cancer, the lungs to oxygenate the blood.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Technological Idealisations to Future Ethical Thinking 81-83
    1 The Value of Technological Idealisations to Future Ethical Thinking By Adam Kelly A thesis submitted to Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Victoria University of Wellington 2016 Year of Submission 2 3 Acknowledgements My work in this thesis owes much credit to my sole supervisor Nick Agar and fellow student Johnny McDonald. I would like to thank Nick for his encouragement, guidance and criticism. I would like to thank Nick and Johnny both for many enjoyable discussions, some of which were even related to this thesis. 4 Abstract This thesis focuses on what I have called “technological idealisations”, and how they are valuable to many current and future ethical debates. Technological idealisations refer to a methodology of using technology thought experiments to contribute to ethical debates. I do not claim this to be a new idea, and in fact will go on to give many examples of technological idealisation that already exist in the philosophical literature. The term describes the purposeful effort to collate these examples into a specific methodological framework; one which gives a particular kind of evidence which can ignore concerns of practicality and critically focus on the theoretical issues in a given debate. In order to explore this idea I will first be looking at past, better known, examples of idealisations to facilitate understanding of my own. I will look at Rawlsian ideal theory as a template for my own idealisations, as well as to explain how they can be valuable in contributing to debates (in Rawls’ case political and in my case ethical).
    [Show full text]
  • The Disappearing Human: Gnostic Dreams in a Transhumanist World
    religions Article The Disappearing Human: Gnostic Dreams in a Transhumanist World Jeffrey C. Pugh Department of Religious Studies, Elon University, Elon, NC 27244-2020, USA; [email protected] Academic Editor: Noreen Herzfeld Received: 25 January 2017; Accepted: 18 April 2017; Published: 3 May 2017 Abstract: Transhumanism is dedicated to freeing humankind from the limitations of biological life, creating new bodies that will carry us into the future. In seeking freedom from the constraints of nature, it resembles ancient Gnosticism, but complicates the question of what the human being is. In contrast to the perspective that we are our brains, I argue that human consciousness and subjectivity originate from complex interactions between the body and the surrounding environment. These qualities emerge from a distinct set of structural couplings embodied within multiple organ systems and the multiplicity of connections within the brain. These connections take on different forms, including structural, chemical, and electrical manifestations within the totality of the human body. This embodiment suggests that human consciousness, and the intricate levels of experience that accompany it, cannot be replicated in non-organic forms such as computers or synaptic implants without a significant loss to human identity. The Gnostic desire to escape our embodiment found in transhumanism carries the danger of dissolving the human being. Keywords: Singularity; transhumanism; Merleau-Ponty; Kurzweil; Gnosticism; AI; emergence; technology 1. Introduction In 1993, the mathematician and science fiction writer Vernor Vinge gave a talk at the Vision 21 symposium sponsored by NASA introducing the idea of the Singularity, an evolutionary moment when we would create the capacity for superhuman intelligence that would transcend the human and take us into the posthuman world (Vinge 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge of the Techno-Human Condition
    Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control. Inspired by Foucault’s, Agamben’s of the Techno-Human Condition and Esposito’s writings about biopower and biopolitics, Life Redesigning the author sees both positions as equally problematic, as both presuppose the existence of a stable, autonomous subject capable of making decisions concerning the future of human nature, while in the age of genetic technology the nature of this subjectivity shall be less an origin than an effect of such decisions. Bringing together a biopolitical critique of the way this controversial issue has been dealt with in liberal moral and political philosophy with a philosophical analysis of the nature of and the relation between life, politics, and technology, the author sets out to outline the contours of a more responsible engagement with genetic technologies based on the idea that technology is an intrinsic condition of humanity. Nathan VAN CAMP Nathan VAN Philosophy Philosophy Nathan Van Camp is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. He focuses on continental philosophy, political theory, biopolitics, and critical theory. & Politics ISBN 978-2-87574-281-0 Philosophie & Politique 27 www.peterlang.com P.I.E. Peter Lang Nathan VAN CAMP Redesigning Life The emerging development of genetic enhancement technologies has recently become the focus of a public and philosophical debate between proponents and opponents of a liberal eugenics – that is, the use of Eugenics, Biopolitics, and the Challenge these technologies without any overall direction or governmental control.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transhumanist Reader Is an Important, Provocative Compendium Critically Exploring the History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Transhumanism
    TH “We are in the process of upgrading the human species, so we might as well do it E Classical and Contemporary with deliberation and foresight. A good first step is this book, which collects the smartest thinking available concerning the inevitable conflicts, challenges and opportunities arising as we re-invent ourselves. It’s a core text for anyone making TRA Essays on the Science, the future.” —Kevin Kelly, Senior Maverick for Wired Technology, and Philosophy “Transhumanism has moved from a fringe concern to a mainstream academic movement with real intellectual credibility. This is a great taster of some of the best N of the Human Future emerging work. In the last 10 years, transhumanism has spread not as a religion but as a creative rational endeavor.” SHU —Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of Oxford “The Transhumanist Reader is an important, provocative compendium critically exploring the history, philosophy, and ethics of transhumanism. The contributors anticipate crucial biopolitical, ecological and planetary implications of a radically technologically enhanced population.” M —Edward Keller, Director, Center for Transformative Media, Parsons The New School for Design A “This important book contains essays by many of the top thinkers in the field of transhumanism. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in the future of humankind.” N —Sonia Arrison, Best-selling author of 100 Plus: How The Coming Age of Longevity Will Change Everything IS The rapid pace of emerging technologies is playing an increasingly important role in T overcoming fundamental human limitations. The Transhumanist Reader presents the first authoritative and comprehensive survey of the origins and current state of transhumanist Re thinking regarding technology’s impact on the future of humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Thinking and the Human: Introduction
    Journal of the Philosophy of History 14 (2020) 285–309 brill.com/jph Historical Thinking and the Human: Introduction Marek Tamm Professor of Cultural History, School of Humanities, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia [email protected] Zoltán Boldizsár Simon Assistant Professor, Institute for History, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands Research Fellow, Faculty of History, Philosophy and Theology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany [email protected] Abstract In recent years the age-old question “what is the human?” has acquired a new acute- ness and novel dimensions. In introducing the special issue on “Historical Thinking and the Human”, this article argues that there are two main trends behind the con- temporary “crisis of human”: ecological transformations (related to human-induced climate change and planetary environmental challenges), and technological ones (including advancements in human enhancement, biotechnology and artificial intel- ligence). After discussing the respective anthropocenic and technoscientific redefini- tions of the human, the paper theorizes three elements in an emerging new historicity of the human: first, the move from a fixed category to a dynamic and indeterminate concept, considering the human as a lifeform in movement; second, the extent to which the human is conceived of in its relational dependence on various non-human agents, organic and non-organic; and third, the reconceptualization of the human not as one but as many, to comprehend that we cannot speak of human individuality in the classical biological sense. In the final part, the article addresses the consequences of the redefinition of the human for historical thinking. It makes the case for the need to elaborate a new notion of history – captured by the phrase “more-than-human his- tory”, and attuned to an emerging planetary regime of historicity in which historical thinking becomes able to affirm multiple temporalities: digital, technoscientific, socio- cultural, human, biological and anthropocenic.
    [Show full text]
  • Drawing the Line: Disability, Genetic Intervention and Bioethics
    laws Article Drawing the Line: Disability, Genetic Intervention and Bioethics Adam Conti Graduate student, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham St., Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia; [email protected] Received: 2 June 2017; Accepted: 10 July 2017; Published: 17 July 2017 Abstract: Meteoric scientific advances in genetic technologies with the potential for human gene editing intervention pose tremendous legal, medical, social, ethical and moral issues for society as a whole. Persons with disabilities in particular have a significant stake in determining how these technologies are governed at the international, domestic and individual levels in the future. However, the law cannot easily keep up with the rate of scientific progression. This paper aims to posit a methodology of reform, based on a core value of human dignity, as the optimal course of action to ensure that the interests of persons with disabilities, other possibly marginalised groups, and the scientific community, are balanced fairly. The paper critically analyses the current law and varying bioethical perspectives to ultimately conclude that a clear principled approach toward open discussion and consensus is of paramount importance to have any chance of devising an effective regulatory regime over human gene editing technology. Keywords: disability; human rights; genetics; gene editing; bioethics; governance; human dignity; eugenics; germline; Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities The true good is in the different, not the same (Menand 2004). 1. Introduction Popular, professional and scholarly interest in genetics and their influence on human variability, behaviour and development has grown exponentially in recent years. In no small part has this interest been bolstered by mainstream media coverage of large-scale collaborative scientific initiatives like the Human Genome Project, which endeavoured to identify and map the human genome and determine the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up our DNA.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Catastrophic Risks Survey
    GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS SURVEY (2008) Technical Report 2008/1 Published by Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom At the Global Catastrophic Risk Conference in Oxford (17‐20 July, 2008) an informal survey was circulated among participants, asking them to make their best guess at the chance that there will be disasters of different types before 2100. This report summarizes the main results. The median extinction risk estimates were: Risk At least 1 million At least 1 billion Human extinction dead dead Number killed by 25% 10% 5% molecular nanotech weapons. Total killed by 10% 5% 5% superintelligent AI. Total killed in all 98% 30% 4% wars (including civil wars). Number killed in 30% 10% 2% the single biggest engineered pandemic. Total killed in all 30% 10% 1% nuclear wars. Number killed in 5% 1% 0.5% the single biggest nanotech accident. Number killed in 60% 5% 0.05% the single biggest natural pandemic. Total killed in all 15% 1% 0.03% acts of nuclear terrorism. Overall risk of n/a n/a 19% extinction prior to 2100 These results should be taken with a grain of salt. Non‐responses have been omitted, although some might represent a statement of zero probability rather than no opinion. 1 There are likely to be many cognitive biases that affect the result, such as unpacking bias and the availability heuristic‒‐well as old‐fashioned optimism and pessimism. In appendix A the results are plotted with individual response distributions visible. Other Risks The list of risks was not intended to be inclusive of all the biggest risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript(PDF 68.39
    TRANSCRIPT STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES Inquiry into end-of-life choices Melbourne — 19 August 2015 Members Mr Edward O’Donohue — Chair Mr Daniel Mulino Ms Nina Springle — Deputy Chair Ms Fiona Patten Ms Margaret Fitzherbert Mrs Inga Peulich Mr Cesar Melhem Ms Jaclyn Symes Participating Members Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips Staff Secretary: Ms Lilian Topic Research assistants: Ms Annemarie Burt and Ms Kim Martinow Witness Professor Julian Savulescu. 19 August 2015 Standing Committee on Legal and Social Issues 1 The CHAIR — I declare open the Legislative Council’s legal and social issues committee public hearing in relation to the inquiry into end-of-life choices. I welcome Professor Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro chair in practical ethics; director, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics; director, Oxford Centre for Neuroethics; Sir Louis Matheson distinguished visiting professor, Monash University; doctoris honoris causa, University of Bucharest. Professor, we are very pleased you could join us tonight. Before we start I caution that all evidence taken at this hearing is protected by parliamentary privilege as provided by the Constitution Act 1975 and further subject to the provisions of the Legislative Council’s standing orders. Therefore you are protected against any action for what you say here today, but any comments made outside the hearing are not afforded such privilege. Today’s evidence is being recorded. You will be provided with proof versions of the transcript within the next week. Transcripts will ultimately be made public and posted on the committee’s website. We have allowed an hour for our session tonight, so I invite you to make some opening remarks and an opening statement, and thereafter the committee will have questions.
    [Show full text]