HOME >

賭|gamble


Tweet


◆立岩 真也 1997/09/05 『私的所有論』,勁草書房,445+66p. ISBN-10: 4326601175 ISBN-13: 978-4326601172 6300 [amazon][kinokuniya] ※
◆立岩 真也 2013/05/20 『私的所有論 第2版』,生活書院・文庫版,973p. ISBN-10: 4865000062 ISBN-13: 978-4865000061 1800+ [amazon][kinokuniya] ※
Tateiwa, Shinya(立岩 真也) 2016 On Private Property, English Version, Kyoto Books

 chap.4 note 23
  "Situations involving infertility treatments and surrogate motherhood confront us with the problem of an incessant and limitlessly expanding desire."(Ogino [1991a:141]).
 These techniques have also been referred to as the equivalent of "gambling" or an "addictive drug."
 "... you always think, just one more time. ... something you get hooked on. And just like any real junkies, you're part of a whole scene" (Solomon [1989:173 = 1991:264])
 The reason that the use of certain drugs is more strictly prohibited than gambling is that once you start taking these drugs it is very difficult to stop. In the case of reproductive technologies, however, while it may indeed be difficult to know when to give up, it is not as though the sort of dependency people develop towards addictive drugs will arise from the use of these technologies itself, and as a result these drugs and reproductive technologies cannot be treated as though they were the same. The use of these technologies is indeed a "gamble." Some people assert that such gambling should be prohibited. Should it not at least be banned in cases in which it is clearly understood that there is a high probability of loss? What is being debated here, however, is whether or not to ban gambling itself. For most people the procedures fail. For a few people they succeed. If the existence of the latter outcome is premised on that of the former, then this state of affairs might perhaps be criticized. But this is not the case here; it is not some kind of "pyramid scheme." Perhaps we should take issue with the burdens placed on the body and physical risks involved rather than the low probability of success. But there are cases, few though they may be, in which people do receive some "benefit" from these procedures. If such cases did not exist and it were claimed that they did this would constitute fraud. But in the case of these technologies it cannot be denied that for some people they do in fact succeed.

「◆23 「不妊治療や代理母の状況は、とめどなく無限に拡大していく欲望という問題を私たちにつきつける。」(荻野美穂[1991a:141])
 この技術は「賭」「麻薬」だとも言われる。
 「あと一回だけ、みんなそう考える。…やめられなくなる。本物の麻薬と同じように、生活まるごとからめとられてしまう。」(Duelli Klein ed.[1989=1991:264])
 麻薬は、いったんそれに手をつけたら自らそれを絶つことが難しいことが、賭の禁止よりも強い禁止の理由となろう。しかし生殖技術の場合、いったん始めると終わらせること、見切りをつけることが難しいのは確かだとしても、麻薬に対するような性癖が技術の利用自体によって生ずるわけではない以上、同じとすることはできない。まずこれは「賭」だ。賭を禁ずるべきであるという主張がある。失敗の可能性が高いことが明白な場合には禁じられてよいのではないか。しかし、賭を禁ずること自体が議論の対象になる。うまくいかない人の方が多い。うまくいく人の方が少ない。後者が前者を前提して成り立っているのなら、これは批判できるかもしれない。しかしそうではない。「マルチ商法」とは違う。成功率の低さではなく、身体に対する負担の大きさ、危険性の高さを問題にすべきだろうか。だが、僅かでも「恩恵」をこうむる場合はある。なければそもそも意味がなく、あるかのように言われていれば詐欺である。ただ、この技術によって成功に至る事例があることは否定できない。」


UP: REV:20160629
TOP HOME (http://www.arsvi.com)