ABSTRACT
The very idea of embryo selection is itself hotly contested by many scholars and activists involved in disability studies on the basis that it constitutes discrimination against people with impairments. These and other complex issues call for a careful examination of the nature of the right not to know. John Stuart Mill famously argued that individuals should be free to live their lives according to their own desires, as long as their actions do not harm other people. This fundamental assumption links autonomy with personal liberty, but in such a way as to contain a limiting condition, which can be referred to as the principle of non-maleficence. The presence of this limiting condition means that Mill's notion of autonomy is, by nature, prima facie and not absolute. One might respond that the right not to know is absolute by nature and therefore prevails over the prima facie right to know.
