The book under review is a significant contribution to the discussion on the ethics of human reproduction, particularly in light of the controversies surrounding the Warnock Report. While many of its recommendations align with those of the Warnock Committee, such as the legitimacy of AID children and the need for a licensing authority for AID and IVF centres, others diverge. The authors place greater emphasis on the family as an institution and are more aware of the social risks associated with new reproductive technologies. However, the book's recommendations for legislative action lack sufficient ethical justification, as they are based more on sociological considerations than on ethical ones. For example, the authors acknowledge the objectionability of experimenting on human embryos but recommend that such experimentation should only occur if it is in the public interest, which seems inconsistent with the view that embryos are human beings. The authors' focus on sociological issues may lead them to overlook crucial moral considerations, adopting a consequentialist approach that is questionable. Despite this, the book is valuable as a social investigation and is free from pretentious jargon. Bernard Williams' "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" is a philosophical work that discusses moral philosophy's relevance to medical practice. While it offers discussions of concepts like harm, consent, and quality of life, it is not accessible to lay readers due to its abstract nature. The book presents two main theories: one that distinguishes between ethical and moral questions, and another that criticizes modern moral philosophy for not being well-suited to the modern world. While the book is critical of moral philosophy's relevance, it acknowledges that some moral philosophy does adjust to modern problems. The author argues that moral philosophy needs to be more practical, focusing on what scientists, doctors, and economists actually say rather than abstract distinctions between ethics and morality. A case study about Cecily Pembroke was received without a covering letter, and the editor is requesting the sender to contact them for identification.The book under review is a significant contribution to the discussion on the ethics of human reproduction, particularly in light of the controversies surrounding the Warnock Report. While many of its recommendations align with those of the Warnock Committee, such as the legitimacy of AID children and the need for a licensing authority for AID and IVF centres, others diverge. The authors place greater emphasis on the family as an institution and are more aware of the social risks associated with new reproductive technologies. However, the book's recommendations for legislative action lack sufficient ethical justification, as they are based more on sociological considerations than on ethical ones. For example, the authors acknowledge the objectionability of experimenting on human embryos but recommend that such experimentation should only occur if it is in the public interest, which seems inconsistent with the view that embryos are human beings. The authors' focus on sociological issues may lead them to overlook crucial moral considerations, adopting a consequentialist approach that is questionable. Despite this, the book is valuable as a social investigation and is free from pretentious jargon. Bernard Williams' "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" is a philosophical work that discusses moral philosophy's relevance to medical practice. While it offers discussions of concepts like harm, consent, and quality of life, it is not accessible to lay readers due to its abstract nature. The book presents two main theories: one that distinguishes between ethical and moral questions, and another that criticizes modern moral philosophy for not being well-suited to the modern world. While the book is critical of moral philosophy's relevance, it acknowledges that some moral philosophy does adjust to modern problems. The author argues that moral philosophy needs to be more practical, focusing on what scientists, doctors, and economists actually say rather than abstract distinctions between ethics and morality. A case study about Cecily Pembroke was received without a covering letter, and the editor is requesting the sender to contact them for identification.