This article continues the rejection of certain myths about the right to life at the end of life commenced in an article in the previous issue of the journal Clinical Ethics. It focuses upon ethical arguments that seek to exclude two categories of human beings from the usual protection of human life: those described as ‘non-persons’ and those ‘designated for death’. The article argues that, while the protection offered to life by means of the right to life is far from absolute, the right remains applicable to all human beings, irrespective of their life expectancy or mental capacity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WicksE. Challenging some myths about the right to life at the end of life. 1: Not an absolute right. Clin Ethics2011;6:167–71
2.
For an interesting debate on the personhood theory in medical ethics, seeFordM. The personhood paradox and the ‘Right to Die’. Med L Rev2005;13;80and Harris J. The right to die lives! There is no personhood paradox. Med L Rev 2005;13:386
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
See, for example, LynnJT. On medical uncertainty. Am J Med1994;96;186
12.
13.
This will only be permissible in very limited circumstances, however, and there is not room in this current article for a full investigation of this issue. SeeWicksE. The Right to Life and Conflicting Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, Chapter 6, where I argue that one life may be taken to save another if there will be a net gain in human life, provided that the intervening action only diverts an existing threat, and does not entail an infringement of an individual's rights such as to treat him or her as a means to an end. If these conditions are met, then a utilitarian action to ensure a net gain in human life may be justified. In the conjoined twins’ case, Mary's death may be justified if it is viewed as the only means, and a last resort, in order to save Jodie's life in circumstances where otherwise both would die and her death does not involve the downgrading of her life to one of mere instrumental value to another person
14.
KorffD. The Right to Life: A Guide to Implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human. Rights (Human Rights Handbook No. 8). Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2006
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
HarrisJ. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. London: Routledge, 1985:8
21.
22.
23.
SeeBeyleveldD, BrownswordR. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 46
