Advertisement

The Sanctity of Human Life: Secular Moral Authority, Biomedicine, and the Role of the State

  • Kevin WM. Wildes
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 52)

Abstract

In his commentary on English law Sir William Blackstone notes that the law of nature, the moral law, is one of the foundations of the civil law. The civil law builds upon the moral duties one has to God, neighbor, and the self and it fulfills a remedial function when people violate the natural laws or fail in their moral duties ([5], pp. 42–55). This view of the law is ably articulated in our own century by Lord Patrick Devlin who understood that the state should “compel a man to act for his own good” ([13], p. 136). This view of the state presumes that society can know what the good for each man is and has the moral authority to enforce it. However, moral controversies, such as those in biomedicine, which turn on disputes over differing understandings of the good, moral virtue, or moral duty, raise questions about the moral authority of the state to resolve such controversies.

Keywords

Moral Dilemma Moral Duty Paradigm Case Moral Vision Moral Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Ambrose: 1879, ‘De Dignitate Conditionis Humanae’, in J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completes, Series II: Ecclesia latina, Vol. 17, Gamier, Paris, column 1105–1108.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Thoracic Society: 1991, ‘Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy’, American Review of Respiratory Diseases 144, 726–731.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aquinas, T.: 1948, Summa Theologica, Christian Classics, Westminster, Maryland.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J.: 1989, Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Third Edition), Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackstone, W.: 1969 Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker (ed.), Vol. V., August M. Kelley, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michael J. Bowers v. Michael Hardwick, U.S.L.W., 4919 (U.S., June 30, 1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyle, J.: 1989, ‘Sanctity of life and suicide: tensions and developments within common morality’, in B. A. Brody (ed.), Suicide and Euthanasia, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 221–250.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brody, B.A.: 1988, Life and Death Decisionmaking, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clouser, K.D.: 1973, ‘The sanctity of life — an analysis of a concept’, Annals of Internal Medicine 78, 119–125.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook, J.: 1893, Captain Cook’s Journal 1768–71, Capt. W.S.L. Wharton (ed.), Elliot Stock, London.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nancy Beth Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 110 s.Ct. 284, 58 U.S.L.W., 4916 (U.S. June 26, 1990).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408 (MO.Banc 1988).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devlin, P.: 1965, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donovan, M.A.: 1988, ‘Alive to the glory of God: a key insight into St. Irenaeus’, Theological Studies 49, 283–297.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engelhardt, H.T.: 1986, The Foundations of Bio ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frankena, W.: 1977, ‘The ethics of respect for life’, in O. Temkin, W.K. Frankena and S.H. Kadish (eds.), Respect for Life, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp. 24–62.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hastings Center: 1985, Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues Pertaining to Solid Organ Procurement: A Report of the Project on Organ Transplantation, The Hastings Center, Hastings-on-the-Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Irenaeus: 1979, ‘Against heresies’, in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, W. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jonsen, A. and Toulmin, S.: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lyotard, Jean-François: 1984, The Postmodern Condition, Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maclntyre, A.: 1981, After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maclntyre, A.: 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1978, The Belmont Report, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, No. (OS) 78–0012 Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Payton, S.: 1992, ‘The concept of the person in the Parens Patria jurisdiction over previously competent persons’, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17, 605–645.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Society of Critical Care Medicine: 1990, ‘Consensus report on the ethics of foregoing life-sustaining treatments in the critically ill’, Critical Care Medicine 18, 1435–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wildes, S.J., K.: 1993, ‘The priesthood of bioethics and the return of casuistry’, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18, 33–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin WM. Wildes
    • 1
  1. 1.Kennedy InstituteGeorgetown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations