Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Part 1 THE EXTREMELY PRETERM INFANT: EPIDEMIOLOGY, PERCEPTIONS, AND PRACTICES
- Part 2 BIOETHICS
- 14 Moral Theory
- 15 Autonomy
- 16 Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
- 17 Justice
- 18 Sanctity of Life
- 19 Active and Passive Euthanasia
- 20 Personhood
- 21 Quality of Life and Best Interests
- 22 Futility
- Part 3 REPORTS, OFFICIAL OPINIONS, AND GUIDELINES
- Part 4 THE LAW
- Part 5 EPILOGUE: TRUTH, TRUST, AND BOUNDARIES
- References
- Index
18 - Sanctity of Life
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Part 1 THE EXTREMELY PRETERM INFANT: EPIDEMIOLOGY, PERCEPTIONS, AND PRACTICES
- Part 2 BIOETHICS
- 14 Moral Theory
- 15 Autonomy
- 16 Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
- 17 Justice
- 18 Sanctity of Life
- 19 Active and Passive Euthanasia
- 20 Personhood
- 21 Quality of Life and Best Interests
- 22 Futility
- Part 3 REPORTS, OFFICIAL OPINIONS, AND GUIDELINES
- Part 4 THE LAW
- Part 5 EPILOGUE: TRUTH, TRUST, AND BOUNDARIES
- References
- Index
Summary
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the sanctity of life principle might be stated as follows:
human life is of infinite value. This in turn means that a piece of infinity is also infinite and a person who has but a few moments of life is no less of value than a person who has sixty years to live … a handicapped individual is a perfect specimen when viewed as an ethical concept. The value is an absolute value. It is not relative to life expectancy, to state of health, or to usefulness to society.(199)
The sanctity of life principle is sometimes employed in such a way that would suggest that the use of the words themselves should put an end to moral argument,(200) what could be seen as an exchange of reasoning for dogma rather than seeking an understanding of what life is, when it has moral worth, and what the relative role of other principles is. Even in a strictly religious context, in the Western tradition, the need to sustain human life, purely because it is that, is not overriding.(201–203) Glover defined the sanctity of life principle as one in which taking life is intrinsically wrong.(204) He argued that the doctrine “is not acceptable, but there is embedded in it a moral view we should retain.” He does not argue that it is not wrong to take away life, but that “conventional moral views about killing are often intellectually unsatisfactory.”
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Extreme PrematurityPractices, Bioethics and the Law, pp. 70 - 71Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006