• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11

Human Rights and Human Beings: The Law on Abortion and What it is to be Human

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Human rights are based on human beings. Discuss with reference to both the law on abortion and on the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland, House of Lords (1993). What it is to be human has been a philosophical, political, and religious debate that has lasted for centuries, and continues to this day. It is apparent that in order to determine the purpose of human rights, we must first determine what constitutes a 'human being;' that is to say, when does 'life' begin, and even, when does one's humanity end? I contend that there are no correct answer to these questions, merely opinions supported by arguments and on occasion the odd 'fact', scientific, religious, or otherwise. Every individual must answer these questions for his- or herself; however, in order to ensure that human rights are enforced it has become essential that the government take a stand regarding the answer to the aforementioned queries so that it may be known to whom these rights apply. In this essay I will refer to the arguments set forth by pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike, referencing the many podiums from which they stem, and consider case law applicable to abortion and euthanasia. I will also analyse the 18611, 19292, and 19673 Acts and their implications on women's rights, as well as the European Convention for Human Rights. In order to appropriately approach the title statement it is necessary to determine exactly what constitutes a human being. This task, however, is much easier said than done, particularly regarding determining the moment when human life, as far as human rights are concerned, begins. For the purposes of this essay, I will henceforth refer to human beings for whom human rights apply as 'persons,' which allows me to freely use the term 'human being' with reference to the biological body of a person, free from their individual personality, capacity for thought, and experiences. ...read more.

Middle

In my opinion, as far as the law and application of human rights are concerned, I believe this point in gestation is about accurate regarding when a person's individuality begins and whether or not a woman should be entitled to an abortion. After this point I find it difficult to support the need for abortion outside of extraneous circumstances that have already been outlined in the 1967 Act. A very interesting perspective exists regarding when life as a 'person' begins with reference to the electrical output of the central nervous system. That is to say, human death, at least in the United States, is agreed to occur in many states at the point at which there is no longer electrical activity in the brain (or the brain has 'flat-lined'). In such an instance, even though the body may be sustained through various machines, the 'person' in all his conscious and meaningful being no longer exists, and is considered dead. It seems logical to say that if life as a person ends when electricity has stopped flowing through the brain, then life as a person must begin when this same electrical functioning occurs for the first time, around 22 weeks gestation. It is arguable that at this point, because higher levels of functioning have begun to develop, the foetus may be capable of greater sensory perception and even possibly feeling, and therefore it is possible that the deadline the Abortion Act sets may be a couple of weeks too late. I would therefore argue that life as a person, for the purposes of the legal application of human rights, ought to be considered at the moment of gestation during which the brain's higher functioning begins to work: 22 weeks. After this point I believe the law should remain extremely stringent regarding the rights of the unborn child, as it is capable, particularly from 24 weeks onwards, of sustaining a viable existence independent of the mother. ...read more.

Conclusion

differ greatly from the action of 'inflicting' death through merciful mechanisms? When the patient is in a position to die regardless, particularly when medical treatment is stopped or when the individual would have committed suicide but is physically incapable of doing it for himself, does omission and action truly make that much difference? According to the law as it stands it does, particularly because acting in such away as to accelerate death is considered to be an act of murder at best; why is this not the case in places like Belgium and Switzerland, where euthanasia has been legalized and the amount of assisted deaths has not fallen down a 'slippery slope' as many euthanasia protestors fear? Ronald Dworkin, as well as the House of Lords, approached the issue of a person's right to death from a three-fold perspective: self-determination (or autonomy), best interests, and sanctity of life. Hoffman L.J. recognises this in his judgement in the House of Lords: "Thus it seems to me that we are faced with conflicting ethical principles. On the one hand, Anthony Bland is alive and the principle of the sanctity of life says that we should not deliberately allow him to die. On the other hand, Anthony Bland is an individual human being and the principle of self-determination says he should be allowed to choose for himself and that, if he is unable to express his choice, we should try our honest best to do what we think he would have chosen."14 The three aforementioned points of the morality triangle are difficult to place in order of relevance when determining the fate of an individual's existence as a human being. However, if and when we are forced to choose I contend that the method that best supports a person's human rights, particularly as set out in the ECHR, is that method which supports first autonomy, then best interests, and then sanctity of life. That is not to say that any one of these principles ought to be entirely ignored for the sake of another. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Human Rights Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Human Rights Law essays

  1. Have the courts helped the Human Rights Act achieve its objectives?

    In so doing, it preserves some of the valuable restrictions on the use of sexual history evidence contained in s.41, whilst simultaneously protecting the right to a fair trial under Art.6 ECHR"25 I disagree; the act was a clear policy decided by our democratically elected Parliament; therefore this clearly conflicts with the objectives of the Human Rights Act.

  2. Disability - With reference to a topic of your choice, assess the effect of ...

    The most complained about area according to the SENDIST annual report for 2003 to 2004 was concerning issues to do with education and associated services.11 Since September 2002, the DRC's Helpline has dealt with almost 6000 specific queries concerning education and the DDA.

  1. Is police use of stop and search ethical?

    The aim is to reduce incidents of death and serious violence among teenagers. Launched in June 2008, 2 million pounds was spent initally. The Home Office announced a further 5 million of spending on the project in March 2009 which has brought the total number of police forces involved in

  2. Human Rights Act 1998 is a constitutional act

    After the Act coming into force the domestic courts of United Kingdom are allowed to apply the principle of proportionality and the protection of human rights which is secured by the Convention. However, Lord Steyn warned that, proportionality allowed the courts to review such Acts that are incompatible with fundamental rights20.

  1. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    In the case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom it was stated by the court that "...Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence.

  2. Human Rights Essay - Freedom to Protest and Extradition case studies.

    might be dangerous for the group of 80 protesters to walk along of it. As well it causes traffic problems and angry drivers might be a reason for riots, disorder and thus breach of peace. However the requirement to gather at the site only for half an hour might be arguable.

  1. The Human Rights Act 1998 places the courts in effective control of the British ...

    It appears that he is saying that the courts can make fairly fundamental changes to the meaning of legislation in order to bring it into line with the Convention. From this perspective, it may seem that the courts do indeed have substantial power over the constitution if they are at liberty to reinterpret legislation to make it compatible.

  2. The Human RIghts Act Has Revolutionised the Way Judges Interpret Statutes. Discuss.

    Under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, adducement of such evidence was prohibited so as to protect the complainant's private life. The House of Lords held that the court had authority under s3 of the HRA 1998 to adduce such evidence if not doing so would not result in a fair trial for the defendant.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work