Ownership of our bodies (1 Viewer)

[scaredytiger]

yeah but what exactly gives the UN the authority to say something like that? A military victory over Germany, Italy and Japan?

Perhaps that it is a fairly contemporary (though I admit the declaration is from 1948) statement, agreed upon by representatives from multiple countries, reflecting the need for rights to be made explicit and indiscriminate.

 

[Tangent]

I agree, who gets to make those rights? Someone had to set guidelines, because everyone was really stuffing it up.
The UN have just made it simple, guidelines that everyone 'can' follow, and what is seen to make living life better.

When it comes down to it, rights are what you can give other people, and what they can give to you. Its a matter of whether you want to give someone their rights, and vice versa

 

[xeuyrawp]

yeah but what exactly gives the UN the authority to say something like that? A military victory over Germany, Italy and Japan?

Yet apparently just a partial victory over Protestantism, Islam, Judaism, etc makes your beliefs authoritative?

I'd take the UN over the Pope any day.

 

[Iron]

our authority
is not of this world

 

[Asubmarine]

As if authority is even relevant here. I don't see how the opinion of an institution, be it the church/UN/etc, should influence anyones perspective of such a personal issue.

Regardless I think the question needs to be asked of how much responsibility one must assume for their own actions. If we are to say that a person has absolute responsibiliy for the determination of their physical actions should they not also have to take absolute responsibility for their consequences?

- Should those that contract diseases from either prostituting themselves or engaging in sex be denied medical treatment unless they pay for it themselves?

-Does this constitute a discrepancy between the physical rights of those from different economic demographics?

-If they should be treated equally because of a benevolent public sector does that mean that perhaps society is entitled to a degree of control over individuals' physical rights?

 

[Strawbaby]

We had an essay set on ownership of the body in Property last semester.

An assortment of questions which came up -

• If you own your body, should you be allowed to sell part of it? Only for transplant or for medical science as well?
• The traditional rule has always been, you do not own your body - as in, Hayne's Case, Dr Handyside's Case etc. You, nor anyone else, can sell it or own it. This rule originated in times when the influence of Christianity was very strong [though there are arguments about sources of the rule - e.g., your body belonged to the King such that you might fight for him]. But is this still valid, now that the body has a monetary value for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as to individual citizens who, say, need a transplant? What about the body for entertainment value, as in Doodeward, or teaching purposes?
• How would such a system of property values work?
• Couldn't it allow for the exploitation of the poor or the sick and desperate? Or is it paternalistic to prevent an avenue of profit for the desperate, and more immoral to leave them destitute?
• Is it moral to put a price on the only thing you'll ever truly have? Is the vital expression of yourself and the vessel through which you will live your life an item of commerce?
• If we allow people to charge for their body parts, will thus undermine the current altrustic giving of body parts to the needy and instead result in only the rich getting the medical attention they need? Or should it be subsidised? Would this be too costly?
• Is it going back to slavery? Or is it moving further away from slavery, in giving people full rights over their bodies? But what if those rights are alienable - could you not sell the rights to your body and lose your autonomy?
• Does it allow one greater protection using existing property rights if their bodily integrity is compromised, either by injury or parts being taken?
• If under the current system you can give body parts away, doesn't that inherently make them property? What about America, where you can sell your blood?
• Could it undermine the doctor/patient relationship of trust if the doctor stands to profit from his patient's body? Patients are essentially at the mercy of their doctors, especially when very ill, because of the disparity of knowledge and power. What is to say doctors will not encourage patients to undertake medical procedures they do not need for their own profit, as in Moore (a US case where a doctor and university made millions from a man's cells, used without his consent following treatment for a rare cancer)? Could this not undermine trust in doctors, even if they do not do this? Is it appropriate to have biotechnology companies approaching the sick to work out a deal for their body parts? Should it be regulated? Does technology move too fast for a specific system to follow?
• If a patient might withhold consent for the use of his parts in waiting for a 'better deal', treating it as a commercial transaction, could it result in potentially great medical discoveries going unfound?
• Could it not stop donations from those who remain altrustic and dislike the idea of their bodies being used commercially?
• Should the patient retain any degree of control over the use of their parts after selling them - e.g., they can be used for X research but not Y? How could they retain that control if they wanted it?
• Should the patient get the profits from any money made from their body, or get a set amount for their donation? Very few of the parts collected would go towards something profitable; is it fair to benefit those who randomly have the most useful parts?
• Is it not better to be pragmatic and recognise the existing market for body parts, on the black market or otherwise circumventing the law, and regulate the practice so it is safer?
• Does the idea of our bodies belonging to God still matter?
• Could having to pay for body parts result in only profitable ventures by large companies going ahead, rather than the curing of less prevalent but more deadly diseases? E.g., curing baldness would be more profitable than an obscure but fatal blood disorder. Would it not direct medicine towards commercial gain rather than need? Or would doctors and scientists continue to sacrifice gain for the human good?

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I think that ownership of our bodies is perhaps the fundamental component of freedom. Only through self-ownership are we not enslaved.

I agree. Think of people with conditions such as Locked-In Syndrome...they can't move...can't do anything for themselves. Has anyone read 'My Left Foot', by Christy Brown? It's about a young man with cerebral palsy, and he talks about feeling imprisoned and useless because of his inability to control his body.

 

[thongetsu]

Our Body. Our decisions. Our life.

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

well those teenagers are dirty whores but its not my problem so whatever. they will love it when no one wants to marry them as they are dirty and impure used goods.

no law against it


however, a womans womb may belong to her

however, the baby inside has its own body also. and it is not anyone elses right to decide what to do with that, or to kill it.

use your sense of logic ffs.