China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Day 2
Published in Bertha Alvarez Manninen, Dialogues on the Ethics of Abortion, 2022
Agreed. But in both cases I think death is a bad thing because death harms them in some way – either by thwarting their desires or depriving them of their life. And the right to life exists in order to protect people from that harm.
Sexual health
Published in Sally Robinson, Priorities for Health Promotion and Public Health, 2021
Rajeeb Kumar Sah, Sally Robinson
On 31st March 2020, the law in Northern Ireland was changed to allow women to access abortion services in the rest of the UK without committing a criminal offence. Until that point, there had been a near-blanket ban on abortions. Sarah Ewert was denied an abortion despite a scan showing that her foetus would not survive. She took her case to court, arguing that the law in Northern Ireland breached her human rights, and won. The decision remains contentious with the ‘pro-life’ groups who argue that the right to life is a human right that applies to all, including unborn babies.
End of life
Published in Gary Chan Kok Yew, Health Law and Medical Ethics in Singapore, 2020
Keown (1997) noted that the traditional doctrine of the sanctity of life holds that human life is created in the image of God and therefore, possessed an intrinsic dignity. The notion of sanctity of life is that “one ought never intentionally to kill an innocent human being” and that the “right to life” is essentially a right not to be intentionally killed.116 On the other hand, the argument based on “Quality of life” (with a capital “Q”) takes the view that where the life of certain patients falls below a certain threshold (a measure of the worthwhileness of life), it is right to terminate the life.117 Alternatively, assessments of “quality of life” (with a small “q”) can be used to determine the worthwhileness of a treatment for a patient based on the risks and benefits of the treatment which is less morally objectionable than to assess the worth of a patient’s life.
“I suppose we’ve all been on a bit of a journey”: a qualitative study on providers’ lived experiences with liberalised abortion care in the Republic of Ireland
Published in Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 2023
Brendan Dempsey, Michael Connolly, Mary F. Higgins
In light of changing opinions and international condemnation, a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and allow the legislature to regulate abortion care was put to the public in 2018.8,9 Arguments in favour of repeal highlighted the negative impact of restrictions and the need to care for women experiencing medical emergencies, pregnancies affected by fetal anomalies, or who simply do not want to be pregnant.8,10,11 By sharing the stories of real women, liberalisation was also regarded as a pragmatic solution to the risks associated with travelling for abortion or accessing care without medical supervision.8,10,11 Arguments against repeal emphasised fetal personhood and right to life and equated abortion care to murder.12 These campaigns publicised graphic images of fetal remains and warned against introducing an abortion service like the “regime” in England.13 The referendum passed, with 66.4% of the public voting in favour of liberalisation,14 the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 came into effect from January 2019.15 The Act allows people in the Republic of Ireland to end a pregnancy under 12 weeks’ gestation without conditionality.15 After 12 weeks, abortion can only be provided when continuing the pregnancy puts the physical or mental health of the pregnant person at risk, in emergency situations, or when the fetus is unlikely to live 28 days after birth due to a physical condition.15
How deep is the cancerous cut of substance use disorders on human rights? The effects of substance use disorders from a human rights perspective: The thinking of Developmental Clinical Social Work
Published in Social Work in Health Care, 2023
Robert K. Chigangaidze, Muridzo Noel Garikai, Simbine Samuel Lisenga
From a historical perspective, the human right to life is one of the first rights awarded a special place and enshrined in the International Law (Coman et al., 2012; Dragne & Balaceanu, 2014). The concept of the right to life is pivotal to debates on the issues of euthanasia, capital punishment, abortion, self-defense, and war (Sinjari & Balla, 2013). We seek to expand the debates even in the discourse on substance use disorders and human rights. Substance use has contributed to the intrusion of the right to life through its aggravations in the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases and accidents that lead to high mortality rates (Comer, 2013; Ramchand et al., 2009). For example, tobacco use is the largest preventable cause of death and the main risk factor for noncommunicable diseases (World Health Organization, 2017). Over-consumption of ethanol is the leading cause of death among individuals aged 15–49 years (Adamson et al., 2017; Parry et al., 2011). Research in the Global Burden of Disease indicates that 2.8 million deaths were attributable to alcohol use in the year 2016 (Orpana et al., 2020, p. 1). The use of alcohol and other drugs has been identified as a significant factor related to suicide (Orpana et al., 2020). Up to “50 000 deaths in the United States annually can be attributed to second-hand smoke … .” (Newton, 2010, p. 21).
Stretching beyond our perceived boundaries: The role of speech-language pathology in realising autonomy through supported decision-making
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2023
Autonomy is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; United Nations, 2006), the first international legal mechanism that specifically focused on the needs of people with disability. It came into force in 2008. Article 12(2) CRPD requires that, “State Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life” (UNCRPD, 2006). Through General Comment No. 1, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) distinguishes between “legal capacity” and “mental capacity”. According to the CRPD, the right to legal capacity is universal and means that everyone’s will and preferences must be given effect and respected within the context of the law, on an equal basis with others. Often referred to as the right to legal personhood, the right to legal capacity means that everyone has a right to be seen as a person before the law. Where someone is denied legal capacity, they are no longer a legal person. Importantly, this means they are not entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, including a legal right to live an autonomous life. Often confused with legal capacity, mental capacity refers to a person’s decision-making ability, which may vary within and between individuals. The committee emphasises that difficulties with decision-making (mental capacity) should not be used to justify the denial of legal capacity or legal personhood (Arstein-Kerslake & Flynn, 2016).