Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
We are very grateful to Richard Ashcroft1 and Andrew McGee2 for their thoughtful and articulate criticisms of our views.3
Ashcroft has disappointingly low aspirations for the law. Of course he is right to say that the law is not a ‘self-sufficient, integrated and self-interpreting system of doctrine’. The law is often philosophically incoherent and internally contradictory. But it does not follow from this that all areas of the law are philosophically unsatisfactory. And if that were true, the response should not be Ashcroft’s contemptuous despair, but a determination to make it better. Ashcroft would say that such idealism is unrealistic in the light of the very nature of ‘the Law’: ‘…a complex assemblage of institutions, rules, accredited persons, practices and systems’. That isa radically ‘legal realist’ position and is plainly unsustainable. We can demonstrate its unsustainability while demonstrating both that he is wrong to tar all areas of the law with the same brush and wrong to deny that medical ethics are ‘intellectually and metaphysically prior to medical law’.
Take the law of murder which, of course, is part of ‘medical law’. It is surely trite to observe that humans thought that killing people was wrong (an intellectual and metaphysical position) before they started penalising murder. Ethics generated the law. There is nothing elusive or incoherent about the philosophical foundations of the law of murder. Human life is thought to matter. To kill is both to cause a harm and to commit a wrong.
There is more than something of the straw man in Ashcroft’s elaboration of his argument. For he chooses, of all things, autonomy and, in particular, its invocation in the law of consent. Lawyers’ eyebrows will rise at his assertion that ‘while the concept of “autonomy” has an explanatory role in discussions of the …
Footnotes
Contributors CF and JH contributed equally to this article.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Author meets critics: Response
- Author meets critics: Response
- Author meets critics: precis
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Whose dignity? Resolving ambiguities in the scope of “human dignity” in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights
- Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration
- Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on medical law
- Ethics briefings
- Simple rationality? The law of healthcare resource allocation in England
- Dignity and the use of body parts
- Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control
- Ethics briefing
- Capturing and promoting the autonomy of capacitous vulnerable adults
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law