The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The wonder of euthanasia: a debate that’s being done to death

The wonder of euthanasia: a debate that’s being done to death
The wonder of euthanasia: a debate that’s being done to death
In their book Debating Euthanasia, Emily Jackson and John Keown present respectively arguments in favour of and against the legalization of (some instances of) euthanasia and assisted suicide. Jackson advances a case based on a principled commitment to a secular, liberal legal system, arguing that obligations rooted in compassion require the careful development of laws to permit assisted dying. Keown defends the status quo, arguing that the law ought to sustain a prohibition against assisted dying, both out of a principled commitment to the inviolability of life doctrine, and because satisfactory regulation will be impossible to draft. I question the strength of each author’s essay. Jackson, I argue, does not take sufficiently seriously the plausibility of secular moral objections to assisted dying. Keown, meanwhile, overstates the inviolability principle’s place in English law. Focusing particularly on Keown’s essay, I go on to consider the approach taken to ‘debating euthanasia’, and suggest that it betrays more about the direction of the public debate, and the fragility of ‘the case against’, than he would perhaps wish.
0143-6503
401-419
Coggon, John
192d1511-cd81-45f4-8748-c398b74949b9
Coggon, John
192d1511-cd81-45f4-8748-c398b74949b9

Coggon, John (2013) The wonder of euthanasia: a debate that’s being done to death. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33 (2), 401-419. (doi:10.1093/ojls/gqs030).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In their book Debating Euthanasia, Emily Jackson and John Keown present respectively arguments in favour of and against the legalization of (some instances of) euthanasia and assisted suicide. Jackson advances a case based on a principled commitment to a secular, liberal legal system, arguing that obligations rooted in compassion require the careful development of laws to permit assisted dying. Keown defends the status quo, arguing that the law ought to sustain a prohibition against assisted dying, both out of a principled commitment to the inviolability of life doctrine, and because satisfactory regulation will be impossible to draft. I question the strength of each author’s essay. Jackson, I argue, does not take sufficiently seriously the plausibility of secular moral objections to assisted dying. Keown, meanwhile, overstates the inviolability principle’s place in English law. Focusing particularly on Keown’s essay, I go on to consider the approach taken to ‘debating euthanasia’, and suggest that it betrays more about the direction of the public debate, and the fragility of ‘the case against’, than he would perhaps wish.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2013
Organisations: Southampton Law School

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 358328
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/358328
ISSN: 0143-6503
PURE UUID: f0585f17-f7c2-45fa-89d7-1351606d0281

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Oct 2013 12:08
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 15:03

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: John Coggon

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×