Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluating ‘Bioethical Approaches’ to Human Rights

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years there has been growing scholarly interest in the relationship between bioethics and human rights. The majority of this work has proposed that the normative and institutional frameworks of human rights can usefully be employed to address those bioethical controversies that have a global reach: in particular, to the genetic modification of human beings, and to the issue of access to healthcare. In response, a number of critics have urged for a degree of caution about applying human rights to such controversies. In particular, they have claimed that human rights have unresolved distributive and foundational problems. Interestingly, however, some of these critics have gone on to suggest that it might be possible to draw on certain bioethical insights to remedy these problems with human rights. This paper evaluates these recent attempts to apply insights from bioethics to the theory and practice of human rights. It argues that while these insights do not constitute an entirely new and original contribution to human rights thinking, they do force human rights scholars and campaigners to reflect on some key issues. First of all, they force us to question the prevalent idea that human rights are always ‘inviolable trumps’. Secondly, they demand that we pay close attention to the ‘fairness’ of the institutions we charge with determining our concrete rights. And finally, and perhaps most radically, these insights challenge the notion that human rights are held exclusively by members of the human species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Arras and Fenton themselves acknowledge that their approach draws on existing human rights scholarship (2009: 29).

  2. Of course, there are other ‘pragmatic’ and ‘postmodern’ philosophers who think the search for a rational foundation to human rights to be impossible, unnecessary and even dangerous. The most famous example of this type of argument is provided by Rorty (1993). There is not room here to do justice to this complex debate. Nevertheless, without foundations it is difficult to see how debates about the proper content of human rights can be resolved, how human rights sceptics can be persuaded of their normative force, and how we can legitimately compel others to live up to their standards. For such arguments, see Schaefer (2005).

References

  • Alexy R (2002) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexy R (2003) Constitutional rights, balancing, and rationality. Ratio Juris 16:131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas G (2004) American bioethics: crossing human rights and health law boundaries. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas G (2010) Human rights and American bioethics: resistance is futile. Camb Q Healthc Ethic 19:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annas G, Andrews L, Isasi R (2002) Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. Am J Law Med 28:151–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Arras J, Fenton E (2009) Bioethics and human rights: access to health-related goods. Hastings Cent Rep 29:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcroft R (2008) The troubled relationship between bioethics and human rights. In: Freeman M (ed) Law and bioethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 31–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caney S (2007) Global poverty and human rights: the case for positive duties. In: Pogge T (ed) Freedom from poverty as a human right: who owes what to the very poor? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 275–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieri P (2001) The animal question: why nonhuman animals deserve human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieri P, Singer P (1993) The great ape project: equality beyond humanity. Fourth Estate, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan S (2009) Should we enhance animals? J Med Ethics 35:678–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman A (2009) Globalization, human rights, and the social determinants of health. Bioethics 23:97–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels N (2008) Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels N, Sabin J (1997) Limits to health care: fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Pub Affairs 26:303–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly J (2007) The relative universality of human rights. Hum Rights Quart 29:281–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1984) Rights as trumps. In: Waldron J (ed) Theories of rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 153–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law: the moral reading of the constitutional law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton E (2008) Genetic enhancement—a threat to human rights? Bioethics 22:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton E, Arras J (2010a) Bioethics and human rights: curb your enthusiasm. Camb Q Healthc Ethic 19:127–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton E, Arras J (2010b) Wrong again: rejoinder to Annas. Camb Q Healthc Ethic 19:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future. Farrar Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewirth A (1982) Human rights: essays on justification and applications. University of Chicago Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J (2008) On human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris J (2011) Taking the ‘human’ out of human rights. Camb Q Healthc Ethic 20:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt P (2006) The human right to the highest attainable standard of health: new opportunities and challenges. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 100:603–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2007) Political liberalism and the structure of rights: on the place and limits of the proportionality requirement. In: Paulson S, Pavlakos G (eds) Law, rights, discourse: themes of the work of Robert Alexy. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2010) The idea of Socratic contestation and the right to justification: the point of rights-based proportionality review. Law Ethic Hum Right 4:140–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean N (ed) (2007) Distributing healthcare: principles, practices and policies. Imprint, Exeter

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller K (2007) Balancing and the structure of constitutional rights. Int J Const Law 5:453–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state and utopia. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (1998) Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Rev 66:273–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz J (1988) The morality of freedom. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty R (1993) Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality. In: Shute S, Hurley S (eds) On human rights: the Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993. Basic Books, New York, pp 111–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer B (2005) Human rights: problems with the foundationless approach. Soc Theory Pract 31:27–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2002) Human rights, universality, and the values of personhood: retracing Griffin’s steps. Eur J Philos 10:79–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner B (1993) Outline of a theory of human rights. Sociology 27:489–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlastos G (1962) Justice and equality. In: Brandt R (ed) Social justice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 31–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2006) The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law J 115:1346–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alasdair Cochrane.

Additional information

I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and participants of the BIOS seminar at the London School of Economics, for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cochrane, A. Evaluating ‘Bioethical Approaches’ to Human Rights. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 15, 309–322 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-012-9345-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-012-9345-8

Keywords

Navigation