![the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mr9hCmFMnhg/W5uaZ7L6x4I/AAAAAAAATuI/S96lATAKoNU1tNBGY7H7DXbsWyxnn2A0gCLcBGAs/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/498A_Mususe_Tranning.jpeg)
We conclude by arguing that a more coherent and ethically consistent approach can and should be developed by means of the reverence principle. Our analysis exposes some of the problems that have been left in the wake of contemporary case‐law, before identifying certain situations in which it may be possible to end life without offending certain core values and beliefs. While these cases clearly raise different legal questions, resolving the profound disquiet over the value of life within all such decisions is a fundamental priority. We assess how judges have come to understand and interpret the meaning and value of life by reference to a number of recent cases involving withdrawal of life‐sustaining treatment and physician‐assisted suicide (PAS). They suggest that cases should ‘rest on a strong presumption in favour of reverence for life’,īut then further indicate that ‘the presumption is not and should not be irrebuttable’.ĭrawing on the work of Brazier and Ost, this paper explores some of the conceptual difficulties inherent in assessing the value and importance that one should attach to human life. Brazier and Ost suggest that adopting their language of reverence for life may be helpful in allowing us to rationalise the judgments that have touched on end‐of‐life. Attempting to explain and understand their reasoning by reference to a coherent judicial interpretation of the value that should be attached to human life has therefore become something of a challenge. It is clear from these cases that judges have sometimes struggled to separate the moral arguments from the legal ones. The delicate moral and ethical questions that underpin the meaning and value of life have taken centre stage in a number of recent high‐profile cases. In this paper, we analyse evolving academic and judicial conceptions regarding the value of life in the context of dilemmas in end‐of‐life law. That infuse the debate concerning the acceptability of various end‐of‐life decisions. The language of reverence, it is argued, ‘might bridge the gaps between the different philosophical attitudes’
![the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life](https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/law-order-socrates-teachers-philosopher-greek_philosopher-greek_philosophy-shrn5171_low.jpg)
They suggest that the term reverence for life should be utilised as an alternative that better reflects the nuances and the realities of the dilemma. In their recent work, Margaret Brazier and Suzanne Ost introduce a new term that they suggest may be more appropriate when attempting to navigate the murky waters of the meaning of life and the value that should be attached to it. Whereas others suggest that this is misleading and instead refer to the inviolability of life.
![the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life](https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/tTfegdLGAgrOBKQqLEW55TZiXq8=/249x0:1749x1125/1200x900/media/img/mt/2020/03/0320_Martin_commongood_constitution/original.jpg)
Some prefer to use the language of sanctity of life, Unsurprisingly, the academic literature concerning this dilemma is voluminous. The extent to which life should be regarded as intrinsically valuable, weighed against the extrinsic value and quality‐of‐life considerations, is one of the most challenging and important legal questions.
![the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life the supreme philosophy of man the laws of life](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71IkkxydoiL.jpg)
Understanding and interpreting the value of human life has troubled ethicists, theologians, philosophers and lawyers since the dawn of time.