Søren Holm, a highly respected bioethicist and philosopher of medicine, contributes to Teay’s book by analyzing the question of can we establish a global bioethics without creating a comprehensive and common moral language. Delving deeper into what should be the cornerstone of this global bioethics, the focus is on two notions, a moral language and then bioethics based on accepted human rights or a set of core principles. By choosing the proper and least problematic framework, the bioethicists will have an easier time creating the final and most comprehensive guide. Human rights as a base for the global moral language is the least problematic and will lead to more people being able to accept and follow the principles laid out in the guide.
…show more content…
Ethicists have argued that human rights and ethics are complementary theories. Some even go as far as to say global human rights could make bioethics a redundant study and discussion. In Holms discussion of human rights, he states that human rights is due to trying to gain consensus on our values as a society but does not require a consensus on why we see these rights as self-evident. We as a society just need to agree that these concepts are the basic rights of humans. After World War II, there was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Society as a whole changes very quickly, but now in 2016, we as a society still believe most if not all of the human rights listed in 1948 still apply today. If these rules or outdated then it theoretically would be simple to adjust the list of rights. Another advantage is that there can be a monitoring and policing of these human rights. Like the Nuremberg Trials and to today’s European Court of Human rights, it can be assumed that the human rights framework can be upheld successfully in court. The use of human rights as a framework seems like a useful and potentially successful
Ethicists have argued that human rights and ethics are complementary theories. Some even go as far as to say global human rights could make bioethics a redundant study and discussion. In Holms discussion of human rights, he states that human rights is due to trying to gain consensus on our values as a society but does not require a consensus on why we see these rights as self-evident. We as a society just need to agree that these concepts are the basic rights of humans. After World War II, there was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Society as a whole changes very quickly, but now in 2016, we as a society still believe most if not all of the human rights listed in 1948 still apply today. If these rules or outdated then it theoretically would be simple to adjust the list of rights. Another advantage is that there can be a monitoring and policing of these human rights. Like the Nuremberg Trials and to today’s European Court of Human rights, it can be assumed that the human rights framework can be upheld successfully in court. The use of human rights as a framework seems like a useful and potentially successful