Skip to content

Practical Ethics

The least bad mass murderer

By: David Edmonds

One man murdered 270 people, but his release from prison caused only moderate outrage.  Another murdered 13 people and it is unlikely he will ever be released because the public would not stand for it.  Why the difference?

I am puzzled by a comparison of intuitions about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi  and the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.   Put aside doubts  about al-Megrahi ‘s guilt; let us assume his conviction was sound, and that he did plant the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103.  Did he not cause more harm than Peter Sutcliffe? 

Read More »The least bad mass murderer

Suicide woman allowed to die

By Julian Savulescu

As read about in the Telegraph, doctors allowed 26-year-old Kerrie Wooltorton to die after she swallowed poison and gave them a letter instructing them not to intervene.

 

Reference:  Savulescu J. Should All Patients Who Attempt Suicide Be Treated? Modern Medicine 1995; Feb:113-120.  Reprinted in: Monash Bioethics Review 1995; 14: 33-40. With reply to critics: Savulescu, J. "Response to Bailey." Monash Bioethics Review 1996; 15: 44-5.

Should All Patients Who Attempt Suicide Be Treated?

Summary

Some patients who attempt suicide refuse treatment.  These patients are invariably treated if brought to hospital.  There are several reasons for this.  These reasons justify the treatment of many of these patients, but not all.  Some patients who attempt suicide ought to be allowed to die.  My argument for this claim turns on judging some patients who attempt suicide to be sufficiently competent and rational to be allowed to die. 

Read More »Suicide woman allowed to die

Vacancy: Postdoc Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship in Interdisciplinary Science or Philosophy

University of Oxford, Faculty of Philosophy, Future of Humanity Institute, James Martin 21st Century School

Grade 7: £28,839 – £38,757 per annum (as at 1 October 2008)

The Future of Humanity Institute is a multidisciplinary research institute. It is part of the James Martin 21st Century School, and is hosted by the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy.

Applications are invited for a fixed-term Research Fellowship at the Future of Humanity Institute. The Fellowship is available for two years from the date of appointment.

Read More »Vacancy: Postdoc Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute

The Age of Enhancement

Should we use drugs to prolong loving relationships?  Should we use drugs to weaken traumatic memories?  Research Associate David Edmonds’ article on enhancement for Prospect magazine is available online.  The article cites both Anders Sandberg and Julian Savulescu (Neuroenhancement of Love and Marriage: The Chemicals Between Us).   It suggests that many of the arguments made against… Read More »The Age of Enhancement

Genocide: just a word?

By: David Edmonds

In April 1915 there were hundreds of thousands of Armenians in Eastern Turkey: a year later they were gone.

One historian told me that this fact was the relevant one.  And whether or not we call what occurred a ‘genocide’ is a matter of semantics – of secondary significance. 

The family of virtually every Armenian was affected by the events of 1915/16.  Estimates about the numbers vary.   The Armenians say 1.5 million died.  Turkey says this figure is greatly exaggerated.

Read More »Genocide: just a word?

Symposium Announcement: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted?

The Brocher Foundation, and the Universities of Oxford and Geneva are pleased to announce the Symposium: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted? 20-21 October 2009, Brocher Centre, Geneva, Switzerland Biomedical science is increasingly yielding technologies that can be used to enhance the capacities of healthy people, as well as to treat disease. This two-day workshop… Read More »Symposium Announcement: Human Enhancement: What should be permitted?

R. v Dudley & Stephens

By David Edmonds

We at the Uehiro Centre keep a careful watch on the latest developments and pride ourselves on being bang up to date with the news.  So I’m pleased to be able to bring you the story of an episode that occurred on the night of July 25th.

Well, July 25th 1884.  125 years ago.

Read More »R. v Dudley & Stephens

Oxford Debates Cont’d – Opposer’s Closing Statement

Part of the debate "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness"

Opposer: Charles Foster
Closing Statement

The criterion 'self-inflicted' is unworkable in practice. One simply does not know in many cases whether a particular disease or injury is self-inflicted. Yes, there is ample evidence to show that smoking can cause lung cancer. But some lung cancers are not caused by smoking. How can medical decision-makers decide in the case of Patient A, a smoker, that her cancer is a result of her smoking?  Such matters of medical causation are notoriously hard to resolve even in the courts, with the luxury of expert evidence, unlimited time and prolonged argument from counsel.
Many illnesses are caused by a (generally mysterious) interaction of genes and environment. How does Dr. Sheehan take account of the genetic contribution? Suppose that Patient B has a familial predisposition to high cholesterol. She only discovered this in her thirties. Until then she ate a diet that would be fine in someone without her predisposition, but is dangerous in her case. She gets atherosclerosis and needs a coronary stent. Should she have one? Is her condition self-inflicted? Would Dr. Sheehan's decision about her treatment depend on whether she should, with the exercise of appropriate care (what's 'appropriate'?), have cut down on the pies earlier than she did? These questions are horrifically difficult. We can multiply them ad nauseam. They are all raised by Dr. Sheehan's purportedly straightforward criterion.

Read More »Oxford Debates Cont’d – Opposer’s Closing Statement

Oxford Debates Cont’d – Proposer’s Closing Statement

Part of the debate "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness"
Proposer: Dr Mark Sheehan

Closing Statement

What is most difficult about topics such as this one is that there are clear intuitions on both sides. These intuitions pull against each other and tempt us to focus on extremes at either end. The solution lies in the middle, where we can respect the desire to care for all those who are suffering as well as taking seriously the network of rights and responsibilities on which society is based.

Read More »Oxford Debates Cont’d – Proposer’s Closing Statement

Oxford Debates Cont’d – Opposer’s update 2

Part of the debate "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness"

Opposer: Charles Foster
Update 2

Dr. Sheehan has fairly and inevitably surrendered. The motion as it stands is wholly unarguable.

But he contends that there are still important matters to discuss. I agree. Let's look at the 'subset of extreme examples' he relies on, where it is blindingly obvious that injury has been self-inflicted. The three clearest examples are perhaps attempted suicides, injuries resulting from dangerous sports, and some road traffic accidents.

We need to start by chasing away one red herring: insurance.  Of course bungee jumpers and parachutists should be insured. Insurance is mandatory for drivers. I have no difficulty with the proposition that the NHS should recoup the cost of care from the bungee jumper's insurer. But let's suppose that the insurance company won't pay. There could be many reasons. The jumper's wife might have failed to post a letter; the tour operator, unbeknown to the jumper, might not have been on the insurer's approved list; the insurer might litigate long and hard to avoid liability on a technicality.

Read More »Oxford Debates Cont’d – Opposer’s update 2