The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in medical-ethical perspective

Abstract

Notwithstanding its impressive achievements in combating crimes against humanity, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights offers no sufficient basis for medical ethics. It does not provide a clear definition of the human being who is subject of human rights, thus giving room for philosophical anthropologies according to which fetuses or neonates are no human persons yet or at most ‘marginal persons’. Because the Declaration likewise fails to define the concept of right, it can be interpreted from the perspective of classical theories of right as well as from that of the ‘choice theory of right’. If, as the last states, the right to life would include the right to dispose of it, the Declaration could serve to defend euthanasia, assisted suicide and manipulative medical and surgical interventions as well.