Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Samantha RyanORCiD
This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Oxford University Press, 2020.
For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.
There are competing accounts of what dignity is and no agreement about how to adjudicate between them, but this does not prevent dignity from playing an important role in the law. In fact, this very multiplicity enables dignity to perform a range of functions, both explicit and implicit, intended and unintended. Its ‘open character’ allows dignity to serve as a locus of agreement, but it can also silence debate and limit speaker control of the way their statements are received and interpreted. This paper considers the roles that dignity played in recent English court judgements relating to withdrawal of ventilation and associated care from three unresponsive, paralysed infants: Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup. It presents a critical discourse analysis focusing mainly on the judgements of first instance in relation to Alfie, Charlie and Isaiah. It argues that a range of conceptions of dignity are operationalised within the judgements, serving four core functions. Dignity serves to express recognition and esteem; to establish a hierarchy of credibility; to justify a best interests judgement, and to socialise that judgement. The overall effect is that dignity serves to compel acceptance of, rather than providing reasons to support, a best interests judgement. Whilst we recognise the value of unspecified invocations of dignity, we voice a warning about its potential to stifle debate and legitimise and enforce existing power relations
Author(s): Jonas M, Ryan S
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Medical Law Review
Year: 2020
Volume: 29
Issue: 1
Pages: 24-47
Online publication date: 02/12/2020
Acceptance date: 26/09/2020
Date deposited: 06/11/2020
ISSN (print): 0967-0742
ISSN (electronic): 1464-3790
Publisher: Oxford University Press
URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa038
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa038
