Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property

Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (1):39-43 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article argues against the case for regarding bodies and parts of bodies to be property. It claims that doing so assumes an individualistic conception of the body. It fails to acknowledge that our bodies are made up of non-human material; are unbounded; constantly changing and deeply interconnected with other bodies. It also argues that holding that our bodies are property does not recognise the fact that we have different attitudes towards different parts of our removed bodies and the contexts of their removal. The appropriate legal reform should, therefore, be to produce a statute which can provide a balance between the competing personal, social and interpersonal interests in different body parts

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

My Body, My Body Parts, My Property?Deryck Beyleveld & Roger Brownsword - 2000 - Health Care Analysis 8 (2):87-99.
Property, Bodies and Wittgenstien.H. McLachlan - 2009 - Open Ethics Journal 3 (1):28-31.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
28 (#536,385)

6 months
9 (#242,802)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations