Abstract

Rights are not redundant elements of a plausible utilitarian theory and the right to life is an inseparable companion of the rights to nourishment and to medical care. The deeper reason for this thesis is the interdependence of values concerning vitality. In this perspective it is inconsistent to say that the (normal) newborn is unable to have a right to life, but has a right to be fed. The hidden premise of Singer’s rebuttal of involuntary euthanasia is a theory of rights as vetoes against imposed benefits. Without openly subscribing to such a theory there is no answer to ‘logical slippery slope’ arguments and no protection against dangerous ‘quality of life’ considerations as a basis of decisions over life and death.