The trouble with universal declarations

Developing World Bioethics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 220-224

  Benatar, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SATISFACTION;

BIOETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS; UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; BIOETHICS; CONSENSUS; DISSENT AND DISPUTES; GUIDELINES; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; UNITED NATIONS;

EID: 24744462657     PISSN: 14718731     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2005.00119.x     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. It is logically possible to have dissenters involved in the process. They could express their opposition to the process, but remain part of it in order (1) to continue expressing their opposition, and (2) to minimize the problems with the resulting declaration. However, insofar as there are opponents of declarations in the process, their opposition to a declaration does not prevail whenever a declaration is the outcome of the process.
2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2005. Universal Draft Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. SHS/EST/05/CONF.204/3REV. Paris, 24 June 2005. UNESCO.
3. Ibid. Article 16.
4. See, for example, D.Benatar. Bioethics and Health and Human Rights: A Critical View. Forthcoming in J Med Ethics.
5. UNESCO, op. cit. note 2. Preamble.
6. Ibid, Article 17.
7. Ibid. See Articles 27 and 28.
8. Ibid. Article 18, paragraph (c).
9. This consideration allows the possibility that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, had some value, but the nth declaration in the same spirit is counter-productive.