Suchergebnisse

In an apparent international first, the High Court has allowed a terminally ill 14-year-old to be cryopreserved after her death. The patient, JS, requested this, as she hoped one day to be reanimated and cured. Jackson J focused on the welfare (or best interests) of JS as she approached the end of her life and particularly on her (apparently) competent wish to be cryopreserved. I consider the interests involved in a decision to undergo cryonics, specifically exploring which interests and whose interests are engaged. Starting with autonomy interests, the judgment implicitly supported a relational account of autonomy, but was dominated by a subjective interpretation of autonomy, which prioritised JS's wishes. Questions nevertheless arise about whether the dying person is entitled to legislate for the reanimated person he or she might become. Temporal concerns also feature when we interpret welfare in terms of happiness, because the dying person and the (potential) future reanimated person might have different interests at different times. Finally, I widen the analysis to accommodate the interests of others, by exploring whether cryonics is in, or contrary to, the public interest. Utilising different accounts of the public interest, I argue that the case for cryonics is not entirely made out. These observations on autonomy, happiness and the public interest combine to suggest that, although there may not be a decisive case for denying a wish like JS's, there is a case for caution, at least while we seek to clarify and resolve the different interests in issue.

BOTH CONCEPTS ARE EXPLICATED IN DESCRIPTIVE TERMS HERE. THE CONCLUSION OF THIS ARTICLE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, IS THAT TO ASSERT THAT SOME COURSE OF ACTION IS IN SOMEONE'S SELF-INTEREST OR IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THIS ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN.

The multifaceted content of public interest pertaining to some subjects of
the legal order has not been the subject matter of thorough theoretical
consideration in literature, which does not recognize the need to clearly
distinguish the concept of public interest from the concepts of general
interest and private interest in the legal order of a state governed by laws
(Rechtsstaat). There are substantial differences between public interest,
general interest and private interest. General interests are dynamic
expressions of the general (common) good. Private interests are dynamic
expressions of private legal goods of individual subjects of the legal
order. Public interest is a relational determinant in the legal order of a
state governed by laws. Thus, unlike general interests and private interests
as substantial categories, public interest has a relational character, as it
serves to regulate relations between legal interests as substantial
categories. In the order of a legal state (Rechtsstaat), public interest is
a regulatory determinant of various goods and interests, which is anchored
in-between general, special and private interests, public and private
sphere, publicity and privacy, the interventionism of public authorities and
the civil society, the institutional order of the public authority and the
institutional order of the territorial.