Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T00:13:10.572Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

O Tempora! O Mores! The Place of Boni Mores in Dignity Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

JONATHAN BROWN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 144 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Foster, C. Dignity and the ownership and use of body parts. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;23(4):417–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Brown, J. Dignity, body parts and the actio iniuriarum: A novel solution to a common (law) problem? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):522–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Foster, C. Human dignity: Be philosophical and European, but not Scottish. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2019;28(3):534–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See note 3, Foster 2019.

5. Waldron, J. Dignity, Rank, and Rights, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Delivered at University of California, Berkeley April 21–23, 2009.Google Scholar

6. See note 5, Waldron 2009, at 209.

7. See note 1, Foster 2014, at 420.

8. See note 2, Brown 2019, at 531.

9. See note 1, Foster 2014, at 418.

10. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 534 (Foster’s emphasis).

11. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 534.

12. See Whitty, N. Overview of rights of personality in Scots law. In: Whitty, NR, Zimmermann, R, eds. Rights of Personality in Scots Law: A Comparative Perspective. Dundee: DUP; 2009, at 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Zimmermann, R. Actio Iniuriarum, in The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition, Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1996, at 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Digest 50.13.5.1.

15. See Waider, H. ‘Ars iuris’ und ‘suum in persona ipsa’ bei Hugo Donellus, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Metholodologie und der Lehre von den Menschenrechten. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 1961;52:69.Google Scholar

16. See Giltaij, J. Existimatio as “Human dignity” in late-classical Roman law. Fundamina 2016:232, at 234.Google Scholar

17. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 535.

18. Macklin, R. Dignity is a useless concept. JME 2003 1419, at 1420.Google Scholar

19. See English, V, Mussell, R, Sheather, J, Sommerville, A. Autonomy and its limits: What place for public good? In: McLean, S. First Do No Harm: Law, Ethics and Healthcare. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2006, at 118.Google Scholar

20. See Coggon, J, Miola, J. Autonomy, liberty and decision-making, The Cambridge Law Journal 2011: 523, at 524.Google Scholar

21. Though neither the Romans nor the ius commune jurists conceived of these personality interests as ‘rights.’ See Blackie, J. Doctrinal history of the protection of personality rights in Europe in the ius commune: General actions or specific actions? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 2009;1:4Google Scholar

22. Neethling, J, Potgieter, JM, Visser, PJ. Law of Delict, 4th ed. Durban: Butterworths; 2001, at 14.Google Scholar

23. D.47.10.15.35.

24. Ando, C, du Plessis, PJ, Tuori, K. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016, at 326.Google Scholar

25. Gordley, J. Reconceptualising the protection of dignity in early modern Europe: Greek philosophy meets Roman law. In: Ascheri, M et al., eds. Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert. Weimar: Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar; 2003, at 286.Google Scholar

26. See note 16, Giltaij 2016, at 233.

27. Cicero. De Officiis. 1:105–7.

28. Foster, C. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2011, at 28.Google Scholar

29. Kaser, M. Infamia und Ignominia in den Römischen Rechtsquellen. Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Romanistische Abteilung 1956;220, at 231.Google Scholar

30. See note 16, Giltaij 2016, at 246.

31. See note 16, Giltaij 2016, at 236.

32. Justinian. Institutes, 4, 4, 3.

33. See note 32, Justinian, at 4, 4, 7.

34. Greenidge, AHJ. Infamia: Its place in Roman Public and Private Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1894, Chapter 2.Google Scholar

35. Digest.1.5.4.

36. Descheemaeker, E, Scott, H. Iniuria and the Common Law. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart; 2013, at 21.Google Scholar

37. See note 36, Descheemaeker, Scott 2013.

38. Whitman, J. Human dignity in Europe and the United States. In: Nolte, G, ed. Europe and U.S. Constitutionalism. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing; 2005, at 97.Google Scholar

39. Donellus. Commentarii de Iure Civili. 1589:2, 8, 3, 229–30.

40. See note 15, Waider 1961, at 69.

41. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 537.

42. See note 2, Brown 2019.

43. See Ibbetson, D. Iniuria, Roman and English. In: Descheemaeker, E, Scott, H. Iniuria and the Common Law. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart; 2013, at 43.Google Scholar

44. See Descheemaeker, Scott 2013, at 43.

45. Strauss, SA. Bodily injury and the defence of consent. South African Law Journal 1964:179, at 183.Google Scholar

46. See note 45, Strauss 1964, at 182–3.

47. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 538.

48. See note 2, Brown 2019, at 531.

49. See Brown, J. Revenge porn and the actio iniuriarum: Using ‘old law’ to solve ‘new problems.’ Legal Studies 2018:396, passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. Consider, e.g., Khaliq v. HM Advocate 1984 J.C. 23

51. This, it is tentatively submitted, may serve, in part, as the rationale for the ‘declaratory power of the High Court’—the much-maligned, yet practically extant, express power of the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to declare novel conduct criminal even in there exists no prior proscription of such conduct.

52. I.e., s.28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality.

53. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/212737.stm

54. See the discussion in Brazier, M, Fovargue, S. Transforming wrong into right: What is ‘proper medical treatment’? In: Fovargue, S, Mullock, A, eds. The Legitimacy of Medical Treatment: What Role for the Medical Exception. London: Routledge; 2016, passim.Google Scholar

55. Lewis, P. The medical exception. Current Legal Problems 2012:355, at 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Consider, for example, sterilization or castration, inter alia: See the discussion in Meyers, DW. The Human Body and the Law: A Medico-Legal Study. London: Aldine Transaction; 1970, passim.Google Scholar

57. As Foster suggests the actio iniuriarum may do, see note 3, Foster, 2019.

58. See Caparo v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568.

59. See note 13, Zimmermann 1996, at 1092.

60. Lee, for instance, described the actio iniuriarum as a ‘squalid action’: Lee RW, Introduction to Roman-Dutch Law, 5th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1953, at 335.

61. See note 2, Brown 2019.

62. Stone, FF. Touchstones of tort liability. Stanford Law Review 1950:259, at 272.Google Scholar

63. See Bringing Rights Home: The Human Rights Bill, [1997] CM 3782

64. de la Mare, T, Gallafent, K. The horizontal effect of the human rights act 1998. Judicial Review 2001:1757, para.27.Google Scholar

65. See note 64, de la Mare, Gallafent 2001, at paragraph 27(a).

66. See Du Bois, F. Private law in the age of rights. In: Reid, EC, Visser, D, eds. Private Law and Human Rights: Bringing Rights Home in Scotland and South Africa. Edinburgh: EUP; 2013, at 12.Google Scholar

67. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 534.

68. See the discussion in Gearty C. The Human Rights Act Should Not Be Repealed. LSE Law Policy Briefing 16 2016.

69. See note 3, Foster, 2019.

70. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 539.

71. See note 1, Foster 2014, at 426.

72. See note 3, Foster, 2019, at 535.