Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property.
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 interconn...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2014
|
| _version_ | 1826264518727041024 |
|---|---|
| author | Herring, J Chau, P |
| author_facet | Herring, J Chau, P |
| author_sort | Herring, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:09:07Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:29f5a03e-4bf4-46c9-aac1-2ce502fa7917 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:09:07Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:29f5a03e-4bf4-46c9-aac1-2ce502fa79172022-03-26T12:22:08ZInterconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:29f5a03e-4bf4-46c9-aac1-2ce502fa7917EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2014Herring, JChau, PThis 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. |
| spellingShingle | Herring, J Chau, P Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title | Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title_full | Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title_fullStr | Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title_short | Interconnected, inhabited and insecure: why bodies should not be property. |
| title_sort | interconnected inhabited and insecure why bodies should not be property |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT herringj interconnectedinhabitedandinsecurewhybodiesshouldnotbeproperty AT chaup interconnectedinhabitedandinsecurewhybodiesshouldnotbeproperty |