Читать книгу Fundamentals of Person-Centred Healthcare Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 23

There are multiple ways in which to consider the meaning of ‘person’ and indeed an animal rights advocate might argue vehemently that it is morally wrong to privilege the rights of human persons over those of animals (Singer 2011). They would strongly believe that it is morally wrong, for example, to test pharmaceuticals or cosmetics on animals before they are used with humans. Their argument would be predicated on the belief that humans and animals are equal and thus should be treated equally. For others, humans are considered to be a higher order species to animals and thus it is reasonable to use animals in this way in order to benefit the greater good of humans. You might like to reflect on your stance in this argument and where your boundaries are regarding speciesism (meaning biases or prejudices against beings on the basis of their species). You might also like to view this short video on speciesism by Professor Peter Singer: www.animalsandsociety.org/human‐animal‐studies/defining‐human‐animal‐studies‐an‐asi‐video‐project/defining‐speciesism‐with‐peter‐singer. This kind of argument gets played out in many ways in our daily lives and the fact that such emphasis is placed on preserving different species is not just an ecological argument but also a moral one where the rights of animals have been elevated in importance in recent years.

Even within the ‘human species’, a ‘person’ may mean different things, so, for example, debates about abortion are influenced by different ideas about whether or not an embryo is a person; is a foetus a person or when does a foetus become a person? This is a complex issue with different moral philosophical perspectives used to defend different beliefs and practices. We suggest the core issue is that of when a human being becomes a person – is it at the point of fertilisation or is it when the foetus is able to sustain life independent of the womb?