The Discourse of Dignity in the Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup Cases

Monique Jonas and Samantha Ryan

Medical Law Review, 2021, vol. 29, issue 1, 24-47

Abstract: There are competing accounts of dignity and no agreement about how to adjudicate between them, but this does not prevent dignity from playing an important role in the law. In fact, this very multiplicity enables dignity to perform a range of functions, both explicit and implicit, intended and unintended. Its ‘open character’ allows dignity to serve as a locus of agreement, but it can also silence debate and limit speaker control of how their statements are received and interpreted. This paper considers dignity’s roles in recent English court judgments relating to withdrawal of ventilation and associated care from three unresponsive, paralysed infants: Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Isaiah Haastrup. It presents a critical discourse analysis focusing on the judgments of first instance in relation to these infants. It argues that a range of conceptions of dignity are operationalised, serving four functions: to express esteem; to establish a hierarchy of credibility; to justify a best interests judgment, and to socialise that judgment. The overall effect is that dignity serves to compel acceptance of, rather than providing reasons to support, a best interests judgment. While recognising the value of unspecified invocations of dignity, we voice a warning about its potential to stifle debate and legitimise and enforce existing power relations.

Keywords: Alfie Evans; Best interests; Charlie Gard; Dignity; Discourse; Isaiah Haastrup (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa038 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:1:p:24-47.

Access Statistics for this article

Medical Law Review is currently edited by Professor Sara Fovargue and Professor Jose Miola

More articles in Medical Law Review from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().