The U.N. convention on the rights of the child: Relevance and application to pediatric clinical bioethics

This article provides an overview of the relevance and import of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to child health practice and pediatric bioethics. We discuss the four general principles of the CRC that apply to the implementation of all rights contained in the document, the right to health articulated in Article 24, and the important position ascribed to parents in fulfilling the rights of their children. We then examine how the CRC is implemented and monitored in law and practice. The CRC and associated principles of child rights provide strategies for rights-based approaches to clinical practice and health systems, as well as to policy design, professional training, and health services research. In light of the relevance of the CRC and principles of child rights to children’s health and child health practice, it follows that there is an intersection between child rights and pediatric bioethics. Pediatric bioethicists and child rights advocates should work together to define this intersection in all domains of pediatric practice.

The four general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: the potential value of the approach in other areas of human rights law

At the outset of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child identified four of its provisions (non-discrimination; best interests of the child as a primary consideration; life, survival and development; and participation) as ‘general principles’. This approach has shaped implementation of, advocacy for and the scholarship on the Convention. The use of general principles has the potential to make a significant contribution in other areas of human rights law provided that the principles are selected carefully and address the distinct issues at the root of potential rights violations for particular rights-holders.

Balancing Rights in Religious Education through Collaboration and Dialogue

While the right of parents to educate their children in their religious or philosophical conviction is recognised in Human Rights instruments (e.g. CoE 1952, protocol 1), educators must also attend to the right of a child to autonomy (UN 1989, Article 12.1) and the right of liberal democratic states to reproduce values of equity and freedom. This paper argues that certain forms of inter-religious dialogue and/or inter-religious collaborative learning can assist educators in balancing these rights where religion has significant influence and power over the management of schools and/or the curriculum. It is argued that in addition to the learning benefits which may result, the use of collaboration and dialogue goes some way in addressing three philosophical criticisms of religious education: first that religiously separate and religiously based education pays insufficient attention to the rights of children and, secondly, is likely to contribute to social fragmentation; and third, pupils will lack the skills to overcome prejudice or intolerance where they have no experience of others as a result of separate schooling or from a religiously narrow curriculum, and the latter may in fact support intolerant views. A rationale is developed that asserts the value of collaboration or dialogue as a pedagogical strategy that can, to some degree, mitigate potential negative outcomes from religious education. This argument is further supported with reference to a range of empirical studies.

Commentary on An Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Literary Property (1762)

One of a number of published commentaries contributing to the mid-eighteenth century debate concerning the nature of literary property. The author of An Enquiry sought to repudiate the concept of a natural authorial property right existing at common law. In so doing, he specifically engaged with various aspects of William Warburton's earlier commentary (see: uk_1747), as well as presenting arguments that drew upon the nature of property in general, the differences between the right claimed by proponents of the common law right and other acknowledged incorporeal properties, the similarities between patents and copyright, the history of literary property, the experience of other jurisdictions (drawing upon Venice in particular), and the consequences that would follow from conceding the existence of a perpetual right both for authors in particular and society in general. This commentary, in turn, drew its own response in the guise of A Vindication of the Exclusive Rights of Authors, to their own work (1762).

Commentary on Maugham's Treatise on the Laws of Literary Property (1828)

The first British legal treatise dedicated specifically to the law of copyright written by a strong advocate of the common law rights of the author. Maugham, in addition to providing a commentary upon the law of copyright, also used his work to lobby for both an extension to the copyright term (ideally resulting in a perpetual right) and a reduction in the library deposit requirements (arguing that authors should only be required to deposit one copy of their work for the British Museum). In proselytising the need for a change to the law in both areas he drew frequent comparisons with the law of other jurisdictions (in particular France and Germany). The work became a standard point of reference for many British and American authors who followed.

Respecting and fulfilling the right of post-primary pupils to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research: A discussion paper

This paper provides an introduction to issues surrounding the participation rights of young people in research and the implications of their growing involvement in research as well as providing a discourse on the ethical implications related to consent. The unique contribution of this paper is that it considers children’s rights in respect to the increasing opportunities for young people to take part in evaluation research. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to acknowledge the growing involvement for young people in research and the implications of ensuring that their rights of participation are respected. Secondly we will consider the children’s rights legislation and our obligations as researchers to implement this. Finally we will explore consent as an issue in its own right as well as the practicalities of accessing participants. This paper will postulate that any research about young people should involve and prioritise at all stages of the research process; including participation in decision-making. We conclude by identifying five key principles, which we believe can help to facilitate the fulfilment of post-primary pupils’ ability to consent to participate in trials and evaluative research.

Rabbits, stoats and the predator problem: Why a strong animal rights position need not call for human intervention to protect prey from predators

Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s suggestion that respect for nonhuman sovereignty necessitates non-interference in normal circumstances, and Alasdair Cochrane’s solution based on the claim that predators cannot survive without killing prey. The possibility defended builds upon Tom Regan’s suggestion that predators, as moral patients but not moral agents, cannot violate the rights of their prey, and so the rights of the prey, while they do exist, do not call for intervention. This idea is developed by a consideration of how moral agents can be more or less responsible for a given event, and defended against criticisms offered by thinkers including Alasdair Cochrane and Dale Jamieson.