ABSTRACT

The meeting was organized by Margot Brazier, Professor of Law at the University of Manchester. The author's argument was based on the standard John Stuart Mill principle of autonomy. The heap he want to use to illustrate is the heap of hair that used to adorn his head, before time weeded his cranium. Photographic evidence shows that in 1980 he had a full head of hair, while in 1990 he was bald. The clinical, ethical and legal fudge around the use of the double effect is even more evident when those who have religious grounds for opposing assisted dying advocate continuous deep sedation, which not only reduces the person to a physiological preparation but also shortens their life dramatically. The fundamental problem is that of mapping a dichotomous distinction - 'not-bald' versus 'bald' - on to what is essentially a continuous process of hair loss.