Life's Dominion : An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom

Rating:
Summary: False Rationalizations
Review: Amazingly, Dworkin offers a new take on the abortion dispute--and I think a correct one. I don't agree with everything he says, but this book sheds more light on these issues than any other that I have read. I would say that it is the best philosophical book I have read in a long while. Among the many things that I appreciate about this book is that Dworkin along the way also has interesting and insightful things to say about the philosophy of mind, the meaning of life, and the nature of human dignity. If you are at all interested in bio-ethics, the philosophy of the abortion dispute, euthanasia, or the meaning of life--read this book. I plan to re-read it soon.

Rating:
Summary: False Rationalizations
Review: Dworkin claims that accepting abortion and euthanasia is to somehow embrace the sanctity of all human life. What tripe. Whatever one thinks of these controversial issues, both involve killing as a means to problem solving. That hardly embraces life's sanctity unless language has lost all meaning.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent take on the Abortion and Euthanasia issues..
Review: I read Dworkin's book in a Philosophy of Law course in college. Whether you agree with his ultimate position or not, this book is possibly the BEST expression of a position on the Abortion/Euthanisia debate I have see. Dworkin's analysis is well reasoned, and avoids the typical pitfalls in the area (appeals to emotion, dogmatism, sentimentality -- on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides).

Regardless of your view, check this book out and you will be rewarded.

Rating:
Summary: not advised
Review: I was actually looking forward to reading this book. I came with an open mind and yet the poor writing and lack of credible arguments astounded me. How is this author a scholar and still able to write weakly biased matirial that is published by a major house?

I would recomend not reading this book no matter what your stance is on these topics. If you agree with the author, you may be blinded by your beliefs to embrace his scewed logic, and if you disagree, you will get a bad impression of the actual arguments his side could give.

Rating:
Summary: not advised
Review: I was actually looking forward to reading this book. I came with an open mind and yet the poor writing and lack of credible arguments astounded me. How is this author a scholar and still able to write weakly biased matirial that is published by a major house?

I would recomend not reading this book no matter what your stance is on these topics. If you agree with the author, you may be blinded by your beliefs to embrace his scewed logic, and if you disagree, you will get a bad impression of the actual arguments his side could give.

Rating:
Summary: Good moral introspective
Review: I'm reading this book as part of and Ethics and Health Care course and find Dworkin's argument to be a concise moral overview of the current debate on abortion and euthanasia. He does equal justice to views from the Catholic Church to the Women's movement on aspects of abortion and gives those with a less extensive legal background an easily understandable assessment of important precedents and pending legislation. I found his coverage on other other systems outside of the US to be lacking, but realize this is not the primary focus of his work. For a better analysis of the current acceptability and status of PAS and euthanasia in the Netherlands look for articles by Van der Maas and Angell in JAMA or the NEJM. Overall, Dworkin does justice to a highly controversial issue with adequate research and moral reasoning. An excellant beginner to understanding abortion and euthanasia.

Rating:
Summary: carefully and closely reasoned investigation
Review: Not light reading or a polemic, but rather a carefully and closely reasoned investigation of how one comes to decisions about matters involving the taking of life, with particular emphasis on doing so under the US Constitution
 
<<<<...the American Constitution, understood as one of principle, provides a better form of government than any in which the legislative and executive branches of government are legally free to disregard fundamental principles of justice and decency. A constitution of principle, enforced by independent judges, is not undemocratic. On the contrary, it is a precondition of legitimate democracy that government is required to treat individual citizens as equals, and to respect their fundamental liberties and dignity. Unless those conditions are met, there can be no genuine democracy, because unless they are met, the majority has no legitimate moral title to govern.>>>>>
 
Starting with an in-depth look at the arguments about abortion, Dworkin moves out to wider considerations of euthanasia and suicide. He shows how many of the classic arguments in these areas are actually closer to each other than most participants would think or admit, and then shows where continued dialog and discussion might be useful, without asking either side to compromise basic principles. One of Dworkin's main concerns is to show that a principled interpretation of the constitution should be both a liberal and a conservative mandate. Even in the divisive issue of abortion, principled stand based on the inherent value of life helps both sides:
 
<<<<< 
Of course, if we centered the abortion controversy on the question of whether a fetus is a person with a right to live, then one state's having the right to forbid abortion would not mean that another had the right to require it. But that does follow once we recognize that the constitutional question at stake is whether a state can impose on everyone on official interpretation of the inherent value of life. It would be intolerable for a state to require an abortion to prevent the birth of a deformed child. In the United States, no one doubts that such a requirement would be unconstitutional. But the reason why - because it denies a pregnant woman's right to decide for herself what the sanctity of life requires her to do about her own pregnancy - applies with exactly equal force in the other direction. A state just as seriously insults the dignity of a pregnant woman when it forces her to the opposite choice. That the choice is approved by a majority is no better justification in the one case than in the other. >>>>
 
Some further examples demonstrate the depth of his discussions, but can only hint at the fully developed arguments present in the book.
<<<<<<.. the distinction between the question of what acts or events are in some creature's interests and the question of what acts or events respect the sanctity of that creature's life.
 
<<<<<...the appeal to the sanctity of life raises here the same crucial political and constitutional issue that it raises about abortion. Once again the critical question is whether a decent society will choose coercion or responsibility, whether it will seek to impose a collective judgment on matters of the most profound spiritual character on everyone, or whether it will allow and ask its citizens to make the most central, personality-defining judgment about their own lives for themselves.