This presentation explores the definitions and historical significance of the principles of sanctity and

dignity of life in human rights. It delves into the conflicts between these principles in relation to

abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and gene editing.

Human rights discourse places a high value on the idea of the sanctity and dignity of life, which

shapes the moral and ethical underpinnings of all communities. However, this does not imply

that this phrase may only be used in the context of these disciplines. The phrase "sanctity of life"

refers to more than only protecting life from harm. Similar circumstances apply to "human

dignity," which states that no human being should be subjected to intrusion from other people.

These concepts, which have their roots in religious, philosophical, and ethical traditions, emphasise

the intrinsic worth and value of people and serve as the cornerstone for the defence and

advancement of fundamental human rights. Human nature has a way of making us recognise

the fundamental sanctity of every individual existence. They play a crucial role in driving

dialogue on issues of life, death, and personal autonomy since they are fundamental principles

in human rights frameworks.

HISTORICAL

Ancient times

The sanctity and dignity of life are key concepts in the topic of human rights, indicating the high

importance that nations place on human existence. These concepts have a lengthy history and

are based on a variety of philosophical and religious traditions that have shaped ethical

perspectives over time. According to the Judeo-Christian faith, as humans were made in God's

image, they have intrinsic value and sanctity. Western ethics and ideas have been significantly

influenced by this concept.

 Among other classical Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Plato underlined the importance of valuing

human life and the pursuit of eudemonia, which is often translated as "flourishing" or "well-

being." Despite not being officially stated as the sanctity or dignity of life, these early ideas

formed the basis for later ethical perspectives.

Englightment

The Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries is when the fundamentals of human rights were

first created. During this time, the idea that every individual has rights and dignity that are

inalienable just because of who they are as people gained popularity. In their classic book "Two

Treatises of Government," philosophers like John Locke maintained that people possessed

unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. In his moral philosophy, Immanuel Kant

advocated the universal principle that persons should be regarded as ends in and of themselves

rather than merely as means to an end. The concept of universal human rights recognition was

influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of the social compact. The foundation of the

present human rights movement is the Enlightenment movement.

Post world war-

The concept of human dignity has been incorporated into international human rights law. It is

established in a number of legal agreements, treaties, and declarations and is represented in a

global commitment to recognising the worth and value of every human. The Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was ratified by the United Nations in 1948,

emphasises the inherent dignity and equal rights of every human person.

Conflicts

1. Abortion and reproductive rights: Disagreements about abortion and reproductive rights may
arise due to differing views on the sanctity and dignity of life. In contrast to those who
advocate for the sanctity of life, proponents of human dignity frequently highlight a woman's
 right to autonomy and reproductive choice. By balancing these principles, issues regarding
the origin of human existence and the extent of a woman's autonomy over her body are
brought up.
2. Capital Punishment- Ethical problems are also brought up when the sanctity and dignity of
life are applied to the setting of the death penalty. While the sanctity of life principle opposes
the use of the death penalty, proponents of human dignity argue that it violates a person's
inherent worth and right to life. The legality of the state employing the taking of a life as a
form of punishment is called into doubt by this.
3. Making decisions about death: One of the most significant moral dilemmas involves the
provision of end-of-life care. The principles of holiness and the dignity of life may conflict
when deciding between euthanasia for terminally ill patients and life-sustaining therapy.
Respecting an individual's autonomy and right to die with dignity may conflict with the
sanctity of life principle, which places a priority on preserving life. In terms of ethics and
human feelings, decisions about withdrawing life support or providing palliative care can be
challenging for patients, families, and medical personnel.
4. Gene Editing-

Debates

Rights to abortion
The foetus has an intrinsic right to life, according to proponents of the sanctity of life, who assert

that human existence begins at conception. They claim that because abortion violates this right,

it should be limited or outlawed.

On the other side, proponents of a woman's freedom to make her own decisions stress the

significance of a woman's control over her own body. They contend that prohibiting abortion

can violate a woman's dignity since it might compel her to carry the child against her will.

According to this viewpoint, it is a basic human right to protect the dignity of women.
Addressing issues like when personhood begins, the status of the foetus, and how to protect both

the sanctity of life and individual dignity are necessary to strike a balance between both points

of view.

In case of Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration (2009), the Indian Supreme court clarified

the conditions under which a woman can legally seek an abortion. It reinforced a woman’s right

to make decisions about her own body while taking into consideration the sanctity of life and

the stage of pregnancy.

Euthanasia
The sanctity of life argument, which maintains that life is untouchable and that willfully ending it,

even at a person's request, is unethical and morally repugnant, is sometimes used to oppose

euthanasia.

Euthanasia proponents contend that the right to die with dignity, particularly in situations of

intolerable suffering, should be a part of the dignity of life. They contend that people should

have the freedom to decide how they want to live their lives, including whether to end them if

they are suffering from a fatal illness or unbearable agony.This discussion forces society to

reflect on how to strike a balance between protecting life and upholding the autonomy and

dignity of each individual.

In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011), Supreme court ruled that passive

euthanasia can be allowed under certain circumstances. It was a significant development in the

context of end-of-life decisions and human dignity.

Editing of genes
When addressing gene editing, especially in relation to germline editing, the idea of the sanctity of

life is relevant. For some, tinkering with the human DNA and interfering with the sacredness of

human life amounts to "playing God"

The use of gene editing, according to proponents, can be utilised to better human capacities, treat

or prevent hereditary illnesses, and promote general wellbeing. They claim that this technology

can improve quality of life and lessen suffering, which can both contribute to the dignity of life.

The difficulty in this situation is to create moral standards and laws that strike a balance between

the potential advantages of gene editing and the protection of the sanctity of life and human

dignity.

In human rights discourse, the concepts of the sanctity of life and the dignity of life are so intricately

entwined with discussions over the legality of abortion, euthanasia, and gene editing. In

conversations about ethics, law, and morality, finding consensus and ethical frameworks that

uphold these principles while accepting individual autonomy and society requirements is a

constant problem. These discussions highlight the difficulties in translating human rights ideals

into practical moral conundrums.

Conclusion

In the end, maintaining the sanctity and dignity of life entails honouring the intrinsic value and

autonomy of every individual while advancing the rights and wellbeing of everyone. By adhering

to these values, society can endeavour to create a more compassionate, just, and inclusive

world where everyone's rights are upheld and respected, regardless of their upbringing or

circumstances. Through these initiatives, we may work to create a world community that

respects and upholds the sanctity and dignity of every human existence.