The Problem of the Subject: The Politics of Post-mortem Rights in the Aftermath of Drug-related Deaths

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
Kate Seear, S. Fraser, A. Madden
{"title":"The Problem of the Subject: The Politics of Post-mortem Rights in the Aftermath of Drug-related Deaths","authors":"Kate Seear, S. Fraser, A. Madden","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2021.1885201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, drug-related deaths have soared around the world. Some of these are overdose deaths, some are due to state violence as part of the ‘war on drugs’. Images of these deaths are often widely circulated in mainstream and social media. They are mobilised by anti-drug campaigners, anti-prohibitionists, family members seeking to memorialise their loved ones, and researchers. In all of these instances, of course, there is no question about whether the dead can consent to the sharing of such images, for they are no longer alive to do so. Where consent is not possible, how should the sharing of such images be approached? This article explores this issue. We focus on two concepts often mobilised when assessing the validity of post-mortem rights claims: shame, and what we call dignity-as-reputation. Through an analysis of two case studies of drug-related death, we explain why these concepts are an inadequate framework for assessing what is at stake within the specific and unique context of drug-related deaths. We argue that posthumanist legal theory and feminist scholarship on emotions provide an alternative foundation for legal approaches to images of death, and argue that post-mortem rights should be reworked.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"46 1","pages":"169 - 188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13200968.2021.1885201","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1885201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In recent years, drug-related deaths have soared around the world. Some of these are overdose deaths, some are due to state violence as part of the ‘war on drugs’. Images of these deaths are often widely circulated in mainstream and social media. They are mobilised by anti-drug campaigners, anti-prohibitionists, family members seeking to memorialise their loved ones, and researchers. In all of these instances, of course, there is no question about whether the dead can consent to the sharing of such images, for they are no longer alive to do so. Where consent is not possible, how should the sharing of such images be approached? This article explores this issue. We focus on two concepts often mobilised when assessing the validity of post-mortem rights claims: shame, and what we call dignity-as-reputation. Through an analysis of two case studies of drug-related death, we explain why these concepts are an inadequate framework for assessing what is at stake within the specific and unique context of drug-related deaths. We argue that posthumanist legal theory and feminist scholarship on emotions provide an alternative foundation for legal approaches to images of death, and argue that post-mortem rights should be reworked.
主体问题:与毒品有关的死亡后的死后权利的政治
摘要近年来,世界各地与毒品有关的死亡人数激增。其中一些是药物过量死亡,一些是由于“禁毒战争”中的国家暴力。这些死亡的图片经常在主流媒体和社交媒体上广泛传播。他们由禁毒运动者、反禁令者、寻求纪念亲人的家庭成员和研究人员动员起来。当然,在所有这些情况下,死者是否可以同意分享这些图像是毫无疑问的,因为他们已经不在人世了。如果不能同意,应该如何分享这些图像?本文探讨了这个问题。在评估死后权利主张的有效性时,我们关注两个经常被调动的概念:羞耻感,以及我们所说的尊严即声誉。通过对两个与毒品有关的死亡案例的分析,我们解释了为什么这些概念不足以评估与毒品有关死亡的具体和独特背景下的利害关系。我们认为,后人道主义法律理论和女权主义情感学术为处理死亡图像的法律方法提供了另一个基础,并认为应该重新制定死后权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信