Queen Christina’s moral claim on the living: Justification of a tenacious moral intuition

Abstract

In the long-running debate on the interest of the dead, Joan C. Callahan argues against such interests and although Søren Holm for practical reasons is prepared to consider posthumous interests, he does not see any moral basis to support such interests. He argues that the whole question is irresolvable, yet finds privacy interests where Tutankhamen is concerned. Callahan argues that there can be reasons to hold on to the fiction that there are posthumous interests, namely if it is comforting for the living and instrumental for society. Thus, despite arguing against the position that the dead have any interests or for any moral basis for such interests, these "interests" are still taken into consideration in the end. This shows the unsatisfactory basis of their positions and indicates the tenacity of the moral intuition that the dead can have moral claims on the living. One example of a posthumous interest is the interest in one's good name. Here we argue that it is an interest of moral significance. This implies that if individuals restrict use of their sample when they are still alive, those restrictions apply after their death. Further, it implies that one should be concerned with the reputation of historic persons. Research that defeats these interests calls for justification. We have suggested two lines of thinking along which such a discussion could go: investigating the truth-value of the good name and the relevance of bringing it into possible disrepute.

The ethical relevance of the unconscious

“…The authors identify having aware phenomenal consciousness as a necessary condition for all three kinds of interests, because without an aware subjectivity there is no point of view to which such interests can be ascribed [ 30 , 31 ]. According to this view aware phenomenal consciousness makes a moral difference through its tie to interests, which in turn always require awareness (actual or at some point in time, since at least some interests can extend beyond the extinction of consciousness, as they can extend beyond the life of the beholder [ 37 ] ). This definition of interests as necessarily related to awareness is at the root of the “best interests argument” generally employed in ethical discussions about clinical treatment of patients unable to express their preferences, like patients with DOCs [ 38 ].…”

Biohistorical materials and contemporary privacy concerns-the forensic case of King Albert I

“…Already for a long time, debate exists on the privacy of a deceased individual 9,29,58 . However, even if the person is dead for a long time, the privacy of currently living descendants can be impacted when the genome of the deceased is analysed and the results are published.…”

“…Moreover, if (susceptibility to) infertility would be discovered, the position of the present King -a legal great-grandson of Albert I -would be threatened 7 . Also the emotional aspects of the descendants and the public should be taken into account: public knowledge on predispositions to disease or characteristic can harm the current King's heroic image [28][29][30] .…”