Not so long ago, medical professionals believed in the Hippocratic Oath. This says in part: “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgement, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them. I will not give poison to anyone though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan. Similarly, I will not give a pessary to a woman to cause abortion. But in purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”

In later paragraphs, the doctor promises to do no intentional wrongdoing or harm, not to engage in sexual relations with patients or members of their household and to guard a patient’s privacy. It ends with the words: “Now if I keep this oath … may I enjoy honour in my life and art … but if I transgress, may the opposite befall me.”

There have been numerous other codes of medical ethics, but they have all emphasised respect for the sanctity of human life and to cause no harm.

Generally, human rights and ethics have been based on the belief in the sanctity and value of human life. In the Bible, human beings are made in God’s image and are therefore of immense value, regardless of gender, skin colour, race, ethnic origin, health, age or otherwise.

The purpose of human rights is to uphold the unique value of each individual human and protect the weaker members of society from harm, exploitation, abuse and destruction, as they are unable or less able to defend themselves.

As a previous editorial noted, the sign of a civilised society is the way it treats those who are less fortunate.

The question is, what values do we want for our society? Do we value every human life equally and give everyone the best possible care and protection? Or do we only value the lives of people when it is convenient to do so? Do we allow all opinions to be equally expressed, or do we silence those we object to?