[hocndoc]

It's been a long day, so I'm not going to try to comment more on the position of the authors, other than to state, again, that they are trying to fuse utilitarianism, autonomy and beneficience with non-maleficence.
Utilitarianism always comes down to who has the greater power to define "the greatest good for the greatest number," just as beneficience devolves into who is defining "for the greatest good." Autonomy can not overcome inalienable right to life, and maleficence - or "First, do no harm" -- must be the over-riding ethic, lest we go down the path toward utilitarianism.

These are the very "hard cases" that ethics struggle with, and the perfect rationale for non-maleficence as the "trump" for protecting the right to life - on which the other rights depend.

[MarMema]

Thank you incredibly, *hugely* much for taking the time to post all of this! I have been working on the other threads for the bill being introduced in Florida in the morning, and will read this carefully tomorrow.