Kevin Wildes

: During the past decade there has been a debate about the field of philosophy of medicine. The debate has focused on fundamental questions about whether the field exists and the nature of the field. This article explores the debate and argues that it has paid insufficient attention to the social dimensions of both philosophy and medicine. The article goes on to argue that by exploring this debate one can better understand some of the difficult questions facing contemporary medicine and health care.

At its root meaning a “crisis” is a separation. In our everyday lives we use the term crisis to designate a period of decision. A crisis is a moment of separation when one must make a decision about a direction. To make a crisis decision, a person needs some criteria or set of norms to guide the decisions that are made. Sometimes, at a moment of crisis decisionmaking, there is chaos when one does not know which norm to use in making a decision. Without some norm a crisis is a significant loss of direction because there are different criteria for deciding which way to turn or how to decide. It is in this most fundamental sense that one can say that contemporary medicine is in crisis

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Death: A Persistent Controversial StateKevin Wm. Wildes S.J. (bio)Along with the moral questions surrounding research and experimentation, the moral questions of death and dying have ranked among the most central and formative sets of issues for the field of bioethics. While the questions of death and dying have a long history (Wildes 1996), the attempt to address them as secular questions is an element of what established bioethics as a field of inquiry.The controversies of death and dying are not only formative of bioethics, but also are among the most persistent bioethical controversies. Today, almost 30 years after the Harvard Ad Hoc Committee’s definition of death and 20 years after the Quinlan decision, the questions of death and dying are still with us. Recently, the question of physician-assisted suicide once again gained national [End Page 378] attention with the trials of Dr. Kevorkian and the decisions of the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts on the constitutionality of the Washington and New York state laws prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. At the same time, questions and controversies about the appropriate extent of treatment and the determination of death in relationship to treatment continue to be problematic in health care.As I reviewed the literature in the area of death and dying, one central question emerged: Why, after so much reflection, energy, and discussion, do the problems around death and dying continue to persist? There is a recurring character to these questions that is indeed a wonder. In reviewing these moral controversies, one might ask what these controversies and their persistent character tell us about bioethics that can help us to understand the issues and the field.Some might blame the development of medical technology for the persistence of these issues of death and dying. The development and use of technological resources certainly is an important element of these continuing controversies. The use of medical technologies at the end of life allows us the possibility to sustain lives that would have been lost just a few decades ago. However, while medical technology certainly opens new horizons and possibilities, the development and deployment of technology does not sufficiently explain why these issues are so difficult and persistent. The question underlying the use of medical technology at the end of life is the question about which criteria are to be used to make judgments about the appropriate use of such technology. If the use of medical technology depends on the moral views one holds about death, suffering, and the appropriate use of resources, then such issues will be morally controversial in a society that is morally pluralistic.To address these questions, it is important to remember what is all too obvious and yet often forgotten. Death is not only a medical event. In this century, particularly in the last 40 years, we have reduced death to a medical event, yet, the medical meanings do not exhaust the event (see Engelhardt 1996, pp. 189–238). Death is also a social, cultural, and often religious event and the medical realities of death must be interpreted within these different contexts. As such, death will be the locus of different meanings and interpretations. By keeping these different structures of interpretation in mind, we are better able to understand why controversies around death and dying persist. Just as the meaning of death will vary from culture to culture, so too will the criteria of death vary. Different moral communities have different criteria for death—e.g., pulmonary or cognitive function. Put another way, different communities and cultures will have different views of what constitutes a good life, and those views influence the way death is understood. How one understands the obligations to support life also varies according to one’s moral commitments and values.One’s view of what counts as death, or what counts as a good death, is influenced [End Page 379] by the moral commitments that one holds. The persistent controversies over death and dying are a symptom of deep, widespread moral and cultural pluralism. These views are controversial because, in many ways, our deaths are no longer private. That is, the way we die often is tied to a health...

This article explores the feasibility of using an appeal to the virtues in bioethical analyses, and the difficulties posed by the fact that most virtues and especially hope, are embedded in particular traditions. Whose virtues, then, shall focus our analyses ? A brief description of Christian hope is used to argue that hope does play a major role in various health care venues and to suggest that the common elements in a secular account of the virtues can be found in an unbiased sharing of one's religious background or way of life.

In The Prenatal Person: Ethics from Conception to Birth Norman Ford has provided an important, thoughtful, accessible account of a natural law view of early human life. Ford has written an engaging book that puts this fundamental moral position about persons and prenatal life in conversation with critics of the position, common morality, the Christian tradition, and many of the complex clinical problems of contemporary medicine. The book is a timely contribution to bioethics and many of the controversies surrounding embryonic stem cell and cloning research. It takes up one of the most important positions in these debates and gives a clear, concise development of the natural law tradition. Ford very clearly lays out a natural law position on early human life and then draws out the implications of that position for many current and important …