Jeffrey Blustein

This paper is a response to particularist critics of the normative force of moral principles. The particularist critique, as I understand it, is a rejection not only of principle‐based accounts of moral deliberation and justification, but also of accounts of character in which principles play a central role. I focus on the latter challenge and counter it with a view I call character‐principlism. I begin by discussing in a general way what motivates the particularity objection to principles and then contrast two views – both of which insist on the importance of attentiveness to particularity – about the relative normative status of principles and particular cases. I present some reasons for believing that we need a more normatively robust conception of the role of moral principles than the particularists provide. In the main portion of the paper, I discuss how character‐principlism sees principles functioning in our lives and the lives we lead with others. I contrast this with some other accounts of desirable character that particularists can embrace, and argue that these are seriously flawed because, unlike character‐principlism, they cannot satisfactorily explain how a person could possess the constancy of character that moral integrity requires.

This paper examines the concept and moral significance of “childhood interests.” This concept is important in medical decision-making for children and more broadly in the field of pediatric ethics. The authors argue that childhood interests are identifiable components of childhood well-being that carry moral weight. Parents have a special role in protecting and promoting these interests and special obligations to do so. These parental obligations are grounded by the independent interests of the child, as well as the good of society more generally. Because parents have these child-rearing obligations, they must also have the authority and wide discretion necessary to fulfill them. However, while parental discretion is wide, it is not unlimited, for it must be used to safeguard and advance childhood interests.

No profession has undergone as much scrutiny in the past several decades as that of medicine. Indeed, one might well argue that no profession has ever undergone so much change in so short a time. An essential part of this change has been the growing insistence that competent, adult patients have the right to decide about the course of their own medical treatment. However, the familiar and widely accepted principle of patient self-determination entails a corollary that has received little attention in the growing literature on the ethics of physician-patient relations: if patients are to direct the course of their own medical treatment, then physicians are at least sometimes to be guided in their actions on behalf of patients by values that are not, and may even be incompatible with, their own values. Unless it is supposed that it would be best if physicians were simply to accommodate any and all patient requests, a possibility I consider and reject in this paper, there are bound to be numerous instances of legitimate moral conflict between the preferences of physicians and patients. In this paper, I examine the implications of this sort of moral conflict from the standpoint of the integrity of the physician. Critical to a proper appreciation of the significance of this conflict is a distinction that the literature on biomedical ethics has largely failed to draw: that between medical paternalism and physician integrity.

The recent child custody case Weisberger v Weisberger raises a number of ethical issues concerning the rights and responsibilities of parents. Chavie Weisberger, thirty‐five, and her husband, both members of an ultraorthodox Hasidic community, appeared before a religious court in 2008 to obtain a divorce. There are two sharply contrasting legal rulings in this case. Setting aside the legally significant fact that Chavie had signed the divorce agreement with the clause requiring her to raise her children Hasidic, which decision is ethically more defensible and why? Were Chavie's parental rights violated when the court removed her children from her care? Should her ex‐husband have been awarded full custody on the ground that this was in the children's best interest, and is this the right standard to use in making custody decisions? What parental responsibilities did Chavie and her ex‐husband have, and were they satisfactorily discharging them? A theory of the moral foundations of parenthood should provide answers to these questions among others. Joseph Millum, in his excellent new book The Moral Foundations of Parenthood, does this and more. His theory encompasses accounts of the foundation and content of parental rights and responsibilities, the acquisition of parental responsibilities, and the standards governing parental decision‐making.

As medical technology becomes more sophisticate the ability to manipulate nature and manage disease forces the dilemma of when can becomes ought. Indeed, most bioethical discourse is framed in terms of balancing the values and interests and the benefits and burdens that inform principled decisions about how, when, and whether interventions should occur. Yet, despite advances in science and technology, one caregiver mandate remains as constant and compelling as it was for the earliest shaman—the relief of pain. Even when cure is impossible, the physician's duty of care includes palliation. Moreover, the centrality of this obligation is both unquestioned and universal, transcending time and cultural boundaries.Although universally acknowledged, pain is a complex phenomenon for both the patient and the caregiver, influenced as much by personal values and cultural traditions as by physiological injury and disease.