Stephen S. Hanson

It is commonly assumed that persons who hold abortions to be generally impermissible must, for the same reasons, be opposed to embryonic stem cell research [ESR]. Yet a settled position against abortion does not necessarily direct one to reject that research. The difference in potentiality between the embryos used in ESR and embryos discussed in the abortion debate can make ESR acceptable even if one holds that abortion is impermissible. With regard to their potentiality, in vitro embryos are here argued to be more morally similar to clonable somatic cells than they are to in vivo embryos. This creates an important moral distinction between embryos in vivo and in vitro. Attempts to refute this moral distinction, raised in the recent debate in this journal between Alfonso Gómez-Lobo and Mary Mahowald, are also addressed.

The development of a code of ethics for a profession can be an indicator of the coherence and stability of a discipline as a unique and singular entity. Since “bioethics”, as a discipline, is not one profession but many, practiced by persons with not one but many varying responsibilities and training, it has been argued that no code of ethics is possible for the discipline(s) of bioethics. I argue that a code of ethics is possible for bioethics by looking at the nature of the various disciplines and noting necessary overlap between them, and deriving the ethics from the nature of the discipline(s) themselves. I show how this can be done by arguing that strict rules about funding and conflict of interest are necessary for bioethicists

: In Engelhardt's secular bioethics, moral obligations derive from contracts and agreements between rational persons, and no infants or children and few adolescents meet Engelhardt's requirements for being a rational person. This is a problem, as one cannot have any direct secular moral obligations toward nonpersons such as infants and adolescents. The Engelhardtian concepts of ownership, indenture, and social personhood, which are meant to allow the theory to accommodate children and adolescents adequately, fail to give an Engelhardtian any actual means of determining the right action to take in difficult cases, even on his or her own terms. Thus, the theory is incapable of determining the morally correct action to take in cases involving children and therefore is unhelpful in dealing with moral questions involving children

This article argues that teaching medical and nursing students health care ethics in an interdisciplinary setting is beneficial for them. Doing so produces an education that is theoretically more consistent with the goals of health care ethics, can help to reduce moral stress and burnout, and can improve patient care. Based on a literature review, theoretical arguments and individual observation, this article will show that the benefits of interdisciplinary education, specifically in ethics, outweigh the difficulties many schools may have in developing such courses.

Jotkowitz, Glick, and Gesundheit (2008) rightly critique Manninen (2006) for an errant analysis of the Groningen protocol. However, they draw conclusions about the protocol itself that are not justified. Because of the nature of the care of infants, the Groningen protocol doesn't break new ethical ground. We already have to treat infants without direct access to their autonomous preferences or values; therefore, we are already making the decisions that Jotkowitz, Glick, and Gesundheit argue we are beginning to take once active euthanasia of infants is allowed.

An anxious resident paged ethics at 2:00 a.m. His patient, Mr. M, a twenty‐nine‐year‐old man with a history of multiple substance abuse, was in the hospital after cardiac arrest and lack of cerebral perfusion. Sadly, the young man probably met the criteria for brain death, but the final apnea test to confirm the diagnosis could not be done for another forty‐eight to seventy‐two hours because the Klonopin in his system might confound the results. The resident's concern, however, addressed a request made by the patient's mother for a sperm harvest. The patient's mother maintained that her son had said he wanted to give her grandchildren. She wished to harvest sperm from him for a future use with an as‐yet‐to‐be‐determined surrogate mother.

ABSTRACTTeam physicians have a complicated job that involves potentially conflicting obligations to multiple entities. Though responsible for the medical care of the athletes as individuals, they also have obligations to the team that employs them which can include returning athletes to play who are at heightened risk of re-injury. The fact that the athletes and owners have some overlapping interests only complicates this issue. Further, there are strong financial incentives to do what is necessary to obtain and keep a position as a team physician. This article examines dual loyalty and conflict of interest in sports medicine, and argues that there is not now a widely accepted or adequate solution to either. Moving toward a solution will require fairly serious changes in the role of the team physician.Abbreviations: FIMS International Federation of Sports Medicine; NFL National Football League; MVP Most Valuable Player; RGIII Robert Griffin, III.

Makins’s analysis of the philosophical justification of decision-making understates and so misinterprets the importance of patient values to ‘the deference principle.’ (Makins N,1, p1) He assesses autonomy and beneficence as two separate arguments in support of deferring to patient preferences, but they only work well considered together. Further, neither the constitutive nor the evidential view of beneficence fully recognises the importance of patient values to understanding the patient’s worldview, which in turn determines what risks and benefits matter most. Revising these arguments enables a much fuller understanding of the importance of patient values to the practice of medicine, which will in turn improve the refinement of the deference principle. Autonomy requires beneficence, and vice versa, for either of them to be sufficient arguments for deferring to patient choices. Focusing on autonomy alone to justify deference overstates the value of choice in and of itself, as good medicine does not pursue just any choices. It seeks informed consent, which means that the choices we truly value are those made while understanding what is importantly relevant to the choice. A well-informed decision includes data about expected side effects and likelihood of beneficial effects; but it also includes knowing the patient’s values and goals. One must know what is actually valuable …

I show that Engelhardtian content-free theory, principle-based theory, and casuistry all fail to successfully resolve bioethical conflict in a pluralistic society, in part because they all attempt to provide resolutions satisfactory to all members of society, which the extent of rational pluralism in modern society makes very unlikely. However, I show that this does not prevent us from finding morally justified solutions to problematic moral cases in modern society. By a justified expansion of the notion of moral community to include very narrow understandings of moral friendship, including an adaptation of the concept of moral acquaintances as developed by Loewy and Wildes, I argue that resolutions grounded in even very narrowly shared moral values can be fully morally justified. Since principle-based approaches can discover or even create moral agreement between persons through careful examination and specification of principles, they can define or create moral acquaintanceships. Since these approaches can justify moral claims within the context of moral agreement, I argue that even quite narrow moral acquaintanceships can provide sufficient moral agreement to allow persons employing such theories to resolve moral conflicts within those acquaintanceships, even if no resolution could be justified to the pluralistic society as a whole