Search

Ponders how we can best make moral judgements about those issues that combine factual and normative ingredients? Effort to define the meaning of medical `futility'; Defining minimally adequate health care; Need to draw a distinction between scientific knowledge and moral and political judgements; More.

Comments on the involvement of Jewish scholars in the arena of bioethics. Effects of Jewish law and tradition; Influence of the holocaust; Traditional vs. Liberal scholars.

Questions whether there is a role for theology in the realm of bioethics. Religion vs. theology in bioethics. Religious role in a pluralistic society; Influence of religiously based values.

Argues that a theologian's primary audience is the community of faith. Theological candor; Nurturing discourse.

Examines the secularization of bioethics. History of bioethics; Insights of religion on the study of bioethics; Joseph Fletcher's book, `Medicine and Morals'; Possible consequences of secularization.

Examines the economic consequences of palliation. Our present health system legitimates, in the name of health, the most unbridled self-interest; Understanding the economic context from which the problem arises; Other aspects of modern health care and ethical interest.

Eulogizes Elizabeth D. Gee, a member of the Board of Directors of the Hastings Center, who died just before Christmas. Traces the author's contacts with Mrs. Gee, whom he describes as someone who was a brilliant organizer, serious and dedicated about ethics, and a delightful, nice person.

Discusses the problems experienced by the director of the `Hastings Center Report' when he and his comptroller investigated the possibility of switching health care insurers. Why no one would accept their business; The two problems with managing costs; An appeal for a better health care system, beginning with universal coverage for the poor.

Announces the appointment of Bruce Jennings to the position of Executive Director of the Hastings Center. Background; Creation of the new position.

Presents an overview of the issue of bioethics and introduces the themes of the special supplement to the Hastings Center Report.

Realizing the promise of long-acting contraceptives depends on continuing efforts to distinguish appropriate from inappropriate policies and practices. The current debates concerning Norplant and other long-term methods generally have based ethical judgment on too slim a reed. It is insufficient and overly divisive to limit the tools of analysis to questions of freedom and coercion. A richer perspective is needed. We have sketched out an alternative approach that rests on a close, case-by-case analysis attentive to the social dimension and consequences of contraceptive decisionmaking, as well as to the individual interests at stake. The approach also takes special note of the need for access to long-acting contraceptive, the possibility for mistaken nonuse as well as mistaken use, and our country's past and present biases and power imbalances. We do not claim that this method will make judgments about justifiable or unjustifiable influence easy or automatic. However, it should prove adept at underscoring the factors that require particular scrutiny. Perhaps more importantly, the approach highlights that influences for the use of long-acting contraceptives ought to be judged, not merely dismissed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]