Authors such as Francis Fukuyama, the President's Council on Bioethics, and George Annas have argued that biotechnological interventions that aim to promote genetic enhancement pose a threat to human nature. This paper clarifies what conclusions these critics seek to establish, and then shows that there is no plausible account of human nature that will meet the conditions necessary to support this position. Appeals to human nature cannot establish a prohibition against the pursuit of genetic enhancement.

Codes of medical ethics issued by professional organizations typically contain statements affirming the importance of confidentiality between patients and health-care practitioners. Seldom, however, is the confidentiality obligation depicted as absolute. Instead, exceptions are noted, the most common of which is that health-care professionals are justified in breaching the confidence of a patient if required by law to do so. Reasons that might be given to support this exception are critically discussed in this paper. The conclusion argued for is that this (...) is not a legitimate exception to the confidentiality rule. (shrink)

Next SectionDr Thomas Stockmann, the protagonist of Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People, discovers a serious health threat in the Baths of his Norwegian town. The Baths have been marketed as a health resort to lure visitors. Dr Stockmann alerts officials about the problem and assumes that they will close the Baths until it is corrected. He is met with fierce resistance, however. His brother, the town's mayor, favors keeping the Baths open and correcting the problem gradually. He advances (...) multiple arguments that appeal to the economic interests of the town and Thomas's role-related obligation as a citizen. His wife, Katherine, wants him to cooperate with the mayor. She marshals several arguments that appeal to his obligations as a father. This paper reconstructs and examines the competing arguments, shows how Ibsen's play has both contemporary relevance and moral depth, and demonstrates how Dr Stockmann's responses can be interpreted as an argument that complying with his duties to protect the public health do not force him to renege on his core commitments as a parent and as a citizen. (shrink)

sirDr Campbell presents proponents of euthanasia with a dilemma.1 Only voluntary euthanasia is permissible; involuntary euthanasia is always impermissible. The question of allowing euthanasia arises most frequently when patients are terminally ill and experiencing great pain. But in these cases, he argues, if patients request euthanasia, their decision “is not freely chosen but is compelled by the pain”.2 It is easy to exaggerate the problem here; patients may have periods when they are pain-free and affirm repeatedly their desire that death (...) be hastened. Putting this aside, however, what should we conclude if euthanasia performed on patients who are suffering greatly is not voluntary?Dr Campbell concludes: “If the request to end one's life is not made freely, then it is doubtful that such requests ought to be followed”.2 An advance directive will not help, we are …. (shrink)