The active debate about the return of incidental or secondary findings in research has primarily focused on return to research participants, or in some cases, family members. Particular attention has been paid to return of genomic findings. Yet, research may generate other types of findings that warrant consideration for return, including findings related to the pathology of donated biospecimens. In the case of deceased biospecimen donors who are also organ and/or tissue transplant donors, pathology incidental findings may be relevant not (...) to family members, but to potential organ or tissue transplant recipients. This paper will describe the ethical implications of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression project, the process for developing a consensus approach as to if/when such findings should be returned, possible implications for other research projects collecting postmortem tissues and how the scenario encountered in GTEx fits into the larger return of results/incidental findings debate. (shrink)

Examines some of the ethical questions raised by the capabilities of modern medicine.

Est-il vrai que la notion chrétienne de création soit une notion complètement nouvelle par rapport à la philosophie grecque ? Telle est la question qu'on se pose dans l'article ci-dessus. Si d'habitude on est incliné à répondre à cette question par l'affirmative, c'est en admettant que, assez généralement, la philosophie grecque connaît l'idée d'une matière préexistante. C'est ainsi que les apologètes grecs du deuxième siècle, tels qu'Aristide et Théophile d'Antioche, se sont opposés à la philosophie grecque et spécialement à la (...) doctrine de Platon telle qu'ils l'ont comprise. L'auteur essaie de démontrer que, en fait, Platon n'a pas admis une matière préexistante dans le sens voulu par ses adversaires. Il n'a ni enseigné que les éléments préexistassent à l'œuvre créatrice du Démiurge , ni introduit sa notion d' espace dans le sens de matière, telle qu'Aristote, suivant sa propre terminologie, a voulu l'expliquer. C'est donc une erreur de dire que Platon ait admis une matière qui soit « coéternelle » et « du même âge », donc du même ordre que Dieu. Pour Platon, et pour Aristote également, le principe non déterminé ne saurait, comme tel, être du même orde que le premier Principe de l'être qui est comme tel un principe déterminant et déterminé. C'e'st une erreur, encore, de dire que, sur ce point comme sur beaucoup d'autres, Aristote était plus près de la vérité, donc du Christianisme, que Platon, le « Démiurge » du dernier n'étant pas une cause totale, tandis que le Premier Moteur d'Aristote était, dans un sens, vraiment une cause totale. Ce qui se voit clairement chez Platon, non seulement dans le Timée, mais aussi dans la République et dans le Philète , c'est qu'il est constamment et profondément préoccupé de fonder l'existence relative dans l'Existence absolue. Il a reconnu le rapport entre le monde visible et le Monde transcendant comme une relation de dépendance totale et essentielle. Or, si, dans son essence, la notion chrétienne de création n'est autre chose qu'une telle relation de dépendance, Platon, qui a fait de cette notion la base de toute sa philosophie, était par là-même près de la foi chrétienne. Aristote, d'autre part, bien qu'il ait dit une fois au moins que de son premier Principe tout l'univers dépend, a minimisé en fait le rapport entre le premier Principe et notre monde. Dans la notion chrétienne de création deux éléments se dissinguent : L'Etre Absolu, dont sort tout ce qui est relatif, se distingue dans son essence de tout ce qui n'est pas Lui. Le mode selon lequel l'être relatif sort de l'Absolu n'est pas celui d'une nécessité de nature, mais d'un acte de volonté. En partant de cette analyse, on peut déterminer exactement les degrés de différence ou d'affinité entre la notion chrétienne de création et les différents systèmes de philosophie grecque. En rapport avec la Stoa, la différence est dans la notion de Dieu : ne reconnaissant pas sa transcendance, on méconnaît l'opposition entre l'Absolu et l'être relatif. Quant à Aristote, il n'explique aucunement comment l'être relatif provient de l'Absolu : son premier Moteur n'est pas la cause de l'être, et les « formes » immanentes des objets naturels restent chez lui sans aucune explication. Sans doute, Platon explique davantage. Il est suivi par les Néoplatoniciens qui font provenir l'être relatif de l'Absolu, tout en connaissant une différence essentielle entre l'un et l'autre, mais n'admettant point d'acte de volonté de la part de l'Absolu. Platon qui, probablement, admettait un acte de volonté, se trouvait par là-même le plus près de la notion chrétienne de création. Il en différait, cependant, sur quelques points importants. Il n'enseigne qu'en partie une création directe : c'est que le Nous transcendant qui est le Démiurge, constitue des éléments le monde visible ; ces éléments, il ne les a pas trouvés comme tels, mais il les a faits de — « quelque chose » qu'on n'a pas le droit de nommre une chose. Il « fait » donc le monde dans son aspect intelligible. Mais il reste un aspect qui échappe à la pensée et qui, comme tel, ne saurait provenir du Principe Suprême qui domine la hiérarchie platonicienne de l'être. Ensuite, le Nous transcendant fait les âmes : l'âme du monde, les astres , les âmes humaines. Il ne fait ni les corps humains ni les êtres vivants d'un ordre inférieur à l'homme. Ceux-là, ils sont tous créés par les « dieux créés » et secondaires qui sont les Astres. Pour Platon, l'Esprit transcendant qui crée le monde n'est pas le Principe suprême. Il se trouve d'après ce qu'il paraît, à un degré plus bas dans la hiérarchie de l'être. Ce seront les penseurs chrétiens, ce sera tout d'abord Saint Athanase qui, en unifiant essentiellement le Père et son Logos, a réuni l'Un et le Nous transcendant qui est le Démiurge de Platon. Au lieu d'opposer au Platonisme la doctrine qu'il n'y a pas de matière préexistante, Dieu ayant « concréé » la matière, nous préférons de dire : Platon a éloigné la notion d'infini et d'indétermination de son principe suprême ; donc, il en a fait un autre principe, jamais du même ordre que l'Un, mais tout de même un principe fondamental. La notion chrétienne de Dieu, d'autre part, renferme et le caractère de l'Un et celui de l'Infini. (shrink)

Marcel Gauchet spoke of the “eclipse of the political” during the neo-liberal era, but with the rise of populism he is now forced to speak of a “revenge of the political”. As the eclipse was discussed in terms of a new era of individualization, understood as the culmination of the “disenchantment of the world”, one has a right to ask what is the place of individualization in the era of the political’s revenge, particularly as, in the face of Covid 19, (...) the refusal to wear masks is couched in terms of the defense of individual liberties? In what is an immanent critique of Gauchet’s claims, individualization is considered under four rubrics: abstract individualization vs. concrete socialization; the dilemmas of recognition; rejection of alterity; and the loss of the sense of the social. The paper concludes that the “revenge” should be understood as a revenge of an “anti-political” politics. (shrink)

Till We Have Faces is profitably read at three levels: for its surface story, as a crime drama, and as an exploration of the theological mystery of grace. By transposing the myth of Psyche into the mystery genre, Lewis prepares the reader for Orual’s unreliability as a narrator and lures the reader into the novel’s theological depths. Part Two of the novel contains a series of visionary labors which Lewis borrows from Lucius Apuleius but recasts as feats achieved jointly by (...) Orual and Psyche. The theological reading in this article finds textual support for rereading Part One of the novel as depicting Orual, by grace, unknowingly performing Psyche’s labors. Read thusly, the novel is a working out of Lewis’s belief that God can change the past—that grace can reach back into our histories and retell our story. By ascribing to the mutability of the past, Lewis sidesteps the dispute among various branches of Christianity over whether prevenient grace is both irresistible and salvific. An examination of four sources of grace in Orual’s life reveals that what would have been common grace in her life becomes salvific as it leads to her redemption. This exposition also shows the novel’s indebtedness to the many classical Greek sources to which Lewis alludes within it, as well as its affinity with some of the ideas of Simone Weil. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11.4 (2001) 391-400 [Access article in PDF] Bioethics Inside the Beltway A Shooting on Capitol Hill: "The Ruby Satellite System," Mental Illness, and Failure of the American Legal System Peter J. Cohen On 24 July 1998, Russell Eugene Weston, Jr., stormed the United States Capitol, forced his way through a security checkpoint, bypassed a metal detector, and entered the office complex of Representative Tom (...) DeLay (R-TX), the House Majority Whip (Weil 1998). During this period of terror, he shot and killed two officers of the Capitol Police and seriously wounded another as they attempted to end his foray. 1 Weston was severely wounded by several Capital police officers and taken into custody. After being treated for his injuries, he was incarcerated in the District of Columbia. 2On 5 May 1999, Weston was transferred to the Federal Correctional Institute in Butner, North Carolina (United States v. Weston, 69 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 1999), 103), where he remains to this day. He has neither been brought to trial nor received appropriate psychiatric therapy, but continues to be warehoused "in solitary confinement under constant observation... in a psychotic state (United States v. Weston, 255 F.3d 873; LEXIS 16851 (U.S. App. 2001b), 3-4 [LEXIS]). I will briefly detail the legal events responsible for this mad situation and suggest alternative actions that should have been taken at the very onset of the case. Early Chronology Although overtly the crime appeared to be senseless and without any conceivable motivation, Weston believed that his acts were justified and necessary. The story he told to the court-appointed forensic psychiatrist, Sally C. Johnson, M.D., 3 was that while working for NASA in the early 1980s, he had developed a "Ruby Satellite System," a powerful machine that could reverse time. With access to this system, nothing was permanent--the user could simply reverse time and exit from the current scene. However, the "System" was now controlled by cannibals who were developing and spreading "Black Heva," the deadliest disease known to [End Page 391] humankind, similar to HIV or the plague. It resulted from human corpses rotting and turning black. Time was running out, and Weston believed he had to return to override the "Ruby Satellite System" in the Capitol so that he could stem the spread of "Black Heva" and prevent world calamity. He believed that if he were tried, convicted, and even executed, he could simply time reverse himself, place himself in a safe within the Capitol, and subsequently resume his life at whatever point he chose (United States v. Weston, 206 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2000), 19-20).On 22 April 1999, the district court accepted Dr. Johnson's diagnosis that Weston suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, the symptoms of which were so severe that he would be incapable of understanding the proceedings against him and of assisting in his own defense. On this basis, the court had no difficulty in finding him incompetent to stand trial (U.S. v. Weston 1999, 102).At Weston's initial hearing, Dr. Johnson had testified that medication would be efficacious in treating Weston's delusions: [T]he standard of care in someone suffering from this type of symptom picture would be to treat them with medication.... [T]here is a good likelihood that he'll have a positive response, positive in the sense that his symptoms will diminish in response to treatment.... The potential benefits to treating the defendant far outweigh the risks.... (U.S. v. Weston 1999, 108) The defense presented no expert testimony refuting Dr. Johnson's presentation. The district court then ordered that Weston begin receiving medication in order to render him nondangerous and competent for trial (U.S. v. Weston 1999, 108-9). The Problem Weston refused to be medicated! 4 He has continued to claim that the administration of antipsychotic drugs against his will would violate his Fifth Amendment due process liberty interest in avoiding unwanted bodily intrusion and implicated... (shrink)

In a discussion-note in Mind, Father P. M. Farrell, O.P., gave an account, in what he admitted to be an embarrassingly brief compass, of the Thomist doctrine concerning evil. There is one sentence in this discussion which at first glance appears paradoxical. Father Farrell has been arguing that a universe containing ‘corruptible good’ as well as incorruptible is better than one containing ‘incorruptible good’ only. He continues: ‘If, however, they are to manifest this corruptible good, they must be corruptible and (...) they must sometimes corrupt.’ The final words, despite Father Farrell's italics, strike one as expressing, not a self-evident truth, but a non sequitur. The fact that I am capable of committing murder does not entail that I will at some time commit it. It is not immediately obvious that a similar entailment holds in the case of corruption and corruptibility. (shrink)