The position of the United Methodist Church on end-of-life decisions is best described as intentional ambiguity or ambiguous intentions or both. The paper analyzes the official position of the denomination and then considers the actions of a U.M.C. bishop who served as a foreman for a trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. In an effort to find some common ground within an increasingly divided denomination, the work concludes with a consideration of the work of John Wesley and his approach to human (...) death. (shrink)

Biologically, pain is neither intrinsically good nor bad, but is a communication mechanism designed to serve organismal ends. Pain for any given person at any given time should be evaluated on the basis of “success” (or not) in serving those purposes. Yet, the physiological, psychological, and cultural complexity of the experience makes moral consideration of pain complicated. This is especially the case with infants in pain. The competence of the infant as a “decision maker” cannot, of course, be assumed. Even (...) if the child “thinks” about pain, an epistemological barrier exists in that the child cannot clearly communicate about the pain experience. Furthermore, any expressions of pain from the child may be necessary for diagnosis. Just coercion criteria provide a means of evaluating when and to what extent pain in infants should be controlled under the authority of surrogate decision makers. (shrink)