The story of patient self‐determination cannot be told without the Nuremberg trials. Patient autonomy was the first criterion enunciated by the Nuremberg judges and has served as a touchstone for human subject research and patient care ever since. Yet this ideal was in an important sense irrelevant at the moment it was originally proclaimed.

The standard model for end‐of‐life decision‐making gives roles to two parties—the physician, who explains the medical options, and the patient, who selects from among those options. The model can be harmful not only for individuals but also for the state, if the patient's right to control her own choices is understood as a positive right of access to whatever is available.

God deserves obedience simply because he’s God—or does he? Inspired by a passion for biblical as well as constitutional scholarship, in this bold exploration Yale Law Professor Robert A. Burt conceptualizes the political theory of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. God’s authority as expressed in these accounts is not a given. It is no less inherently problematic and in need of justification than the legitimacy of secular government. In recounting the rich narratives of key biblical figures—from Adam and Eve to (...) Noah, Cain, Abraham, Moses, Job, and Jesus—In the Whirlwind paints a surprising picture of the ambivalent, mutually dependent relationship between God and his peoples. Taking the Hebrew and Christian Bibles as a unified whole, Burt traces God’s relationship with humanity as it evolves from complete harmony at the outset to continual struggle. In almost every case, God insists on unconditional obedience, while humanity withholds submission and holds God accountable for his promises. Contemporary political theory aims for perfect justice. The Bible, Burt shows, does not make this assumption. Justice in the biblical account is an imperfect process grounded in human—and divine—limitation. Burt suggests that we consider the lessons of this tension as we try to negotiate the power struggles within secular governments, and also the conflicts roiling our public and private lives. (shrink)

The standard model for end‐of‐life decision‐making gives roles to two parties—the physician, who explains the medical options, and the patient, who selects from among those options. The model can be harmful not only for individuals but also for the state, if the patient's right to control her own choices is understood as a positive right of access to whatever is available.

Book reviewed in this article: The Willowbrook Wars: A Decade of Struggle for Social Justice. By David J. Rothman and Sheila M. Rothman.

Book reviewed in this article: Authority. By Richard Sennett.

Book reviewed in this article: Taking Care of Strangers: The Rule of Law in Doctor‐Patient Relations. By Robert A. Burt.