Disagreement over the legitimacy of direct sterilization continues within Catholic moral debate, with painful and at times confusing ramifications for Catholic healthcare systems. This paper argues that the medical profession should be construed as a key moral authority in this debate, on two grounds. First, the recent revival of neo-Aristotelianism in moral philosophy as applied to medical ethics has brought out the inherently moral dimensions of the history and current practice of medicine. Second, this recognition can be linked to Catholic (...) morality through Vatican II’s affirmation of the legitimate autonomy of culture, including the sciences. A partial precedent for understanding the moral authority of medicine can be found in the recent history of Catholic medical morality, and we further argue that a full contemporary recognition of that authority would weigh against an absolute prohibition of direct sterilizations. Institutionally, we propose the allowance of direct sterilizations in cases where the clinically perceived biomedical good of the patient is at stake. (shrink)

No healthcare issue has generated as much ethical debate on the relationship between the individual and society as HIV Infection. In this debate, an appeal is most often made to such principles as autonomy and confidentiality to protect individuals who are HIV positive or who have AIDS from an invasion of privacy thought to be justified by society's need for information. In the first years, this emphasis on the protection of the individual was essential. Even today, there are risks in (...) disclosing one's HIV status. However, as more and more persons become Infected, live longer, and move within the healthcare industry for non-HIV related care, as both patients and healthcare workers, the terms of the debate need to be redefined. (shrink)

Fifteen years ago, Peter Singer published Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. In it, he proposed to end “the tyranny of humans over nonhuman animals” by “thinking through, carefully, and consistently, the question of how we ought to treat animals” (p. ix). On this anniversary of the book's publication, a critical analysis shows that the logic he presents, though popularly appealing, is philosophically flawed. Though influential in slowing and in some cases stopping biomedical research involving animals, (...) the animal rights movement in the United States has yet to offer a clear and compelling argument for the equlity of species. (shrink)