From time to time medical ethicists bemoan the loss of a religious perspective in medical ethics. The discipline had its origins in the thinking of explicitly religious thinkers such as Paul Ramsey and Joseph Fletcher. Furthermore, many of those who contributed to the early development of the discipline had training in theology. One thinks of Daniel Callahan, Richard McCormick, Albert Jonsen, Sam. Banks. As the discipline becomes more and more self-reflective, with attention being paid to methodological and conditional concerns, it is only natural that the roots are due for a reexamination. The time has therefore come for some reassessment. The first steps here are taken in the form of a dialogue between the coauthors to clarify authentic contributions and weed out unauthentic ones.

Over the last two decades, Dutch courts have left room for euthanasia (i.e., the deliberate termination of the life of a person on his request by another person). Although a crime under the Penal Code, euthanasia will usually not result in prosecution and conviction if it is committed by a physician according to rules of careful medical practice (including consultation of another physician); if the patient's request is voluntary, well-considered, and enduring; and if there is unacceptable and hopeless suffering and there are no other solutions to the patient's situation.

The healthcare systems of the United States and United Kingdom are vastly different. The former relies primarily on private sector incentives and market forces to allocate medical care services, while the latter is a centrally planned system funded almost entirely by the public sector. Therefore, each nation represents divergent views on the relative efficacy of the market or government in achieving social objectives in the area of medical care policy. Since its inception in 1948, the National Health Services (NHS) of the United Kingdom has consistently emphasized equity in the allocation of medical services. It has done so by creating a system whereby services are universally free of charge at the point of entry. Conversely, the United States has relied upon the evolution of a perplexing array of public and private sector insurance schemes centered more around consumer choice than equity in allocation.

Issues of social justice have traditionally been given short shrift by American healthcare professionals, feeling that justice at the bedside is inapplicable and possibly even misplaced. However, perhaps motivated by the realization that escalating costs and maldistribution of healthcare represent an intolerable situation, an ever-growing amount of medical literature and healthcare ethics literature is turning to considerations of justice.

The past two decades have been a time of heightened interest in the moral aspects of the practice of medicine. This interest has been reflected in medical education by the establishment of medical humanities programs in both preclinical and clinical education in many medical schools. It has also been reflected in the literature with a dramatic increase in journal articles on medical ethics as well as the development of medical ethics in textbooks. A number of journals have developed that are specifically devoted to medical ethics, including The Journal of Medical Ethics, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, The Journal of Medical Humanities, Theoretical Medicine, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, just to name a few. The literature includes both theoretical foundations and conceptual analyses of particular issues as well as practical advice and general suggestions for how to implement programs in medical humanities.

Is it remarkable that the Royal Dutch Medical Association (RDMA) as a medical professional organization has the point of view that in particular circumstances euthanasia is an acceptable act for a physician. Seen from the viewpoints in the international (medical) community, we might say that it is highly remarkable. Frankly put: the RDMA has met strong international disapproval of its standpoint on euthanasia during the last 10 years or so. For instance, the World Medical Association still condemns physicians performing euthanasia as “unethical.” So far the RDMA is the only professional medical organization that holds the view that in particular cases euthanasia is morally acceptable. However, viewed within the context of Dutch society, the Dutch system of healthcare, and the sociocultural approach to moral questions in The Netherlands, the RDMA point of view ceases to be reprehensible.

My little girl has leukemia; she has had it for over a year, and now she needs at least five pints of blood a day. Not the whole blood, just the platelets. Most of our relatives and friends have given at least a few times. But we need more. Now I have to go to strangers.

So begins Roberta Silman's short story, “Giving Blood,” a story about illness and charity. When the narrator's husband solicited blood donations at his workplace, “he thought everyone would help…He must have asked a hundred people. Thirty gave. His officemate…turned green and said, ‘Oh, no, anything but that. I'm scared of needles.'”

The U.S. healthcare system has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny over the past three years; one of the results of this scrutiny has been recognition of the serious problems that exist in both healthcare delivery and reimbursement mechanisms. While the verbal debate in Washington has essentially ceased, within the healthcare community a historic shift has taken place in the way healthcare reimbursement is structured: increasingly, traditional fee-for-service reimbursement methods are being replaced with capitation reimbursement methods. While this phenomenon originated on the West Coast, it has spread to all geographic sectors of the United States in varying degrees and can be expected to dominate the funding patterns of healthcare over the next decade.

The open practice of euthanasia in The Netherlands stood alone in the world until the government of the Northern Territories in Australia accepted the possibility of physician-assisted suicide. Even though the active ending of lives in The Netherlands is still a crime by law, the current practice allows it and acquits physicians if certain conditions have been met. Of the many facets of euthanasia, the teaching of this practice represents a further logical step. In this contribution, we intend to describe the comprehensive teaching program of euthanasia of the Free University of Amsterdam's Postgraduate Family Medicine Program. Here students receive university-based training for 1 day a week in a cohort of 12 and on the job training for 4 days with individual family physicians for 2 consecutive years. We especially intend to portray the integration of euthanasia into the wider teaching of the process of counseling and aid of the dying.

As a bioethical and social issue, euthanasia has become in the 1990s what abor- tion was in the 1960s. Around the world, a de facto taboo on open discussion of the practice is seemingly falling by the wayside, as recognition increases that “active” euthanasia is taking place in spite of social and legal prohibitions. Euthanasia, or more specifically physician-assisted suicide, has become the most visible bioethical issue of the present era; and in the United States the debate has taken on a prominence and urgency unprecedented in our nation's history.

Adoption, from the Latin opiate, “to choose,” means “to take (a person) into a relationship, especially another's child as one's own” (The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary). The word implies a permanent taking of responsibility. While the assumption that biological parents should rear their children is vital to society, adoption provides an alternative that is sometimes necessary.

In this paper I will argue that in emergency cases, physician autonomy is soci-etally constrained under Principle VI of the American Medical Association's (AMA) “Principles of Medical Ethics”1 The issue will be seen to turn on whether the contextual use of “emergency” should be construed narrowly or broadly; I argue for a broadened rendering. Although a societal emergency is not defined here, I recommend that the condition of inner city healthcare presents a paradigm “patient” for such emergency care. I further urge that because societal constraints on physician autonomy are ambiguous and only derived indirectly in the AMA document, further AMA comment on physician autonomy and societal responsibility would advance clarity on the profession's commitment to the public trust.

In many countries the debate over the role that physicians may (or should) play in ending life has been limited to the judiciary and other law making institutions, professional medical organizations; and academics. Because of their multidisciplinary and diverse membership, ethics committees may be a particularly appropriate venue through which these discussions can be expanded to include a much larger community. In addition, ethics committees generally act in only advisory capacities because they do not actually make decisions, so they may provide a forum for open discussions in ways that the court and the medical boards (which make licensing determinations) cannot.