Abortion and deprivation: a reply to Marquis.

In 'Why Abortion is Immoral', Don Marquis argues that abortion is wrong for the same reason that murder is wrong, namely, that it deprives a human being of an FLO, a 'future like ours,' which is a future full of value and the experience of life. Marquis' argument rests on the assumption that the human being is somehow deprived by suffering an early death. I argue that Marquis' argument faces the 'Epicurean Challenge'. The concept of 'deprivation' requires that some discernible individual exists who can be deprived. But if death involves total annihilation, then no discernible individual exists to be so deprived. I argue that the Epicurean Challenge must be addressed before it can be proven that Marquis is correct to claim that abortion and murder are wrong because they deprive someone of an FLO.

Avoiding the Personhood Issue: Abortion, Identity, and Marquis's 'Future-Like-Ours' Argument.

One reason for the persistent appeal of Don Marquis' 'future like ours' argument (FLO) is that it seems to offer a way to approach the debate about the morality of abortion while sidestepping the difficult task of establishing whether the fetus is a person. This essay argues that in order to satisfactorily address both of the chief objections to FLO - the 'identity objection' and the 'contraception objection' - Marquis must take a controversial stand on what is most essential to being the kind of entity that an adult human being is. Such a stand amounts to a controversial account of personhood. To the extent that FLO's success depends on accepting such a controversial metaphysical view, one apparent attraction of FLO proves illusory.

Honor Killing: Where Pride Defeats Reason.

Honor killings are graceless and ferocious murders by chauvinists with an antediluvian mind. These are categorized separately because these killings are committed for the prime reason of satisfying the ego of the people whom the victim trusts and always looks up to for support and protection. It is for this sole reason that honor killings demand strict and stern punishment, not only for the person who committed the murder but also for any person who contributed or was party to the act. A positive change can occur with stricter legislation and changes in the ethos of the society we live in today.

Continuous deep sedation and homicide: an unsolved problem in law and professional morality.

When a severely suffering dying patient is deeply sedated, and this sedated condition is meant to continue until his death, the doctor involved often decides to abstain from artificially administering fluids. For this dual procedure almost all guidelines require that the patient should not have a life expectancy beyond a stipulated maximum of days (4-14). The reason obviously is that in case of a longer life-expectancy the patient may die from dehydration rather than from his lethal illness. But no guideline tells us how we should describe the dual procedure in case of a longer life-expectancy. Many arguments have been advanced why we should not consider it to be a form of homicide, that is, ending the life of the patient (with or without his request). I argue that none of these arguments, taken separately or jointly, is persuasive. When a commission, even one that is not itself life-shortening, foreseeably renders a person unable to undo the life-shortening effects of another, simultaneous omission, the commission and the omission together should be acknowledged to kill her. I discuss the legal and ethical implications of this conclusion.

'Total disability' and the wrongness of killing.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G Miller recently argued that the wrongness of killing is best explained by the harm that comes to the victim, and that 'total disability' best explains the nature of this harm. Hence, killing patients who are already totally disabled is not wrong. I maintain that their notion of total disability is ambiguous and that they beg the question with respect to whether there are abilities left over that remain relevant for the goods of personhood and human worth. If these goods remain, then something more is lost in death than in 'total disability,' and their explanation of what makes killing wrong comes up short. But if total disability is equivalent with death, then their argument is an interesting one.

Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine.

As a science and practice transcending metaphysical and ethical disagreements, 'secular' medicine should not exist. 'Secularity' should be understood in an Augustinian sense, not a secularist one: not as a space that is universally rational because it is religion-free, but as a forum for the negotiation of rival reasonings. Religion deserves a place here, because it is not simply or uniquely irrational. However, in assuming his rightful place, the religious believer commits himself to eschewing sheer appeals to religious authorities, and to adopting reasonable means of persuasion. This can come quite naturally. For example, Christianity (theo)logically obliges liberal manners in negotiating ethical controversies in medicine. It also offers reasoned views of human being and ethics that bear upon medicine and are not universally held-for example, a humanist view of human dignity, the bounding of individual autonomy by social obligation, and a special concern for the weak.

Broadening the future of value account of the wrongness of killing.

On Don Marquis's future of value account of the wrongness of killing, 'what makes it wrong to kill those individuals we all believe it is wrong to kill, is that killing them deprives them of their future of value'. Marquis has recently argued for a narrow interpretation of his future of value account of the wrongness of killing and against the broad interpretation that I had put forward in response to Carson Strong. In this article I argue that the narrow view is problematic because it violates some basic principles of equality and because it allows for some of the very killing that Marquis sets out to condemn; further, I argue that the chief reason why Marquis chooses the narrow view over the broad view-namely that the broad view would take the killing of some non-human animals to be also wrong-should rather be considered a welcome upshot of the broad view.

Baruch Brody and the principle of justifiable homicide.

In a series of papers in the early 1970s and in his important book Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life (1975), Baruch Brody offered what remains to this day one of the most philosophically rigorous contributions to the debate concerning the morality of abortion and the ethics of homicide more generally. In this paper I would like to critically examine Brody's argument that abortion is sometimes justifiable in some cases even when (1) one cannot claim self-defense, or (2) diminished responsibility, and (3) the abortion is a 'killing' rather than a 'not saving.' This justification, I argue, is limited to certain cases in which the life of the mother is at stake. The cautious principle which he finally formulates merits serious attention and consideration. While I find a great deal of value in Brody's discussion, I will argue that there are several difficulties with the principle of justifiable homicide he constructs. Accordingly, I will further amend and supplement his final version by offering my own alternative principle.

Limits of confidentiality: to disclose or not to disclose.

A patient who sustained a gunshot wound to a femoral artery you repaired yesterday is doing well and is very grateful. He is a security guard who got involved in a gunfight with criminals and is chatty. He recently had a strong analgesia injection, relaxing inhibitions and loosening his tongue. He asks if what he tells you is strictly confidential and you reply yes, it is. He remarks on how lucky he is now and years before. It seems, when young, he killed a man over a drug deal gone badly. He ascribes his luck to the fact that another man was convicted and is spending life in the "big house." What should you do?

What makes killing wrong?

What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities. This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality.

Spontaneous abortion and unexpected death: a critical discussion of Marquis on abortion.

In his classic paper, 'Why abortion is immoral', Don Marquis argues that what makes killing an adult seriously immoral is that it deprives the victim of the valuable future he/she would have otherwise had. Moreover, Marquis contends, because abortion deprives a fetus of the very same thing, aborting a fetus is just as seriously wrong as killing an adult. Marquis' argument has received a great deal of critical attention in the two decades since its publication. Nonetheless, there is a potential challenge to it that seems to have gone unnoticed. A significant percentage of fetuses are lost to spontaneous abortion. Once we bring this fact to our attention, it becomes less clear whether Marquis can use his account of the wrongness of killing to show that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. In this paper, I explore the relevance of the rate of spontaneous abortion to Marquis' classic anti-abortion argument. I introduce a case I call Unexpected Death in which someone is about to commit murder, but, just as the would-be murderer is about to strike, his would-be victim dies unexpectedly. I then ask: what does Marquis' account of killing imply about the moral status of what the would-be murderer was about to do? I consider four responses Marquis could give to this question, and I examine what implications these responses have for Marquis' strategy of using his account of the wrongness of killing an adult to show that abortion is in the same moral category.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Science, ethics and war: a pacifist's perspective.

This article considers the ethical aspects of the question: should a scientist engage in war-related research, particularly use-inspired or applied research directed at the development of the means for the better waging of war? Because scientists are simultaneously professionals, citizens of a particular country, and human beings, they are subject to conflicting moral and practical demands. There are three major philosophical views concerning the morality of war that are relevant to this discussion: realism, just war theory and pacifism. In addition, the requirements of professional codes of ethics and common morality contribute to an ethical analysis of the involvement of scientists and engineers in war-related research and technology. Because modern total warfare, which is facilitated by the work of scientists and engineers, results in the inevitable killing of innocents, it follows that most, if not all, war-related research should be considered at least as morally suspect and probably as morally prohibited.

The Just War Theory and the ethical governance of research.

This article analyses current trends in and future expectations of nanotechnology and other key enabling technologies for security as well as dual use nanotechnology from the perspective of the ethical Just War Theory (JWT), interpreted as an instrument to increase the threshold for using armed force for solving conflicts. The aim is to investigate the relevance of the JWT to the ethical governance of research. The analysis gives rise to the following results. From the perspective of the JWT, military research should be evaluated with different criteria than research for civil or civil security applications. From a technological perspective, the boundaries between technologies for civil and military applications are fuzzy. Therefore the JWT offers theoretical grounds for making clear distinctions between research for military, civil security and other applications that are not obvious from a purely technological perspective. Different actors bear responsibility for development of the technology than for resorting to armed force for solving conflicts or for use of weapons and military technologies in combat. Different criteria should be used for moral judgment of decisions made by each type of actor in each context. In addition to evaluation of potential consequences of future use of the weapons or military technologies under development, the JWT also prescribes ethical evaluation of the inherent intent and other foreseeable consequences of the development itself of new military technologies.

Reply to Marquis: how things stand with the 'future like ours' argument.

In an earlier essay in this journal I critiqued Don Marquis's well-known argument against abortion. I distinguished two versions of Marquis's argument, which I refer to as 'the essence argument' and 'the sufficient condition argument'. I presented two counterexamples showing that the essence argument was mistaken, and I argued that the sufficient condition argument should be rejected because Marquis had not adequately responded to an important objection to it. In response to my critique, Marquis put forward in this journal a revised version of his argument. In his modified approach he no longer advocates the essence argument and he offers a new version of the sufficient condition argument. In the current essay, I discuss how Marquis's revised argument deals with my original objections, and I argue that his new sufficient condition argument is unsuccessful.

Strong's objections to the future of value account.

According to Carson Strong, the future of value account of the wrongness of killing is subject to counterexamples. Ezio Di Nucci has disagreed. Their disagreement turns on whether the concepts of a future of value and a future like ours are equivalent. Unfortunately, both concepts are fuzzy, which explains, at least in part, the disagreement. I suggest that both concepts can be clarified in ways that seem plausible and that makes them equivalent. Strong claims that better accounts of the wrongness of killing exist. I show that those alternative accounts are unsatisfactory.

Donation after circulatory death: burying the dead donor rule.

Despite continuing controversies regarding the vital status of both brain-dead donors and individuals who undergo donation after circulatory death (DCD), respecting the dead donor rule (DDR) remains the standard moral framework for organ procurement. The DDR increases organ supply without jeopardizing trust in transplantation systems, reassuring society that donors will not experience harm during organ procurement. While the assumption that individuals cannot be harmed once they are dead is reasonable in the case of brain-dead protocols, we argue that the DDR is not an acceptable strategy to protect donors from harm in DCD protocols. We propose a threefold alternative to justify organ procurement practices: (1) ensuring that donors are sufficiently protected from harm; (2) ensuring that they are respected through informed consent; and (3) ensuring that society is fully informed of the inherently debatable nature of any criterion to declare death.

"Murder or mercy?" An innovative module helping UK medical students to articulate their own ethical viewpoints regarding end-of-life decisions.

This module was designed to equip UK medical students to respond ethically and sensitively to requests encountered as qualified doctors regarding euthanasia and assisted dying. The aim was to expose students to relevant opinions and experiences and provide opportunities to explore and justify their own views and rehearse ethical decision making in a safe learning environment.The module is delivered by a multidisciplinary team, providing students with the working knowledge to actively discuss cases, articulate their own views and practice ethical reasoning. Visits to intensive care units, palliative care wards and hospices are integrated with theory. Student assessment comprises a dissertation, debate and reflection. Module impact was evaluated by analysis of student coursework and a questionnaire.Students greatly appreciated the clinical context provided by the visits and opportunities to apply ethical reasoning to cases and debate issues with peers. They reported increased discernment of the ethical and legal position and practical considerations and greater awareness of the range of professional and lay viewpoints held. Many participants were less strongly in favor of euthanasia and assisted dying on module completion than at the outset, but all of them believed they were better equipped to justify their own viewpoint and respond to patient requests. The multi-disciplinary nature of this course helps to prepare students to deal effectively and sensitively with ethical dilemmas they will encounter in their medical career. Use of an integrated, learner-centred approach equips students to actively engage with their peers in discussion of such issues and to formulate and defend their own position.