The psychiatrist as moral advisor.

This paper is a critique of a paper by Robert Lipkin. Arguments for the following claims are put forward: (1) that what is 'essential' to the psychiatric relationship is what we want it to be for utilitarian reasons; (2) it would not be to our advantage to allow the medicalization of morality; (3) what we should expect from the psychiatrist is prudential advice, not moral advice, and that Lipkin has a confused view about the relationship between these two areas; and (4) we should not allow the psychiatrist to restrict individuals on moral grounds, but only on public safety grounds.

A medical ethics project for third-year medical students.

During the 1987-1988 academic year, each of the third-year students at Virginia Commonwealth University Medical College of Virginia were asked to prepare a case study that involved ethical issues, drawn from a clinical experience. Instructions for the studies included a brief description of ethical principles and a format for including needed information about the patient, the family, and the caregivers. A study was made of the quality of these case studies, the types of ethical issues raised, and some attitudes expressed in them. Follow-up discussion groups with faculty leaders, using these case studies, are described.

How children can be respected as 'ends' yet still be used as subjects in non-therapeutic research.

The question of whether or not children may be used as subjects in non-therapeutic research projects has generated a great deal of debate and received answers varying from 'no, never' to 'yes, if societal interests are served'. It has been claimed that a Kantian, deontological ethics would necessarily rule out such research, since valid consent would be impossible. The present paper gives a deontological argument for allowing children to be subjects in certain types of research.

KIE: A controversial ethical issue in human experimentation is the use of children as subjects in nontherapeutic research. Deontologists, arguing from the Kantian principles of moral duty and respect for persons, hold that it is wrong to subject anyone to the risks of research that is not designed for the subject's benefit. Utilitarians, subscribing to Mill's view that those actions are right which promote the greatest good for the greatest number, counter that the risks are justified if there is a strong possibility of sufficient benefit to others. Redmon argues that there are some conditions in which nontherapeutic research with children can be justified on Kantian grounds. He concludes that the research is permissible if the child can be expected to "identify" as an adult with the goals of the researcher, if the child assents to being a subject, and if the risks of participation are minimal.