Agency, duties and the "Ashley treatment".

In 2006, a paper in the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine described a novel case of growth attenuation therapy and other treatments carried out on Ashley, a severely cognitively, neurologically and physically disabled 6-year-old girl. Some of the moral arguments that have sprung up in respect of the so-called "Ashley treatment" are considered, and it is suggested that they all miss something-that the proper treatment of Ashley may have as much to do with doctors' duties to themselves as with their duties to her. It is suggested that the Ashley treatment may have been in violation of doctors' self-regarding duties and that this possibility is worthy of further investigation.

Facial allograft transplants: where's the catch?

Face transplantation--or, more properly, facial allograft transplantation (FAT)--generates much public interest and academic debate. In this paper, we suggest that it is up to opponents of FAT to make the case for its impermissibility. We allow that there is a number of apparently strong arguments that might be deployed against FAT. However, all but one of these turn out not to be compelling after examination. The remaining argument is not so easily dismissed--but its central point is fairly workaday and certainly does not tell us anything about FAT in particular. Therefore, qua argument about facial transplant surgery, it fails to hit its target. Overall, we conclude that a compelling case against FAT remains to be made.

Teaching to the converted: religious belief in the seminar room.

It is not unknown for participants in discussions of ethics to prefix their claims with a profession of their religious faith - to say, for instance, "Well, I'm a Christian/Muslim/whatever, so I think that ...". Other participants in the debate may well worry about how to respond without the risk of giving offence or appearing ad hominem. Within a teaching environment, the worry may be even more acute. Nevertheless, it is suggested in this paper that such worries should not be allowed to impede debate; moreover, a teacher who let such prefixes pass without critique would be considered a poor teacher. In fact, a kind of duty for a teacher of ethics is to be contrary and to play the apostate.

Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia but did not.

An agent who takes his own life acts in violation of the moral law, according to Kant; suicide, and, by extension, assisted suicide are therefore wrong. By a similar argument, and with a few important exceptions, killing is wrong; implicitly, then, voluntary euthanasia is also wrong. Kant's conclusions are uncompelling and his argument in these matters is undermined on considering other areas of his thought. Kant, in forbidding suicide and euthanasia, is conflating respect for persons and respect for people, and assuming that, in killing a person (either oneself or another), we are thereby undermining personhood. But an argument along these lines is faulty according to Kant's own standards. There is no reason why Kantians have to accept that self-killing and euthanasia are contrary to the moral law. Even if some Kantians adhere to this doctrine, others can reject it.

Body art and medical need.

A company called Biojewelry has proposed to take a sample of bone tissue from a couple and to grow this sample into wedding rings. One of the ethical problems that such a proposal faces is that it implies surgery without medical need. To this end, only couples with a prior need for surgery are being considered. This paper examines the question of whether such a stipulation is necessary. It is suggested that, though medical need and the provision of health and wellbeing is overwhelmingly the warrant for surgical intervention, there is no reason in principle why other, non-medical, projects such as jewelry creation might not also warrant surgical intervention. Implicitly, this line of thought forces us to consider the proper place of surgical intervention--that is, to ask what surgeons are for.

Actions, causes, and psychiatry: a reply to Szasz.

In a recent paper, it was argued forcefully by Thomas Szasz that it is crucial to the scientific credibility of psychiatry that it abandon talk of the behaviour of the mentally "ill" in terms of causes: such behaviour is not caused by their condition--it simply has reasons, which are discounted by the medical model. It is argued in this paper that Szasz's theory is incomplete for two reasons: first, in assuming that reasons are radically different from causes, it cannot account for the possibility that "sane" behaviour might be just as much caused as "insane"; and second, it tacitly assumes that the origin of behaviour always lies with the agent--a view that arguably is an accident of grammar. Hence while there is no mental illness, this is because there is nothing that could be ill--and this means that there is no such thing as mental "health" either.