In many ways, Roe v. Wade marked a new chapter in American life. By assuring women of greater reproductive freedom., It gave women greater economic and social freedom, Inflamed a partisan battle between pro-life and pro-choice camps, and provoked a public debate regarding the proper sphere of judicial action. Hence, just as Roe has been critical to the changing politics of gender, it has been the focus of a political debate about the meaning of personhood and morality of abortion, the scope of individual freedom, and the judiciary's role in effecting social change.

The ethical principle of respect for autonomy has come into its own In American medicine since World War II as equal in importance to the traditional medicomoral principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence. Respect for autonomy provides the ethical underpinning for the patient's right to exercise an informed choice – whether to consent to or to refuse recommended medical treatment. However, an informed choice demands a certain level of competence. Typical criteria for patient competence to accept or to refuse medical treatments Include ability to make a choice and ability to comprehend the nature of the treatment, as well as the risks and benefits of accepting or refusing the treatment.

In the United States, at least 6% of all hospital beds are in the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit. The cost of treating a patient in an intensive care unit averages from $2,000 to $3,500 per day. At least 10–40% of intensive care patients will not survive to hospital discharge. Today, every major category of disease may be found in the modern ICU; common diagnoses are septicemia, postsurgical complications, cerebrovascular accidents, gastrointestinal bleeding, neoplasia, and respiratory failure. ICUs employ some of the most sophisticated medical technology, routinely monitoring the cardiopulmonary performance of patients and often providing assisted ventilation. ICUs are high intensity in terms of their staffing, involving 24-hour physician supervision and nurse:patient ratios from 1:3 to 1:1.

In the fall of 1991, voters in Washington state were asked to consider a public initiative that sought to legalize physician-assisted death: Initiative 119. Drafted by Washington Citizens for Death with Dignity, the initiative was intended to amend the existing state natural death act in several ways:

1) expand the definition of “terminal condition” to include patients in irrevers ible coma or persistent vegetative state;

2) specifically name “artificial nutrition and hydration” as life-sustaining medical procedures that could be refused or withdrawn;

3) legally allow mentally competent patients with certifiably terminal conditions to request and receive “aid-in-dying” from their physician as a medical service.

The first two proposed amendments were widely acknowledged as timely and appropriate; a coalition of medical, religious, and community organizations had been actively working on such additions for several years. It was the proposal to legalize “aid-in-dying,” however, that represented a radical shift in the conduct of physicians towards their patients and a dramatic shift in social policy.

In Germany — as probably worldwide — in vitro fertilization (IVF) has provoked disapproval, fears, and dread, but it also raises hope and gives feelings of pride and satisfaction in a new scientific achievement. Critics look for convincing argu- ments that could ban IVF completely or at least restrict it considerably. Some of the most important arguments are outlined below.

The main aspect of IVF that was new to society was that conception could take place outside the female body. Although this fact has made a deep impression on us, no ethical relevance has been attributed to it. One must look further for arguments against IVF.

The increasing complexity of modern hospital care and the decisions that must be made were the reasons we began our research on the Acute Physiology, Age and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) project. As a clinician in an intensive care unit (ICU), I felt very uncomfortable making the sorts of decisions that are common today without any source of information or any reference points. These decisions are not avoidable, they are not discretionary, and they are going to become more frequent in the future because we are treating people at later stages of disease.

Chinese medicine has a history of at least 2,000 years. The first explicit literature on medical ethics did not appear until the seventh century when a physician named Sun Simiao wrote a famous treatise titled “On the Absolute Sincerity of Great Physicians” in his work The Important Prescriptions Worth a Thousand Pieces of Gold. In this treatise, later called The Chinese Hippocratic Oath, Sun Simiao required the physician to develop first a sense of compassion and piety, and then to make a commitment to try to save every living creature, to treat every patient on equal grounds, and to avoid seeking wealth because of his expertise.

Mr. F. Smith was a 63-year-old man admitted to the Veterans Administration hospital with fever, respiratory distress, and a possible recurrent pneumonia. He had entered a community hospital with pneumonia approximately 18 months earlier. His 80 pack-year tobacco history and 10-year emphysema history complicated the clinical course on the first admission, and his status worsened to the point of respiratory failure. He suffered a cardiac arrest while on a ventilator in an intensive care unit. He was asystolic for approximately 5 minutes but was resuscitated.

During 1992, academic bioethicists celebrated the 30th anniversary of bioethics. Some like to date the origin of modern secular bioethics to the advent of transplant technology that began with kidney transplantation in the early 1960s in the Seattle, Washington, area. This is certainly a good candidate for a starting point. Another might be the work of Joseph Fletcher in the New York area with the Euthanasia Society of America and with clergy training. Still another candidate for the origins of secular bioethics would be the trial of physicians at the University of Virginia for transplanting a kidney at which the same Joseph Fletcher testified. At that trial, the alteration occurred in American law from a definition of death that focused on the cessation of heartbeat to one that focused on the cessation of brain function.

A growing number of healthcare practices implicate serious moral concerns for growing numbers of healthcare providers. Social, legal, and medical developments, including abortion, contraception, euthanasia, withdrawal of feeding, blood transfusions, organ transplants, and routine autopsies, have put healthcare providers in the vortex of some of society's most controversial moral dilemmas.

A physician recently asked how to respond in the case of an 87-year-old patient with advanced Alzheimer's disease, who was unable to swallow or tolerate a nasogastric tube, when the family insisted a gastrostomy tube be inserted but the physician believed the intervention futile. That question encompasses some of the crucial issues in the concept of futility of the treatment goals of physician, patient, and family; the rights of patients and families to demand care; physician judgment; family values; and, to the degree that it represents many similar dilemmas, justice. What are professionals saying when they pronounce treatment futile? What are patients' rights if they or their surrogates disagree?

The word “futile” implies a precision about outcome probability that we do not have, and it ignores the wide range of treatments for a given diagnosis. Is futile the same as useless or the opposite of hope? Futile for what? Cure? Restora tion of function? Prolongation of life? Relief from pain? Relief from anxiety? Com fort? Reassurance? To satisfy or placate the patient or the family? The word “futile” is so imprecise that, rather than clarifying, it confuses and clutters the discussion.

What should patients know about the degree to which their physicians may be impaired—unable, in the words of the American Medical Association (A.M.A.), “to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of physical or mental illness, including alcoholism and drug dependence”? What patients do in fact find out about such matters as alcohol or other drug abuse by, say, the surgeon or the anesthesiologist in charge of their care is another matter altogether; most patients learn about such impairment the hard way. But what should they know beforehand, if at all possible?

Mr. K. was a 28-year-old professional ice skater who presented to the emergency room with shortness of breath that had gotten worse over several weeks, accompanied by left pleuritic chest pain, cyanosis, and a cough productive of green-brown sputum. He had been unable to take food well for about 10 days because of shortness of breath and general malaise.His past medical history included an episode of esophageal candidiasis diagnosed by endoscopy 4 months prior to admission. He had been otherwise healthy. He was homosexual with multiple partners. An HIV test was done 1 year previously, but he never found out the result. He had avoided regular medical care. He was from Australia and had no kin in the United States.