Our ethics committee is revising the organization's policy on forgoing life-sustaining treatment. The current policy now includes the statement, “When life-sustaining treatment is forgone, supportive care will be provided to relieve pain and ensure the patient's comfort, unless the patient or surrogate refuses those measures.” Is it reasonable, however, for the surrogate to have the authority to refuse consent for pain medication and/or other supportive care?

“Dissecting Bioethics,” edited by Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry, welcomes contributions on the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of bioethics.

The section is dedicated to the idea that words defined by bioethicists and others should not be allowed to imprison people's actual concerns, emotions, and thoughts. Papers that expose the many meanings of a concept, describe the different readings of a moral doctrine, or provide an alternative angle to seemingly self-evident issues are therefore particularly appreciated.

The themes covered in the section so far include dignity, naturalness, public interest, community, disability, autonomy, parity of reasoning, symbolic appeals, and toleration.

All submitted papers are peer reviewed. To submit a paper or to discuss a suitable topic, contact Tuija Takala at tuija.takala@helsinki.fi.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

Like some ethical dilemmas, this question has an obvious answer that may not be right. On first reflection, it seems entirely unreasonable and inappropriate to expect staff members to withhold supportive care. Legally, a designated surrogate has the authority to refuse pain medication on the patient's behalf, but is it ethically defensible? A patient lacking decisionmaking capacity is crying out in pain; can we really imagine just closing the door? What do we say to other patients, visitors, and staff members, such as physicians, nurses, housekeepers, and dietary workers, who might hear the patient? Do we place a sign on the door, one noting that the surrogate has refused, on behalf of the patient, to authorize the administration of pain medication and that the hospital or nursing home must comply with the surrogate's decision?

Garrett Hardin, Ph.D.—biologist, environmental ethicist, and lightning rod for controversy for over four decades—died in a double suicide with his wife in September 2003 at his longtime home in Santa Barbara, where he was a Professor Emeritus of Human Biology at the University of California. Both Hardins had been ill for some time and in fact were leaders in the local chapter of the Hemlock Society, the “right-to-die” advocacy organization.

Readers are invited to contact Greg S. Loeben in writing at Midwestern University, Glendale Campus, Bioethics Program, 19555 N. 59th Ave., Glendale, AZ 85308 (gloebe@arizona.midwestern.edu) regarding books they would like to see reviewed or books they are interested in reviewing.

Whether surrogate decisionmakers have the authority to refuse pain and symptom management measures on behalf of incapacitated patients is a particularly timely question to ask in this era of growing commitment to ensuring appropriate pain and symptom management measures for all patients.

All treatments, even those labeled as supportive, have burdens as well as benefits. Patients and their surrogates have the right to finally decide whether the offered treatment's cost-benefit calculation is acceptable.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

The “right to die” litigation that dominated American healthcare jurisprudence in the last three decades of the twentieth century, culminating in the Supreme Court decisions in Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Quill, confirmed the almost unqualified right of competent patients to refuse any and all medical interventions, for any reason or no reason, even when those interventions may be absolutely essential to preserve life. Although the courts acknowledged certain “countervailing” interests of the states that must be taken into account when patients directly, or indirectly through designated surrogates, refuse “medically indicated” treatment, only rarely have those interests been deemed of sufficient weight to override the clearly articulated wishes of patients.

Spurred by a severe shortage of cadaveric organs, there has been a marked growth in living organ donation over the past several years. This has stimulated renewed interest in the ethics of this practice. The major concern has always been the possibility that a physician may seriously harm one person while trying to improve the well-being of another. As Carl Elliott points out, this puts the donor's physician in a difficult predicament: when evaluating a person who volunteers to donate an organ, “a doctor is in the position of deciding not simply whether a subject's choice is reasonable … but whether he [the doctor] is morally justified in helping the subject accomplish it.”1 This question has become even more difficult since the introduction of living donor operations that are more risky than living kidney donation (e.g., adult-to-adult liver donation) and the suggestion that volunteers at added risk may sometimes be acceptable.2 So, how can we decide when the risk is too much?

Since November 2, 2002, every state's abortion law has stood at risk of complete revision. With one easily overlooked sentence, federal regulators declared in October 2002 that effective the following month, states could make available healthcare coverage directly to organisms at the moment of conception.