Culture and ethics are inextricably bound to each other. Culture provides the moral presuppositions and ethics the formal normative framework for our moral choices. Every ethical system, therefore, is ultimately a synthesis of intuitive and rational assertions, the proportions of each varying from culture to culture. There is also in every culture an admixture of the ethnocentric and the universal that is indissolubly bound to a particular geography, history, language, and ethic strain and is common to all humans as humans.

I come to bioethics without any particular training or credentials, except for those qualifications that any reasonably observant and thoughtful general clinician might bring. I probably also share with most clinicians the willingness, sometimes even without a specific invitation, to share with others what is on my mind.

When the Karen Ann Quinlan case emerged in the mid-1970s and the New Jersey Supreme Court made mention of the role that ethics committees might play in such cases, no one could have predicted at the time what the consequences of that observation might be. It took a while for momentum to build, but we are now seeing the flowering of what is an important movement in the field of bioethics: the interplay of ethics committees and broader societal issues.

In 1990, I voiced strong doubts about a bill entitled the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA), which had been introduced in the U.S. Senate by John Danforth (R-MO) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). I hoped to see it defeated. In 1991, after the bill had become a small part of a massive status (the Omnibys Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) adopted in the waning hours of the 101st Congress, I devoted countless hours to its implementation. I wanted to see it succeed. Why the change?

Mrs. J. is a 76-year-old woman who had been in good health. When she was brought to the hospital 10 days after being involved in an automobile accident, she was found to have severe brain injury and, despite vigorous treatment, has neverregained consciousness. The consulting neurologist feels that she has no chance to recover completely and the “best case scenario” is that she may regain some consciousness without ever being able to take care of herself or probably without ever being able to interact with her environment in a meaningful fashion. She and her husband have been very close and had just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary when the accident occurred. After long deliberation, her husband states that his wife had often said that “she would never want to live like this” and that she had always had a fear of being a burden to anyone. He wants active treatment stopped and asks that she only be kept comfortable and allowed to die. Their daughter agrees with this decision, although their son who lives in a distant state, feels that all treatment should continue and that she “certainly wouldn’t be a burden.” Among other considerations brought up by the husband is the fact that there are no financial arrangements to take care of long-term care in a nursing home.

As Part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) legislates new responsibilites for healthcare facilities. The authors served as members of the California Consortium on Patient Self-Determination, and the materials produced by this group offer healthcare facilities a valuable guide for implementing the PSDA. The ACt follows a historical trend led by doctrines of informed consent and increasing patient autonomy regarding rights to accept or refuse medical treatment and to execute advance directives. The requirements of the Act will influence healthcare facilities and how they communicate with patients about advance directives. Although the Act seeks to increase awareness of advance directices among all participants in healthcare interactions, it could pose major stumbling blocks to providing sensitive and humane care if certain concerns are nor addressed adequatley. The benefits of the Act could be far reaching and substantial for patients and healthcare facilities alike.

Models of the doctor-patient relationship determine which value will predominate in the interaction of the parties. That value then significantly colors and even sometimers alters the nature of the ethical discussion. For example, if an institution predominately prides it-self on its competitive posture, ethical issues arising therein will necessarily be colored by entrepreurial rather than deontological ethics. By contrast, a physician who underlines patient decision making will tend to place autonomy first above all other principles, casting that relationship in a libertarian tone.

In the last 7 years, Russia has seen deep changes in all spheres of political and economic life. Some new realities have appeared in Russian medicine as well. This paper tells the story of how these changes came about, what kind of unusal situation were created, and how these situation are recognized in professional and public debates.

It should come as no surprise that we will get three different answers to the same question since we have three lawyers on the panel. The law is a matter of policy, and there is usually no single “right” answer to these questions. Each lawyer will come to a question from a very different perspective and bring a different approach to the answer.

The ethics committee of the University of São Paulo Medical College Hospital and Clinics has authorized partial liver transplantation from living donors. The request for this type of transplantation was brought to the committee by a team of professors of surgery operating at the university, headed by Dr. Silvano Raia. Their request and justification are presented here, with discussion following.

The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) imposes new requirements on health care providers for informing patients of their rights to make decisions concerning their medical care. The Act is intended to, and is likely to, encourage patients and residents of certain healhtcare facilities to consider their treatment preferences in advance of incapacity and, in particular, to determine the circumstances in which life-sustaining treatment will be provided to them. However, many questions concerning how healthcare providers will implement the Act remain unanswered.

Hospital ethics, familiar enough in practice but surprisingly neglected in the literature, deals with the ethical problems that arise distinctively or typically in hospitals. More precisely, it consists of the ethical principles that shouldgovern 1) the conduct of healthcare professionals and other staff in their capacities as members of the hospital as an institution, and 2) the conduct of the hospital itself as an institution. It is a species of institutional ethics, which focuses on the ethical problems created or significantly shaped by the institutional setting in which they occur.