eLetters

145 e-Letters

published between 2004 and 2007

  • Re: Pie in the wrong sky
    Jeffrey A. Medina

    Dear Editor,

    I am thankful the anaesthetist Neville Goodman has only the ability to mute our pains, and not our discussion of ideas he personally finds offensive. That he suggests this fine journal should reject submissions on grounds of controversial conclusions, rather than their merits, is the true offence here.

    Even so, I continue to support his right - fundamental to the health of our philosophical, s...

    Show More
  • Re: Pie in the wrong sky
    Thomas W. FitzGerald

    Dear Editor,

    While Dr. Goodman's concern for the world's least fortunate is admirable, his arguments against longevity research are inconsistent.

    Firstly, there is nothing preventing researchers from working on problems of aging and lack of access to clean drinking water in tandem. The discovery of antibiotics did nothing to stop other epidemiologists of the era from focusing on the provision of adequate...

    Show More
  • Consent to speak to relatives in HIV care
    Mark J Wilson

    Dear Editor,

    I read with interest Mr Mytton’s essay and agreed with much. As a nursing student, with previous experience as a buddy for the Terrence Higgins Trust, I too thought that the idea of consent before speaking to relatives was a given.

    But having registered and worked in a number of areas I find the practicality of discussing issues with relatives more pragmatic and works in most situations. How...

    Show More
  • Pie in the wrong sky
    Neville W Goodman

    Dear Editor,

    I cannot believe that a serious journal of medical ethics has published this article. There is no sensible ethical argument that we should not try to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible, but the idea that we should actively and purposely aim to prevent death is absurd. It is also, going with the principal of distributive justice, simply immoral while 80% of the world does not h...

    Show More
  • Clinical medicine and biomedical ethics need virtues
    Maurizio Soldini

    Dear Editor,

    The four principles of principlism in bioethics are vices.[1] Clinical medicine and biomedical ethics need virtues. The conflict between principles of autonomy and beneficence/non maleficence like in the case of covert medication of Wong et al. [2] teaches that practice of medicine and medical ethics cannot be based on principles and guidelines, but on the virtues and therefore on virtues’ ethics....

    Show More
  • Dignity of life
    Ashish Goel

    Dear Editor,

    When one is faced with the question of euthanasia and end of life care, there is a core question that one needs to answer to oneself. ‘Do I value the length of my life over my dignity’? The answer to this question directs all our decisions and would solve a lot of our internal debates in the issue. Would you like to lose your dignity to life support machines, like mechanical ventilators, which strip y...

    Show More
  • Consent
    Ashish Goel

    Dear Editor,

    Informed consent is such an intricately complex term that it is impossible to understand its multifaceted connotations. An ideal consent does not have any conflicts of interest, but with the changing moral values and the changing roles of physicians no consent remains without a conflict. Where do we draw the line finally?

    This is just the beginning of an end. Jamie's birth demonstrates a co...

    Show More
  • Response to the Authors
    Glenn E Rivard

    Dear Editor,

    This letter is in regard to the recent article that appeared in Volume 30 of the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled "Reproductive and therapeutic cloning, germline therapy, and purchase of gametes and embryos: comments on Canadian legislation governing reproduction technologies". I am the senior legal advisor to Health Canada for the development and implementation of the Assisted Human Reproductio...

    Show More
  • The real problem of donating and selling organs
    Y. Michael Barilan

    Dear editor,

    Shortly after the Holocaust, Rabbi Zewin set out to examine Jewish law with regard to a famous anti-Semitic motif, Shylock's deal. Zewin concluded that a person is not the owner of his or her body and that it is impossible to make a body part collateral to debt.

    Rabbi Israeli, following Rabbi Babd, disagrees, claiming that a person has the right to use his or her body in any manner that might be be...

    Show More
  • Check this
    Ashish Goel

    Dear Editor,

    It was interesting reading about 'granny' and the concerned family, but just consider this scenario which is very common in a developing country like India where I have learnt my medicine and have been practicing if for some time now.

    In the Indian system, the families are very large and yet are very close units. People tend to stay together, physically as well as in the mind. The strength...

    Show More

Pages