eLetters

154 e-Letters

published between 2003 and 2006

  • Kenosis and perichoresis
    Pierre Mallia

    Dear Editor,

    Whilst I am an advocate for dialogue and mutual understanding and indeed have written on the possible acceptance of emergency contraception in instances of rape, I find this article by L. Bovens rather disturbing and at most insulting to the general Catholic population. Although he uses the term pro-life, this can only be an emotive attempt, rather than rational argumentation, since 'pro-lifers' have b...

    Show More
  • Absurd science
    Anne M Williams

    Dear Editor,

    This article ignores up to date knowledge of the physiology of reproduction in its fascination with a mathematical and statistical model and his illogical assumptions.

    The ovum lives for 12-24 hours, and it can only be fertilised within this short time(1). Outwith the fertile time, the sperm cannot reach the ovum as the cervical mucus dries and forms a plug(2). The sperm can be kept waitin...

    Show More
  • When "consent" is not consent
    David W Evans

    Dear Editor,

    Potts (1) questions the validity of prospective consent to organ donation as recorded on the organ donor cards in current use in the USA. The situation is no better in this country. "Consent" as recorded on the NHS Organ Donor Register is based on nothing more than a ticked box on a form specifying organs to be taken after death. Such "consent" is surely invalid, being at the very least far from fu...

    Show More
  • When "consent" is not consent
    Michael Potts

    Dear Editor,

    MDD Bell (1) points out a number of serious ethical problems with "presumed consent" for organ donation in the UK Human Tissue Act 2004. One serious problem is that even in a system of voluntary organ donation, such as the one in the US, true informed consent is not given. Organ donor cards do not make it clear when claiming that the removal of organs takes place after the donor is dead, that the poten...

    Show More
  • Autonomy and the Metaphysics of Efficiency
    Michael G Peckitt

    Dear Editor,

    I very much enjoyed Dr.Bishop paper and I agree on most points, I am against euthanasia, and do believe that by legalising assisted dying we place death in a 'metaphysics of efficiency', and that leaving death 'open' would be preferable.

    To be sure, making it a law gives death a different status, one of a medical 'option', and a certain legitimacy as being merely 'an option'. However, ther...

    Show More
  • To make a healthy person more vulnerable
    Fernando Verdú

    Dear Editor,

    K A Bramstedt maintains in its excellent article that, solely in the case of transplant between alive, would be acceptable which a transfusion contract was not signed if both, donor and receiver, are Witnesses of Jehovah.

    Nevertheless, we considered that, even in those cases, the rejection to the transfusion must be used like exclusion criterion.

    In this case the reason has to be...

    Show More
  • Asking too much from physicians for too little demonstrated benefit
    Timothy F. Murphy

    Dear Editor,

    Udo Schuklenk wants to denude all physicians of any jewelry, clothing, or office accouterments that identify them as a member of a religion, political party, or sexual orientation. (1) Why? Because some wary patients will see these as barriers between themselves and their physicians. In consequence, adolescent patients struggling with sexuality or patients with drug problems may not trust their phy...

    Show More
  • The problem is destruction of a human organism
    Beverly B. Nuckols

    Dear Editor,

    P Patel’s article in “Research Ethics: A natural stem cell therapy? How novel findings and biotechnology clarify the ethics of stem cell research,” in the April issue of the Journal did not clarify as much as it could have.

    Rather than exploring the “naturalness” of stem cell therapy, a better understanding would come with examining “destructive” and “non- destructive” stem cell therapy. Firs...

    Show More
  • Häyry's three questions
    Peter Herissone-Kelly

    Dear Editor,

    I would like to thank Professor Häyry for his complimentary remarks on my paper, and for his three (characteristically) incisive questions. In what follows, I will attempt to answer each of those questions in turn.

    (i) Häyry asks how I can consistently maintain the conjunction of the following three propositions:

    (a) taken together, the external and internal perspectives exhaust...

    Show More
  • Three questions about the Principle of Acceptable Outlook
    Matti Häyry

    Dear Editor,

    Peter Herissone-Kelly[1] makes the case that it would be morally inappropriate for prospective parents to select their children based on comparative judgments about their life quality. This view is in stark contradiction with the view, advanced by Julian Savulescu [2], that parents have a moral obligation to select the best possible children they can have.

    Herissone-Kelly argues that futu...

    Show More

Pages