Contributors.

Edmund Pellegrino noted that contemporary medicine is to a large extent a North American product, and so too is the ethics that accompanies it. This was an accurate observation back in the 1980s when he said it. Even today bioethics is to a considerable extent informed by the seminal works of the Anglo-American model, at least seen from the United States. The dissemination of ideas from the Spanish-speaking world has been nearly invisible to the English-speaking world of bioethics, isolated by language and culture from intellectual currents abroad.

The birth of bioethics in Spain—and the rest of Europe—has not necessarily been a replication of what happened in North America, despite the arguments made by a number of mainstream American authors. From a European perspective, this thesis looks incomplete at best, if not entirely erroneous. Let us see why.

It might come as a surprise to many that Spain, a country with a strong Catholic tradition that officially banned contraceptive technologies until 1978, has some of the most liberal regulations in assisted reproduction in the world. Law No. 35/1988 was one of the first and most detailed acts of legislation undertaken on the subject of assisted-conception procedures. Indeed, not only did the law permit research on nonviable embryos, it made assisted reproductive technologies available to any woman, whether married or not, through the national healthcare system.

A 68-year-old patient who suffered from gastric cancer diagnosed 8 months earlier presented with multiple peritoneal and hepatic metastasis, despite several rounds of chemo- and radiotherapy. After admission to hospital, his general condition quickly became severely compromised. He was nearly emaciated, despite being on partial parenteral feeding. Four years earlier, due to a cardiac arrhythmia that was refractory to medication, the patient had a cardiac pacemaker (CPM) implanted, regulated to go off at frequencies of below 70 beats per minute. Given the patient's terminal situation, the team started developing some doubts about the pacemaker's effects during his dying process. The patient had mentioned his intention to donate his pacemaker after his death, but had not asked for its deactivation. The specialists were not sure about the effect of the pacemaker in unnecessarily prolonging the patient's final hour. Nevertheless, they opposed deactivation, which they considered ethically uncertain. The family, who had been initially for the deactivation, decided against it. The patient's condition was progressively deteriorating, as he was falling into a state of sopor and, later, into a coma.

One of the essential tasks of bioethics in morally pluralistic societies consists of fostering a public use of reason in its field of competence. This is the fundamental thesis of the present work. To deal with it I will try to answer two crucial questions: (a) What is moral pluralism and why does it demand fostering the use of public reason in moral issues in the sphere of bioethics and (b) What are the laboratories of bioethics in a pluralistic society?

In 2005 the new Governor of Puerto Rico appointed a panel of experts to evaluate the healthcare system of Puerto Rico and make recommendations. Among other things, the panel recommended the creation of an advisory board on bioethics for the commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Over the past 20 years, organ donations in Spain have soared from modest numbers to the highest rate in the world. In the brief span between 1998 and 2005, donation rates have increased from 14 per million population (p.m.p.) to 35.1 p.m.p. By way of comparison the number in the United States is 25.5 donations p.m.p.

In societies with an established system of rights, human dignity occupies the vertex of the moral statute. Freedom and equality are specific derivations of that higher value. Taking freedom and equality seriously necessarily means articulating a system of rights that places at its apex the value that unifies both: human dignity.

The most casual conversation about Latin American life, politics, or culture can turn into a shouting match just by innocently asking the table to define what Latin America is. Some will dismiss the term as an American (or French or Jesuit) construct that fails to capture the geographic and cultural complexities of the former Spanish colonies. Others will fervently argue that despite its imprecision—or perhaps because of it—this lexical wild card connotes an aspiration of brotherhood against colonialist threats past and present. When the dust settles, both sides will likely concede that the question is a beguiling one indeed.

Where I am, in the late 70s, I find myself being asked to do far more than I am able. I'm at the stage when everyone assumes that I don't have any real work, so it's OK to ask for things. Increasingly the things I'm asked to do are historical: What was it like back then? When did you start doing this or that? How did this or that get started? I guess I'm in the penultimate period. I'm still working every day, much harder than I would like, and upset by the fact that my memory is not working the way it should. With this public confession, I'll now start my penance, that is, to do a little personal history of my involvement with bioethics first here in the United States, then in Spain and Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America.

“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 [email protected].

This CQ department is dedicated to bringing noted bioethicsts together in order to debate some of the most perplexing contemporary bioethics issues. You are encouraged to contact “The Great Debates” department editor, D. Micah Hester ([email protected]), UAMS/Humanities, 4301 W. Markham St. #646, Little Rock, AR 72205, with any suggestions for debate topics and interlocutors you would like to see published herein.

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

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.