This paper inaugurates a new section on education, the focus of which is on education in a broader sense. The purpose is to stimulate discussion not only about techniques of education (even though such papers are certainly welcome) but also to initiate a dialogue concerninig more fundamental questions and issues. What are the goals of education generally and of and for ethics committees specifically? What, for an ethics committee, is “education”? What do we mean by education in this field? To function efficiently on an ethics committee, does a member need specific training? Should the educational efforts of an ethics committee extend beyond the medical and nursing staff? If so (and I think these efforts not only should but must), should they extend beyond the hospital and into the community? Is educating patients a legitimate function of an ethics committee? These are but a few of the questions that I hope will be debated over the years in the pages of this journal.

In Abortion and Infanticide, Michael Tooley argues that it is not wrong to destroy potential persons, such as fetuses and newly born infants. His argument presupposes the following: 1)that the destruction of potential persons is not directly wrong because potential persons do not have a right to life; 2)that destroying a potential person—a fetus or an infant—is morally the same as preventing the existence of an (as-yet-unconceived) possible person by, for example, using a contraceptive or refraining from, intercourse during a woman's fertile period; and 3)that it is not wrong to prevent the existence of additional persons who are likely to lead happy or satisfying lives. Here I am concerned with the third presupposition. On this presupposition, the prima facie permissibility of abortion and infanticide hinges on the “moral neutrality” of those of our reproductive decisions on which the existence of additional people depends.

The last three articles within this section of Cambridge Quarterly have focused on organizations or disciplines outside the mainstream of bioethics that are making inroads within the field. This issue's article may be viewed as a departure, but it is not-my thesis is that despite the active presence of the clergy in the ethics field, individuals involved in pastoral care are often thought by health professionals, as well as by a sizeable number of pastors themselves, to not be within the mainstream of ethical decision-making for patients.

The patient, a 27-month-old girl, presented to Hospital B by ambulance in acute respiratory failure due to bilateral pneumothoraces.

At 41 weeks, the patient had been delivered by Cesarean section for failure to progress at Hospital A in the same city. Three days after birth she suffered a respiratory arrest. Resuscitation and ventilator support were initiated promptly but the child did poorly, and shortly after this first arrest, the parents were told by the child's physician that she had no chance of recovery. Nevertheless, the mother continued to insist that the child be kept on a respirator and aggressive support be maintained.

At first glance, the first informed consent case to be decided by the High Court of Australia appears to be little more than a clear and simple description of the substantive law accepted in most American jurisdictions - although that is no small accomplishment in and of itself. In Rogers v. Whitaker, the highest court in Australia succinctly and persuasively rejected informed consent as a species of battery law, accepted it as a form, of ordinary professional negligence law, and adopted the “American” patient-oriented standard (rather than the British doctor-oriented standard) for measuring the breach of a healthcare professional's duty to her or his patients. On second look, however, the opinion is an even more significant one because it reveals that the law of informed consent is now based on principles broad enough to create a duty on the part of healthcare providers to offer adequate health education to all of their patients. In Implicitly recognizing the physician's duty to educate her or his patients, the High Court's judgment is consistent with a view increasingly held In the medical and ethical communities that teaching patients about how to maintain their health is just as much a part of the doctor's function as diagnosing and treating disease. It may have taken 2,500 years for medicine to progress from, the Hippocratic notion that physicians should apply treatment to patients who are kept in blissful Ignorance of their condition and Its remedy, but there Is little doubt that medicine finally has entered a post-Hippocratic era.