A number of indications suggest that we may be on the verge of another massive shift in the orientation of our system for the civil commitment of the mentally ill. After nearly one and one-half centuries during which commitment criteria were based on the mentally ill person's need for care and treatment, the late 1960s and 1970s saw a rejection of this standard in favor of criteria based solely on the individual's dangerousness to self or others. Now, in the 1980s, we are witnessing an outcry against dangerousness-oriented standards and the beginnings of a return to a need-for-treatment model.

The treatment of severely handicapped newborns was, for a long time, an issue of concern only to medical practitioners and involved parents. Recently, however, it has drawn the interest of a much broader constituency. Philosophers, lawyers, politicians, and the clergy, as well as public interest groups, are but a few of the groups enmeshed in the controversy over whether all handicapped infants must be treated aggressively, regardless of their physical or mental condition. Similarly, the dispute has expanded beyond academic journals and medical rhetoric. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has issued several versions of regulations concerning the care of handicapped infants (the latest proposing voluntary Infant Care Review Committees to supplement federal and state review mechanisms).

Many modern work environments expose employees to the risk of injury from toxic substances. Attention to this risk may extend beyond the immediate concern for the worker's personal health, to concern that the worker's capacity to produce healthy offspring may be impaired. The conditions of employment in a particular workplace may require exposure to chemical agents that are toxic to the reproductive system of one sex and not of the other, toxic to the reproductive processes in both sexes, toxic to the developing fetus but not to the adult, or a combination of the above. Employers that exclude susceptible members of one sex from the workplace in order to prevent exposure to toxic agents, do so at the risk of violating federal employment discrimination law.

In past decades, biomedical technology has created such advances that many health care professionals and consumers are overwhelmed by the apparently unlimited choices in treatment decisions. Problems in human reproduction, preservation of life, research on human subjects, and allocation of scarce resources are just a few of the categories of concerns that we now face. These dilemmas are complex both from conceptual and ethical perspectives. Thus, it becomes more and more difficult to define such important concepts as “human life” or ‘extraordinary treatment,” and to apply these concepts to clinical situations. It has become almost impossible to objectively interpret and apply ethical principles which should guide actions of health care providers.