About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


15 HEC F. 1 (2003)

handle is hein.journals/hecforum15 and id is 1 raw text is: HE C FORUM © 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2003; 15(1): 1-4. Printed in The Netherlands. EDITORIAL NOTES MARK J. CHERRY, Ph.D. This number of HealthCare Ethics Committee Forum introduces two new regular features of the Journal: (1) exploration and analysis of emerging legal issues pertaining to health care and of particular interest to members of institutional ethics committees and (2) detailed review essays of new books in medical ethics. In this issue, Roberta M. Berry provides an analysis of emerging legal issues in genetic information and research. Her exploration addresses concerns familiar to institutional health care providers, including clinical research, patient care and safety, as well as resource investment. As Berry notes, this survey will likely be of particular interest, though, as a point of departure for contemplating the ethical implications of genetic information and research for caregivers and their institutions. Morally to conduct such research, it must be possible to conduct it in a manner that scrupulously protects the safety of patients, while also ensuring that patients are able to make meaningful choices about their own lives. In his contribution, B. Andrew Lustig, reminds readers of the centrality of religious concerns for health care decision-making. In this review essay of Allocating Scarce Medical Resources: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Lustig notes that it is often deeply ambiguous what justice requires at the social level without importing a particular content-full moral perspective. While the volume explores the relevance of a Catholic perspective, regarding the allocation of scarce health care resources, together with framing notions of social justice, as he notes, even well-intentioned believers are unlikely to reach unanimous conclusions about the allocation of critical care resources. The other four essays by Charles Lattanzi, Robert Connelly, Nancy Kettle, and John Alexander respectively, draw attention to the continuing importance of understanding and utilizing informed consent for clinical decision-making. Charles Lattanzi, for example, considers the challenges facing informed consent to surgery regarding patients with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. He argues for a two pronged test that focuses on 1