The concept ‘personhood’ lies at the center of contemporary disputes concerning whether certain biological interventions are ethical. Thus, if ‘personhood’ could be located or its existence evidenced by observations available to biologists, then each of these controversies could be resolved in biology’s own terms. I argue that this is a fruitless task. The attempt to track down a material object, ‘personhood,’ reveals ignorance of an important metaphysical presupposition underlying contemporary culture’s Cartesian/Kantian concept of ‘personhood’.

In the present world, where the sphere of knowledge and social relations have become extremely complex, the problem of insufficient competency and inability to manage efficiently the accumulation and distribution process of various professional skills, has grown very urgent. Paradoxically, the insufficient knowledge,lacking skill or competence may be advantageous. To a certain extent, it reduces the threat of arrogant technocracy and meritocracy, while supporting innovation and creative search process, in which the burden of excessive erudition has often slowed down progress. I will focus on some fallacies common in many countries undergoing modernization process, connected to the lack of clear awareness of the reasonably expected results of the medical university education(not quite professional if related to the background of the scientific state of the matter), to the dangerous “dissemination” of responsibility for a patient in the medical bureaucracy as well as to the overrepresentation of doctors among the managerial staff. To take advantage from some portion of ignorance in the medical life it needs to be acknowledged and reflected on.

How is a terminally ill patient treated by the surrounding people in the U.S. and Japan? How does a terminally ill patient decide on his or her own treatment? These questions will be examined in a study of intensive medical care, received by a terminally ill Japanese cancer patient in the U.S. and Japan. This casereflects the participant observation by a Japanese anthropologist for about 8 years in the United States and Japan on one patient who was hospitalized in both countries on and off for about eight years. The objective of this study is to illuminate the different concept of personhood between the U.S. and Japan that appeared in different cultural practices of both countries and in the subject’s own decision making process. The significant differences appeared between theU.S. and Japan in the concepts of (1) science, (2) suffering, (3) Power of Attorney and Doisho (Consent Form), and (4) organized care. The interpretation of such differences indicates that seemingly universal practices across countries suggest cultural specific concepts and their management. Therefore, ethical norms appeared differently accordingly to each country.

The sanctity of life becomes an ambiguous and illusive notion by the advance of embryology and genetics, particularly human embryonic stem cell research. Major themes generated in North American theological and ethical discussions on this important hermeneutical theme for this century, in overall, do not seem toovercome fully their Western legacies of substantialism, individualism, anthropocentricism (dignity, person, and respect as individual entity). From an East Asian Christian perspective, the sanctity of life rather implies the imperative for a life to realize itself to the fullest end of what it ought to be. This involves the diligentpractice of sanctification and self-cultivation in respect (or mindfulness 敬). A researcher in a laboratory is also a human person who needs to engage in this rigorous practice of mindfulness. This may be the prerequisite to exercise one’s freedom to help other forms of life accomplish their imperative for self-realization Finally, the sanctity of life from an East Asian Christian perspective means a fulfillment and embodiment of the proleptic Tao, in its own freedom of life (wu-wei 無爲). After all, both science and religion are taos for life, the great openness for cosmic vitality (saeng-myeong 生命)

Bioethics originated as a specific collective response of representatives of biomedical sciences, humanities and the public to the complexity of moral, anthropological and ontological problems (often in situations bordering on life and death) caused by the constant development of biomedical technologies. Because of this complexity ‐ these problems escape simple, universal (eternal) solutions. This makes them “finite”, multiple, dependent on the “here and now” circumstances of the choice of cognitive and communicative transdisciplinary strategies. In other words bioethics is a specific communicative practice that mediates a vast number of universal interpretations (philosophical, theological, etc.) in order to provide a contingent solution - a kind of “negotiated universality”. For example, moratorium on reproductive cloning is a negotiated contingent (open for reevaluation) solution of this moral problem. The mutual process of adjustment of new ideas and technologies to social requirements and social requirements to new ideas and technologies realizes in a form trans-disciplinary dialogue. To some extent, transdisciplinarity is experience of paradoxes. I am going to give an interpretation of a network of paradoxes.

As a first step, the arguments for and against the use of animals for medical purposes in general were reviewed. These arguments are summarized briefly in the first part of the article; Secondly, even if people accept in principle the use of animals in medicine and medical research, their use in xenotransplantation mayraise particular difficulties. There are three key issues in the debate over the use of animals in xenotransplantation. The first is whether as a matter of principle, it is considered to be morally acceptable to use animals as organ or tissue source; the second is the ethical acceptability of the use of primates to supply transplant material; the third is the ethical issues raised by the use of genetically modified animals to provide organs for xenotransplantation. If it is agreed to be acceptable in principle, there are then questions to address regarding the welfare of animals within any xenotransplantation program. Finally, the author makes an attempt to discuss these ethical issues in Chinese cultural context.

The so-called Brundtland-Report defines Sustainable Development as a conception of intra- and intergenerational justice, which is to be realized by a globally just distribution of possibilities for satisfying basic human needs as well as by assuring such possibilities for future generations. Hence, any political and/orsocietal decision is addressed by the ethical demands of Sustainable Development insofar it affects possibilities for satisfying basic human needs. In particular, this concerns – contrary to the widespread opinion that Sustainable Development only has to deal with problems of environmental ethics – the legitimization ofbiomedical applications. After all, especially such decisions often face the problem of measuring and trading-off potential advantages and disadvantages regarding possibilities for satisfying human basic needs. Based on the example of decisions about establishing biobanks, the paper firstly will show that Sustainable Development actually demands much more from political and societal decisions than just being concerned with environmental ethics. Secondly, itwill clarify these demands in detail. Thirdly, it will address the issues of how these demands can be implemented adequately. The paper therefore will show which conditions political and/or societal decision processes have to meet in order to comply with Sustainable Development.

Decision-making adhering to the “principle of autonomy" takes place within the wider context of decision-making processes in modern society. Within the medical area, as regards the decision through informed consent, the patient's intention assumes vital importance. The principle of autonomy is derived from the modern thought that the essence of human being is the reason. It becomes difficult, however, to rely on decision-making based on the principle of autonomy when a person’s intention is not clear and the opinions of those who are involved differ from each other. Here, I think that the principle of consensus, which seeks the agreement of those who are concerned, becomes as important as the principle of autonomy. This paper examines the problems of certainty, reliability, andcreativity of medical action through the consideration of the principle of consensus.

The Hippocratism formulated the fundamental principles of medical action. It also includes the mental attitude of the doctor. The central point of medical postulate is the benefit to end suffering. The responsibility of the doctor contains the medical art as a foreground, and the ethical attitude of the physician as a background. The medical art is the purpose and the provision of medicine, and applies in all areas to sick people. The key points are the veneration of ethical values and the full respect for the life of the individual. The Hippocratic values are based on the medical art and on the ethical attitude of the doctor and thus embody humanity. The transformation of high industrialized and pluralistic society led to changes in the basic ethical stance and the value awareness of thescientific world. The Biomedical sciences present the variety of ways using the freedom of research. The Biomedical technology and its applications, such as gene therapy, research on embryos and reproductive cloning, develop new ideas and their implementation for the people. The Biomedical sciences tend to Wertfreiheit. As a consequence the real output values of medicine are in question. At present, the Biomedical sciences are opposed to ethics because of their bold attempts in research. The consensus between medicine and ethics is a necessity, because ethics are a point of support of medicine.

Los niños con malformaciones congénitas que antes eran incompatibles con la vida, ahora pueden mantenerse en vida, pero habitualmente el defecto subyacente y sus consecuencias no pueden mejorarse. Durante este periodo surge el dilema de reanimar, continuar un tratamiento agresivo, o bien no tomarninguna actitud activa ante un determinado caso. Por eso, muchos neonatólogos se plantean ahora una aplicación selectiva de las opciones terapéuticas (lo que algunos llaman tratamiento selectivo). Sin embargo, algunos problemas estrictamente médicos hacen dificil la aplicación de un tratamiento selectivo neonatal. En primer lugar, es complicado establecer un diagnóstico preciso en un rn. En segundo lugar, el pronóstico es muchas veces incierto. En tercerlugar, la actuación médica es en muchas ocasiones urgente y no puede demorarse salvo a costa de disminuir las posibilidades de supervivencia o aumentar el riesgo de secuelas posteriores en el niño. Por ahora , no hay critérios médicos fiables para valorar en la sala de parto si un prematuro extremo de bajo peso (PEBP) en concreto sobrevivirá. Si sobrevive es poco posible predecir si será normal o quedará leve o gravemente dañado. Por consihuiente, por una parte,para algunos niños un tratamiento agresivo no sólo no se puede probar que sea beneficioso, sino que incluso puede serles perjudicial. Por otra parte podemos pensar que un bebé no tratado enérgicamente podría haber sobrevivido razonablemente intacto con la aplicación de una terapia más agresiva. Es un dilema cruél. Las opciones pueden estar no tanto entre "correctos" e "incorrectos" absolutos, como entre bienes y daños mayores o menores.