The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics

Kimmelman, Jonathan

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00661.xpmid: 11210371

<jats:p>Over ten years have elapsed since Virginia passed the nation's first criminal DNA banking law, which authorized law enforcement authorities to collect DNA samples from certain categories of offenders for the purposes of performing profile analysis. Within nine years, Rhode Island became the fiftieth state to enact a similar statute. The passage of a decade since the first enactment provides a convenient opportunity to assess the strengths and weaknesses of ethical safeguards under present law as well as predict the likely direction of future developments.</jats:p><jats:p>DNA forensics are merely the latest in a long line of biologically based identifying law enforcement technologies that include fingerprints and serotyping. Nevertheless, DNA has properties that make it significantly different than its predecessors with respect to the ethical and social concerns it raises.</jats:p>

Asplen, Christopher H.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00662.xpmid: N/A

Baylis, Françoise

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00663.xpmid: 11210372

Scofield, Giles

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00664.xpmid: 11210373

Schneiderman, Lawrence J.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00665.xpmid: 11210374

Baylis, Françoise

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00666.xpmid: 11210375

Scofield, Giles

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00667.xpmid: 11210376

Hall, Mark A.; Rich, Stephen S.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00668.xpmid: 11210377

Lefevre, Frank V.; Waters, Teresa M.; Budetti, Peter P.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00669.xpmid: 11210378

Derse, Arthur R.

doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00671.xpmid: 11210380

<jats:p>In this issue, Raphael Cohen-Almagor reviews some of the terms used in the discussion of bioethical issues at the end of a patient's life; he argues that they are “valueladen” and serve “primarily the physicians, at times at the expense of the patients’ best interest.” Each of the following terms comes under scrutiny: “death with dignity,” “persistent vegetative state,” “futility,” “double effect,” and “brain death.” He argues that these concepts, developed in recent decades, “have generated an unhealthy atmosphere for patients, which might lead to undesirable actions at the end of patients’ lives.” He issues a plea to discontinue the use of the term “persistent vegetative state” because it is dehumanizing, to explain “double effect” and “futility” in detail and with sincerity, and to clarify the motivation for using these terms and others. He warns physicians not to use terminology that is offensive to patients and loved ones or that weakens their patients’ will to live.</jats:p>