A Student-Initiated Elective in Medical Ethics: Innovations in Design and Institutionalization

Introduction: This study addresses how to best approach the instruction and evaluation of clinical ethics with preclinical medical students. [See PDF for complete abstract]

PANEL DISCUSSION: "Medical Ethics, Eugenics, and the Holocaust"

A panel discussion moderated by Dr. Thomas R. Cole, McGovern Chair in Medical Humanities and Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. Panelists include: Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Beth Israel and Associate Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics and Visiting Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at the Texas Medical Center. Cardinal DiNardo, the second Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and the first cardinal archbishop from a diocese in the Southern United States. Dr. Sheldon Rubenfeld, Clinical Professor of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and in Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, and is a Fellow in both the American College of Physicians and the American College of Endocrinology. Dr. Rubenfeld has taught "Healing by Killing: Medicine During the Third Reich" for three years and "Jewish Medical Ethics" for seven years at Baylor College of Medicine. He created a six-month program about Medicine and the Holocaust at Holocaust Museum Houston, including an exhibit entitled How Healing Becomes Killing: Eugenics, Euthanasia, Extermination and a series of lectures by distinguished speakers entitled "The Michael E. DeBakey Medical Ethics Lecture Series".

Bible ethics : a manual of instruction in the history and principles of Judaism, according to the Hebrew scriptures

by Jos. Krauskopf and Henry Berkowitz

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Ethics, Interrupted: Community and Impersonality in Levinas

Despite the influence of Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics on the rethinking of community in post-identitarian terms (most prominently in the work of Maurice Blanchot, Alphonso Lingis, and, to a lesser extent, Jean-Luc Nancy), the question of community remains a problematic spot in Levinas’s own philosophy. I would argue that, instead of grounding a new thinking of community, the dyadic relation of Same and Other poses a structural problem when trying to open the ethical relation to the wider realm of others while keeping radical difference in place. As external observer and guarantor of justice, for instance, is the Third excluded a priori from the ethical relation? Is community always only another term for the political? Or, as Levinas himself puts it in Otherwise Than Being: “What meaning can community take on in difference without reducing difference?” Identifying in the notion of impersonality a way to access Levinas’s thought on community, this paper aims at rethinking the scene of address and the ethical relation in terms of displacement, dislocation and interruption.