Loading...
Can sense be made of the Buddhist theory of karma?
Can sense be made of the Buddhist theory of karma? www unm edu/~rhayes/karma_brock pdf As a popular teaching, the Buddhist doctrine of karmic fruition (karma- vip¯aka) is relatively easy to understand and poses few problems In the popu-
Karma and Rebirth in Buddhism - CORE
Karma and Rebirth in Buddhism - CORE core ac uk/download/ pdf /7433998 pdf Karma and Rebirth In Buddhism • Thupten Tenzlng • A Summary Introduction to Karma The doctrine of Karma is the foundation of Buddhist ethics
On the naturalization of karma and rebirth - CORE
On the naturalization of karma and rebirth - CORE core ac uk/download/ pdf /81866450 pdf Naturalistic Buddhism has arisen mainly as an attempt to demystify certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy, with the idea of rebirth being a particular case in
Karma and Rebirth in Buddhism
Karma and Rebirth in Buddhism himalaya socanth cam ac uk/collections/journals/bot/ pdf /bot_1996_01_02 pdf Diverse Nature of Karmas It is the doctrine of Karma that explains the difference among living beings Once a young man named Subbha went to Lord Buddha and
Karma and Sin: Foundation of Moral Philosophy in Therav?da
Karma and Sin: Foundation of Moral Philosophy in Therav?da www atlantis-press com/article/25896239 pdf Keywords: Buddhism; Orthodoxy; Karma; Sin, moral philosophy Abstract This article attempts to define the concept of Sin in Eastern Orthodoxy and karma in
Karma The meaning of the term karma has undergone a curious
Karma The meaning of the term karma has undergone a curious www soas ac uk/south-asia-institute/keywords/file24806 pdf Various forms of the karma theory are found in all the three main religions that began in ancient India: brahminism/Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism
Killing, karma and caring: euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity
Killing, karma and caring: euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity jme bmj com/content/medethics/21/5/265 full pdf Jtournal of medical ethics, 1995; 21: 265-269 Killing, karma and caring: euthanasia in Buddhism and Christianity Damien Keown and John Keown Goldsmiths,
36009_1265_full.pdf Jtournalofmedicalethics,1995;21:265-269Killing,karmaandcaring:euthanasiainBuddhismandChristianityDamienKeownandJohnKeownGoldsmiths,UniversityofLondonandCambridgeUniversityrespectivelyAbstractIn1993TheParliamentoftheWorld'sReligionsproducedadeclarationknownasAGlobalEthicwhichsetoutfundamentalpointsofagreementonmoralissuesbetweenthereligionsoftheworld.However,thedeclarationdidnotdealexplicitlywithmedicalethics.ThisarticleexaminesBuddhistandChristianperspectivesoneuthanasiaandfindsthatinspiteoftheirculturalandtheologicaldifferencesbothopposeitforbroadlysimilarreasons.Bothtraditionsrejectconsequentialistpatternsofjustificationandespousea'sanctityoflife'positionwhichprecludestheintentionaldestructionofhumanlifebyactoromission.IntroductionThereligionsoftheworldarebecomingincreasinglyawarethatwhatunitestheminethicsisgreaterthanwhatdividesthemintheology.Aninterestingcounterpointtothedisintegrationofmoralcon-sensusinthepostmodernworldcanbeseenintheimpetustowardsdialogueandmutualunderstandingonthepartoftraditionswhichformuchoftheirhistoryhavebeenantagonistic.Astheysearchtheirancientteachingsforsolutionstocontemporarydilemmas,Christians,MuslimsandJewsarebecomingincreasinglyawareofthecommongroundtheyshare.Theconsensuswhichisemerginginkeyareassuggeststhatscepticismregardingmoralobjec-tivitymaybemisplaced.ThemoralconsensusamongreligionswasgivenexpressioninacodifiedformbytheParliamentoftheWorld'sReligionswhichmetinChicagoinlate1993.Theparliamentproducedadeclarationwhichrevealsanimpressivedegreeofaccord.Thedeclara-tionstates:'Weaffirmthatacommonsetofcorevaluesisfoundintheteachingsofthereligions,andthattheseformthebasisofaglobalethic'(1).Initsaffirmationthatthereis'anirrevocable,uncondi-tionalnormforallareasoflife,forfamiliesandcommunities,forraces,nationsandreligions'(1)KeywordsDeathanddying;religiousethics.itcharacterisesthesecorevaluesasobjectiveanduniversalmoraltruths.Addingfurtherweighttothesuggestionthataconsensusonethicalfundamentalsexistsamongthemajorreligioustraditionsaretheviewsoftheeasternreligions,whosevoicehasbeenlittleheardtodate.PerhapsthemostinfluentialoftheseisBuddhism,areligionwhoseadherentsinAsianumberroughly500millionandwhichisrapidlymakinginroadsintheWest.ArnoldToynbeehasdescribedtheencounterbetweenBuddhismandChristianityas'oneofthegreatestcollisionsofthe21stCentury,'(2)andalthoughitistoosoontopredicttheoutcomeofthisencounteritisundeniablethatitwillbeofsignificance.Thepurposeofthispaper,however,isnottospeculateaboutthefuture,andislimitedtoindicatingtheexistenceofcommongroundinonespecificareaofmedicalethics,namelyeuthanasia.By'euthanasia'wemeantheintentionalkillingofapatientbyactoromissionaspartofhisorhermedicalcare.Wearenotconcerned,therefore,witheithertheadministrationofpalliativedrugs,orthewithdrawaloffutileorexcessivelyburdensometreatment,whichmay,asaforeseenside-effect,hastendeath.BuddhistethicsReliableinformationonBuddhismhasbeenavail-ableintheWestforlessthanacenturyandahalfandthestudyofBuddhistethicsisanascentdiscipline.TheexistenceofalientraditionssuchasBuddhismhaslongbeenseenasprovidingevidenceofmoraldiversityandsupportformoralrelativism.Acloserexamination,however,suggeststhatthisviewismistaken.WhatisparticularlystrikinginthecaseofBuddhism(3)isthatdespiteitsdifferenttheologicalpremises(mostradicallyitsdenialofbothasupremebeingandthesoul),itreachesethicalconclusionswhichareverysimilartothoseoftheSemiticreligions.IntermsofthecategoriesofWesternethicsBuddhismcouldbestbesummedupasateleologicalvirtueethic.ItsnearestanaloguewouldbeAristotle'seudaimonismasdevelopedinthetraditionofnatural
266Killing,karmaandcaring:euthanasiainBuddhismandChristianitylaw(4).InitsteachingsonkarmaBuddhismaffirmsthateverymoralacthasbothtransitiveandintransi-tiveeffects.Thetransitiveeffectsareseenintheimpactourmoralchoiceshaveonothers,whiletheintransitiveeffectsarethechangesinthecharacterofthesubjectbroughtaboutthroughtheperformanceofvirtuousorwickeddeeds.Thedoctrineofkarmaalsoholdsthatthecircumstancesofrebirtharedeterminedbyanindividual'smoralstatusatdeath.Thismeansthatthehedonictoneofanygivenexistenceisconditionedbyantecedentmoraldeeds.Whilemoralactionsproducepleasantandunpleas-antconsequencesintheformoftransitiveandintransitiveeffects,however,themoralstatusofanactisnotdeterminedbyitsconsequences.ForBuddhismthisisdeterminedinsteadbythecon-formitybetweenwhatisintendedandtheeternalmorallaw(Dharma),therequirementsofwhichcanbeknownthroughscriptureandreason(5).ThesanctityoflifeBuddhism'sapproachtomedicalethicsisinformedbyitsbeliefinthesanctityoflife.Thispan-Indianbelieffindsethicalexpressionamongthemajorreli-gioustraditionsintheformoftheprincipleofnon-harming(ahimsa).InthecaseofBuddhism,whichisatheistic,respectforlifeisgroundednotinitsdivineoriginbutinitsspiritualdestiny,namelythestateoffinalperfectionknownasnirvana.Fromthisaffirma-tivevaluationoflifeflowpreceptsforbiddingitsintentionaldestruction(6).DespiteitshighlysophisticatedpsychologyBuddhismmakesnoattempttodistinguishcertainfacultiesasindicatorsofmoralpersonhood.Existenceisacontinuumofchangingstates:allstatesareimpermanent,andthepossessionorabsenceofcertainfacultiesorqualitiesinthecourseofadeter-minedpsycho-physicalexistenceisofnomoralsig-nificance.Individuallifeinanyoneexistencebeginsatconceptionandendsatdeath:intheintervalbetweenthesubjectisentitledtofullmoralrespectregardlessofthestageofpsycho-physicaldevelop-mentattainedorthementalcapacitiesenjoyed(7).EuthanasiaNoeuphemismsuchas'euthanasia'isfoundinearlyBuddhistcanonicalsources,noristhemoralityofthepracticediscussedspecificallyinthediscourses(sutta)oftheBuddha(8).Asanactoromissioninvolvingtheintentionaldestructionoflife,however,itwouldundoubtedlybeprohibitedbyBuddhistprecepts.ConfirmationofthiscanbefoundintheMonasticRule(Vinaya),acorpusofcanonicalliteraturewhichsetsouttheregulationsgoverningmonasticlife.TheMonasticRuleisanauthoritativesourceforBuddhistethics,andincludesabodyofcaselawinwhichtheBuddhaisrepresentedasgivingjudgmentonspecificmatters.Thecasesrelevanttoeuthanasiaarerecountedundertherubricofthepreceptagainstthedestructionofhumanlife(thethirdpdrdjika).Thepenaltyforbreakingthepreceptistheseverestwhichcanbeimposed:lifelongexcommunication.Thecircumstancesleadingtothepromulgationofthisprecepthaveadirectbearingoneuthanasia.TheBuddhaincludeditinthemonasticcodeondis-coveringthatanumberofmonkshadeitherkilledthemselvesoraskedotherstokillthemafterdevel-opingdisgustfortheirbodies,anattitudenotunknowninascetictraditions.Somemonkscom-mittedsuicide,somekilledoneanother,andothersinvokedtheaidofanassistantfromoutsidetheorderwhokilledthemwithaknife.WhentheBuddhafoundoutheimmediatelytookactiontopreventanyrecurrencebyintroducingapreceptforbiddingthedestructionofhumanlife.Thepreceptexpresslyforbidsbothkillingahumanbeingandseekingassistanceindying(literally'lookingforaknife-wielder')(9).Thepromulgationofthepreceptinthesecir-cumstancessuggeststhatvoluntaryeuthanasia(thatis,euthanasiaattheindividual'srequest)isimmoralfromaBuddhistperspective.Thefactthatthemonkswereautonomousagentsseemstohavehadnobearingonthematter,whichimpliesthattheprincipleofthesanctityoflifecannotbeover-riddenbyanappealtoautonomy.Itisarguablethattheprohibitionwasintroducedbecausethemonkswhosoughteuthanasiainthecaseinpointhaddonesoundertheinfluenceofreligiouszealandwithoutduetimeforsoberreflection.Thisargumentis,however,unpersuasive,sincethepreceptimposesanunqualifiedprohibition.Suchaprohibitionis,moreover,quiteconsistentwiththecorpusofearlyBuddhistethicalteachingswhichdonotcontemplateanycircumstancesinwhichthedestructionoflifemightbecondoned(10).InadditiontherearefurthercasesintheMonasticRuleitselfwheretheimmoralityofeuthanasiaclearlydoesnottumontheabsenceofdueconsideration.Certainofthesecasesinvolve'qualityoflife'issues:oneconcernsterminalcare(11),andtwothelong-termcareofpatientswithseriousdisabilities(amputatedlimbs)(12).Themostinterestingofthesecasesisthefirst,theoneinvolvingterminalcare.Themotiveisstatedtohavebeencompassionforthesufferingofadyingmonk.Accordingtotheinfluentialfifth-centurycommentatorBuddhaghosa,thosefoundguiltyinthiscasetooknodirectactiontoterminatelifebutmerelysuggestedtoadyingmonkthatdeathwouldbepreferabletohispresentcondition.Despitethisapparentlybenevolentmotive,namelytospareadyingpersonunnecessarypain,thejudgmenthandeddownwasthatthoseinvolvedwereguiltyofabreachoftheprecept.Whathadtheydonewrong?InBuddhaghosa'sviewtheessenceoftheirwrongdoingwasthattheguilty
DamienKeownandJ7ohnKeown267monksmadedeaththeiraim(Va.ii.464).ItwouldthereforeappearimmoralfromaBuddhistperspec-tivetoembarkonanycourseofactionwhoseaimisthedestructionofhumanlife,regardlessoftheagent'smotive(13).Thecircumstancesinwhichthepreceptwaspro-mulgatedandthecasesreferredtoabovearedirectlyrelevanttothetwomaingroundsonwhicheuthanasiaisthoughtbysometobejustifiable,namelybeneficence,eitherinalleviatingpainorterminatinglifewhichisnolongerthoughttobeabenefit,orrespectforautonomy.ThecanonicalevidencesuggeststhatneitherofthesegroundsprovidesjustificationforeuthanasiafromaBuddhistperspective.Theabovedoesnot,however,commitBuddhismtotheviewthatlifemustbepreservedatallcosts.Buddhismisonlytooawareofthefragileandtransitorynatureoflife,butasindividuallifeisacontinuumwhichconstantlyre-manifestsitselfBuddhismdoesnotseektoprolongitbyartificialmeanssimplybecauseitistechnologicallypossible.Thereisaccordinglynorequirementtocarryoutfutileorundulyburdensometreatments,suchasresuscitatingthedying.Theintentionalhasteningofdeathis,however,morallyunacceptableinallcircumstances.ChristianethicsGiventhenumberofChristiandenominations,andtheirmoreorlessvaryingtraditions,itishardlysurprisingthatnotallChristiansagreeonallethicalissues.ThemajorChristiantradition,Catholicism,subscribestoanethicsbasedonnaturallaw,whereastheLutheranchurchesdonot.Never-theless,bothtraditionswouldjoininrejectingaconsequentialistethic,onewhichholdsthatthemoralityofanactionturnssolelyonitscon-sequences,anethicadvancedbyanumberofprominentcontemporarybioethicists.TheChristiantraditionrejectssuchbioethicistsinfavourofStPaul,whotaughtthatcertainconductisintrinsicallywrongandshouldbeavoidedregard-lessofanygoodconsequencesthatmightflowfromit.Inshort,agoodenddoesnotjustifyabadmeans:evilmaynotbedonethatgoodmaycomeofit(14).Christianethicsholdsthat,whilecon-sequencesmaywellberelevantinassessingthemoralityofanactoromission,themoralityofanactoromissionisnotdeterminedbyitsconsequences.SowhereastheChristianrulesout,say,torturingchildrenasintrinsicallywrong,theconsequentialistdoesnot.Thisisnottheplacetocritiquecon-sequentialism;itsincoherencyhasbeenexposedelsewhere(15).OurpurposehereissimplytonotetheconsensusamongChristiansandBuddhistsinrejectingtheconsequentialistethicalapproachwhichtypicallyunderliesthecaseforthelegalisationofeuthanasia.ThesanctityoflifeFewethicalconceptsaremorewidelymisunder-stoodorpersistentlymisrepresentedthanthatofthe'sanctityoflife'.AsdevelopedandunderstoodinChristianthought,itholdsthataslifeisagiftfromGoditistobecherished.AsexplainedbytheAnglicanandCatholicbishopsintheirjointsub-missiontotheHouseofLordsSelectCommitteeonMedicalEthics(asubmissionwhichstatesthatitwouldalsoenjoythesupportoftheFreeChurches):'Allhumanbeingsaretobevalued,irrespectiveofage,sex,race,religion,socialstatusortheirpotentialforachievement'(16)and'thedeliberatetakingofhumanlifeisprohibitedexceptinself-defenceorthelegitimatedefenceofothers'(17).Inthisunder-standing,whichrootsthefundamentalvalueofeachhumanbeinginhisorhercreationbyGodandintheimageofGod(butwhichcanalsobearticulatedinpurelysecularterms)humanlifeisabasicgoodasopposedtoaninstrumentalgood:agoodinitselfratherthanasameanstoanend,whetherthatendbeconceivedofaslifeofacertainminimum'quality',orthegoodofthestate,oranythingelse.Lifeisnot,however,consideredtobeanabsolutevalue,inthesensethatitmustbepreservedatallcosts.Asthebishopsmakeclear:'NeitherofourChurchesinsiststhatadyingorseriouslyillpersonshouldbekeptalivebyallpossiblemeansforaslongaspossible'(18).Theyaddthatitcanbeperfectlypropertoadministerpalliativecareevenifitincidentallyshortenslife.Advertingtothedoctrineof'doubleeffect',theynotethat'Thereisaproperandfundamentalethicaldistinction...betweenthatwhichisintendedandthatwhichisforeseenbutunintended'(19).EuthanasiaTheprinciplessketchedaboveexplainthebasisoftheChristianoppositiontoeuthanasia.Asthewrongnessofintentionalkillingobtainsregardlessoftheconsequences,thatoppositionapplieswhatevertheconditionofthepatient.Asthejointsubmissionstates,thevulnerabledeservenotlessprotection,but'specialcareandprotection'(20).Adherencetothisprinciple,itadds,'providesafundamentaltestastowhatconstitutesacivilisedsociety'(20).Eveneuthanasiaatthepatient'sexplicitrequestistobeprohibited.Therighttopersonalautonomyisnotabsolute:'Itisvalidonlywhenitrecognisesothermoralvalues,especiallytherespectduetohumanlifeassuch,whethersomeoneelse'sorone'sown'(18).Moreover,theexerciseofautonomyhastobelimitedinorderthathumanbeingsmaylivetogetherinreasonableharmony.Alliedtothisprincipledobjectiontovoluntaryeuthanasiaaretwootherobjectionswhichfocusontheundesirableconsequencesoftoleratingit.First,that'itwouldbedifficulttobesurethatrequestsforeuthanasiaweretrulyvoluntaryandsettled,evenif
268Killing,karmaandcaring:euthanasiainBuddhismandChristianitysafeguardswerebuiltintothelegislation,andnottheresulteitherofdepressionorofunduepressurefromotherpeople'(21).Second,thatitwouldresultinabreakdownoftrustbetweendoctorandpatient(22).ItwouldbeagraveerrortoperceivetheChristianoppositiontoeuthanasiaasarejectionoftheproblemsoftheterminallyill.ThesubmissionnotesthatthehospicemovementgrewoutoftheconcernsofChristiansthatpeopleshouldbehelpedtodiewithdignityanditurgesthatthelessonslearnedinhospicesshouldbeappliedthroughoutthehealthservicetoalldyingpeople(23).Itconcludesthatitiskilling,ratherthancaring,whichdeniesthedignityofthedying.ConclusionFivemainconclusionsmaybedrawnabouteuthana-siainBuddhismandChristianity.First,despitethewidelydifferentculturalbackgroundandtheologicalpresuppositionsinformingbothreligioustraditions,thereisastrikingsimilarityintheiroppositiontotheintentionalkillingofpatients.Secondly,thisopposi-tionisnotcoincidentalbutderivesfromtheirsharedrejectionofconsequentialistreasoninginfavourofanethicalapproachgroundedinarespectforhumanlifeasabasicasopposedtoaninstrumentalgood.Thirdly,notwithstandingthissharedabsoluteoppositiontoeuthanasia,bothreligionsteachthatlifeisnotanabsolutevaluetobepreservedatallcostsandbothemphasisethetransistorynatureofearthlyexistence.Fourthly,theremarkablecon-sensusbetweenthesemajorbutdisparatereligioustraditionscallsintoquestionprevalentassumptionsabouttheimpossibilityofmoralconsensusinthemodernworld.Finally,thecommonconclusionsidentifiedbythisinvestigationoftheissueofeuthanasialendssupporttotheconvictionarticu-latedinthedeclarationoftheParliamentoftheWorld'sReligionsthatacommonsetofcorevaluesmaybefoundintheteachingsoftheworldreligions.DamienKeownisLecturerinIndianReligionatGoldsmiths,UniversityofLondonandco-editoroftheJournalofBuddhistEthics.J7ohnKeownisLecturerintheLawandEthicsofMedicineatCambridgeUniversityandaFellowofQueens'College,Cambridge.Referencesandnotes(1)KungHandKuschelKJ,eds.Aglobalethic.Thedeclarationoftheparliamentoftheworld'sreligions.London:SCMPress,1993:14.Otherrecentdiscus-sionsincludeRunzoJ,ed.Ethics,religionandthegoodsociety:newdirectionsinapluralisticworld,Louisville:JohnKnoxPress,1992;OutkaG,ReederJP,eds.Prospectsforacommonmorality,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993.Aselectionfromthespeechesmadeatthefirstparliamentin1893maybefoundinSeagerRH,ed.Thedawnofreligiouspluralism.Voicesfromtheworld'sparliamentofreligions,1893.LaSalle,Illinois:OpenCourt,1993.Thedeclarationisnot,ofcourse,acomprehensiveexpositionoftheviewsofthesignatories.Somefindthedeclarationincompleteincertainrespects.See,forexample,WaldauP.Beyondpraiseofthe'declarationoftheparliamentoftheworld'sreligions'.Studiesininterreligiousdialogue1995;5:76-89.(2)ToynbeeA.ChristianityamongthereligionsoftheworldLondon:OUP,1948:14.SeealsoKeownD.ChristianethicsinthelightofBuddhistethics.Expositorytimes1995;106,5:132-137.(3)TherearemanyschoolsofBuddhismandnocentralauthorityonmattersofdoctrine.Thereis,however,aconsensusonethicsamongthemainschools.ForthepurposesofthisarticletheTheravadaSchool,whichistheoldestandmostorthodoxofthesurvivingtradi-tions,istakenasrepresentativeoftheBuddhistposition.(4)SeeKeownD,ThenatureofBuddhistethics.London:Macmillan,1992.(5)TheBuddhisttermisprain-dwhichmightbetrans-latedas'rationalinsight'.LiketheGreeksophia,prajniddenotesthecognitivefacultywhosefunctionistheintuitiveapprehensionoftruth.Prajiidisnotaself-validatingmysticalintuitionandisalwaysgroundedin,andjustifiablethrough,reason.(6)AfullerdiscussionofthesemattersmaybefoundinKeownD.Buddhismandbioethics.London:Macmillan,1995:ch1.(7)Forafullerdiscussionseereference(6):Buddhismandbioethics:21-36.(8)Secondaryliteratureonthesubjectisalsoscant.ThemostusefularticletodateisFloridaRE.Buddhistapproachestoeuthanasia.Studiesinreligion/sciencesreligieuses1993;22:35-47,whichcontainsreferencestomostoftheavailablesources.(9)Thepreceptstates:'Ifanymonkshouldintentionallydepriveahumanbeingoflifeorlookforaknife-wielderhecommitstheoffenceofdefeat(pdrdjika)andisnolongerincommunion'(Vinayaiii.71).Theinstrumentusedisofnosignificance:theembeddedcommentaryexplainsthatthelethalinstrumentmaybeaknife,adagger,anarrow,acudgel,astone,asword,poisonorarope(Vinayaiii.73).(10)Evenkillinginself-defenceappearstoberuledout(Anguttara.iv.188).(11)Vinaya.ii.79.(12)Vinaya.ii.86.(13)InBuddhism,asinotherreligions,thereexiststhecategoryofmorsvoluntariareligiosa.Thisrelatestocaseswherepiousindividualsorsaints,oftenundertheinfluenceofreligiouszeal,sacrificetheirlivesforsomereligiousend.ThreenotablecasesarefoundinthePalicanon,andmanymore(oftenfictitious)arescatteredthroughoutlaterliterature.AlthoughtheseexamplesaresometimesthoughttoshowthatBuddhismcondonessuicide(andwouldthereforeinvalidatetheprinciplestatedabove)wethinkitwouldbeunwisetodrawnormativeconclusionsfromtheseexamples,especiallysincesuicideiselsewhereclearlyprohibited(forexamplebytheFirstPreceptandalsobytheMonasticRule,asseenabove).Abriefdiscus-sionoftheanomalouscategoryofvoluntaryreligiousdeathanditsimplicationsforethicswillbefoundinBuddhismandbioethics:58-60.ForadiscussionofvoluntarydeathinthecontextofanotherIndiantradi-tion,Jainism,seeBilimoriaP.TheJainaethicofvoluntarydeath.Bioethics1992;6:330-355.With
DamienKeownandJohnKeown269referencetoJudaismandChristianityseeDrogeAJ,TaborJD.Anobledeath:suicideandmartyrdomamongChristiansandJewsinantiquity.SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1991.WithreferencetoclassicalantiquityseevanHooffAJL.Fromautothanasiatosuicide.Self-killinginclassicalantiquity.London:Routledge,1990.(14)TheHolyBible.LetterofPaultotheRomans,3:8.(15)See,forexample,GrisezG.Againstconsequential-ism.Americanjournalofjurisprudence1978;23:21-73;FinnisJM.Fundamentalsofethics.Oxford:OUP,1983:chIV.(16)JointSubmissionoftheAnglicanandCatholicBishopstotheHouseofLordsSelectCommitteeonMedicalEthics.Euthanasia-no!London:TheIncorporatedCatholicTruthSociety,1993:para3.(17)Seereference(16):para13.(18)Seereference(16):para8.(19)Seereference(16):para14.(20)Seereference(16):para4.(21)Seereference(16):para12.(22)Seereference(16):para17.(23)Seereference(16):paras20-21.NewsandnotesPsychiatry,LawandEthicsThenextformalmeetingoftheSectionofPsychiatry,LawandEthicsoftheWorldPsychiatricAssociationsectionwillbeheldinSunCity,SouthAfricaduringthe11thWorldCongressofMedicalLaw,July28toAugust1,1996.PsychiatryLawandEthicswillbethemajortopicatthecongress.Membersofoursectionareherebyaskedtosendthetitlesoftheirproposedpaperstotheorganizingcommittee:POBox51,Buhrmannsdrif,2867,Northwest,SouthAfricawithcopiestoProfessorACarmi,POBox6451,Haifa31063,Israel.The10thWorldCongressofPsychiatrywillbeheldinMadrid,August23rdtoAugust28th,1996andmembersareexpectedtoattendthisimpor-tanteventaswell.NewsandnotesTerminallyillanddyingpatientsTheCERECCenterofSoutheastFlorida,anindepen-dentprogramfortheadvancementofClinicalEthicsResearch,EducationandConsultation,isholdingaclinicalethicsseminaronEthicalIssuesintheCareofTerminallyIllandDyingPatients,December15-18,1995,attheRollingHillsHotelandGolfResort,FtLauderdale,Florida.CERECSeminarscombinelecturesbyrenownedbioethicistswithparticipantpresentationsandparallelsessionsonclinicalcases.Only45participantswillbeadmittedtofosteranatmosphereofinterdisciplinarydialogueandcriticaldiscussion.Formoreinformation,contact:DrJosVMWelie,CERECCenter,POBox292932,FtLauderdale,FL33329.Tel/Fax:(305)424-9304.E-mail:jwelie@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us.CEREC'snexttwoseminarswillbe:EthicalIssuesinRenalDialysisandKidneyTransplantation,April26-28,1996,andEthicalIssuesintheCareofIncompetentPatients,August23-25,1996.