Search

Medical ethicists debate whether or not the moral assessment of cases of euthanasia should depend on whether the patient is 'killed' or 'allowed to die'. The usual presupposition is that a clear distinction between killing and letting die can be drawn so that this substantive question is not begged. I contend that the categorisation of cases of instances of killing rather than as instances of letting die depends in part on a prior moral assessment of the case. Hence is it trivially rather than substantively true that the distinction has moral significance. But even if a morally neutral (ie non-question begging) distinction could be drawn, its application to the euthanasia controversy is problematic. I illustrate the difficulties of employing this distinction to reach moral conclusions by critically discussing Philippa Foot's recent treatment of euthanasia. I conclude that even if an act of euthanasia is an instance of killing, and there exists a prima facie moral duty not to kill, and no more stringent duty overrides this duty, one still cannot determine such an act to be morally impermissible. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Lately it has become a commonplace to complain about the injustice of mass incarceration. I share the sentiment that this phenomenon has been an injustice. But it also has become orthodoxy to allege that the acceptance of a retributive penal philosophy has been one of the chief factors that has brought about mass incarceration in the first place. As a self-proclaimed retributivist, I find these allegations to be troubling and unwarranted. The point of this paper is to take steps to rebut them. I begin by making four conceptual points about retributivism. If I am correct, retributivism comes in countless flavors, and the particular variety to which I am most attracted can be applied to show why some punishments should be less severe than those presently imposed. Next I argue that many persons deserve less punishment than our legal system currently inflicts. Reflection about whether perpetrators should be afforded a complete or partial defense reveals retributivism to be less punitive than conventional wisdom would suggest., (© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021.)

Background: Immunophenotypic modulation is induced by steroids in pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL) patients during remission induction therapy., Methods: We cultured BCP-ALL blasts from diagnostic bone marrow (BM) samples (n = 20) in the presence of prednisone on stroma layer obtained from BM-derived mesenchymal cells to maintain viability. Antigen expression was assessed by multiparametric flow cytometry., Results: Leukemia samples that sustained the treatment in vitro with prednisone, showed significative reduction of CD10 and CD34 expression compared with control, and it was comparable with that observed in residual leukemic cells of the same patients in BM at day 15 of treatment. Modulated cells were viable as determined by Annexin V staining and preserved light scattering properties. Of note, the extent of antigen modulation in vitro correlated with response to prednisone in vivo., Conclusions: The prednisone-induced immunophenotypic modulation can be reproduced in vitro and this phenomenon may reflect sensitivity to chemotherapy., ((c) 2008 Clinical Cytometry Society)