Is it ethically acceptable to give terminally ill patients pain relieving medications with the knowledge that they might hasten death? Going further than this, can it be morally permissible intentionally and directly to kill such patients?
These are two of the many questions that swiftly come to mind when we review what happened at Memorial Medical Center at New Orleans, Louisiana on September 1, 2005, just days after Hurricane Katrina.
Daniel C. Dennett is an internationally renowned scholar at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts, and he is out to break religion’s “spell.” By this, he means its irrational grip, which causes us to act against our own best interests. Although he acknowledges that religion does some good things, he believes that in general it hurts us. He wants us to weigh its pros and cons in public, allowing no place for it to run for cover. He wants us to see it as it really is.
What would the ideal Adventist college graduate look like?
Last weekend, presidents, deans, and chief financial officers of North American Adventist Colleges came up with the answer.
Or provisional answer.
Gathered at Southern Adventist University for a Mission Conference on the weekend before meetings of the constituency of the Adventist Association of Colleges and Universities, these leaders agreed on the following draft statement:
The Mission of Adventist Higher Education
David R. Hodge, a professor in the social work program at Arizona State University, West Campus, in Phoenix, has analyzed seventeen major studies of whether intercessory prayer actually helps patients and clients. His conclusion is that it has a “small, but significant, effect.”
People sometimes wonder what process philosophy and theology are all about and why I find them helpful. I have been thinking about this as well because I recently participated in a conference in honor of John B. Cobb, Jr.
He is a Methodist minister who has taught at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Southern California for many years. Now eighty-three years old and still very active in the world of scholarship and elsewhere, he has authored almost four hundred articles plus twenty-six books with two more on the way that I know of.
I just feel overwhelmed,” I said to my wife, trying to explain the weight I felt pressing on me during the first couple of weeks at work for the year.
Part of it was reminiscent of the first week of a university semester, when all the lecturers would outline the breadth of reading and the number of assignments to be completed over the few short months following. And perhaps that feeling was somewhat justified as another busy year stretched ahead.
Written in response to a report by Dennis Hokama in the most recent issue of Adventist Today.
She: Hear you’re getting a new dog!
She: Looking forward to choosing it?
She: Bet you’re going for a puppy, not a grown up.
She: What kind are you looking for?
She: I ask you what kind of puppy you want and you say “none?”
She: You don’t care if the puppy comes with papers. Is that what you mean?
In any significant election campaign, such as that we have recently endured in Australia, it does not take long to hear politicians of all types wanting to claim “family” as a particular marker of their cause. From an appeal to “working families” to the ubiquitous “family values,” this terminology is invoked—however vaguely—to urge the importance of our voting behaviour. As Amanda Lohrey puts it, “‘family’ is the most powerful metaphor in politics today” (“Voting for Jesus,” Quarterly Essay, 2006).