Drawing on philosophical notions of personal identity and the immorality of killing, Jeff McMahan looks at various issues, including abortion, infanticide, the killing of animals, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.

While it is generally accepted that animal welfare matters morally, it is less clear how to morally evaluate the ending of an animal's life. This volume presents a collection of contributions from major thinkers in ethics and animal welfare, with a special focus on the moral evaluation of killing animals.

This collection contains twenty-one thought-provoking essays on the controversies surrounding the moral and legal distinctions between euthanasia and "letting die." Since public awareness of this issue has increased this second edition includes nine entirely new essays which bring the treatment of the subject up-to-date. The urgency of this issue can be gauged in recent developments such as the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands, "how-to" manuals topping the bestseller charts in the United States, and the many headlines devoted to Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has assisted dozens of patients to die. The essays address the range of questions involved in this issue pertaining especially to the fields of medical ethics, public policymaking, and social philosophy. The discussions consider the decisions facing medical and public policymakers, how those decisions will affect the elderly and terminally ill, and the medical and legal ramifications for patients in a permanently vegetative state, as well as issues of parent/infant rights. The book is divided into two sections. The first, "Euthanasia and the Termination of Life-Prolonging Treatment" includes an examination of the 1976 Karen Quinlan Supreme Court decision and selections from the 1990 Supreme Court decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan. Featured are articles by law professor George Fletcher and philosophers Michael Tooley, James Rachels, and Bonnie Steinbock, with new articles by Rachels, and Thomas Sullivan. The second section, "Philosophical Considerations," probes more deeply into the theoretical issues raised by the killing/letting die controversy, illustrating exceptionally well the dispute between two rival theories of ethics, consequentialism and deontology. It also includes a corpus of the standard thought on the debate by Jonathan Bennet, Daniel Dinello, Jeffrie Murphy, John Harris, Philipa Foot, Richard Trammell, and N. Ann Davis, and adds articles new to this edition by Bennett, Foot, Warren Quinn, Jeff McMahan, and Judith Lichtenberg.

When is it right to kill? Three ethical theories are examined, deontology, a moral rights theory, and utilitarianism. The implications of each theory are worked out for different kinds of killing. In the final analysis, utilitarianism can best account for our considered intuitions about these kinds of killing.

Pharmacists face ethical choices constantly -- sometimes dramatic life-and-death decisions, but more often subtle, less conspicuous choices that are nonetheless important. Among the topics confronted are assisted suicide, conscientious refusal, pain management, equitable distribution of drug resources within institutions and managed care plans, confidentiality, and alternative and non-traditional therapies. Veatch and Haddad's book, first published in 1999, was the first collection of case studies based on the real experiences of practicing pharmacists, for use as a teaching tool for pharmacy students. The second edition accounts for the many changes in pharmacy since 1999, including assisted suicide in Oregon, the purchasing of less expensive drugs from Canada, and the influence of managed care on prescriptions. The presentation of some cases is shortened, most are revised and updated, and two new chapters have been added. The first new chapter presents a new model for analyzing cases, while the second focuses on the ethics of new drug distribution systems, for example hospitals where pharmacists are forced to choose drugs based on cost-effectiveness, and internet based pharmacies.

Why is it that soldiers may be killed in war but civilians may not be killed? By tracing the evolution of the principle of non-combatant immunity in Western thought from its medieval religious origins to its modern legal status, Colm McKeogh attempts to answer this question. In doing so he highlights the unsuccessful attempts to reconcile warfare with our civilization's most fundamental principles of justice.