The profession of pathology is a practice in the technical sense used by many philosophers. Such practices have internal goods, which, it is hoped, lead to the attainment of a certain end. The ultimate end of the practice of pathology must be the good of the patient in terms of restoring health. Key internal goods in pathology are technical competence, the proper pathologist-patient relationship, and the proper pathologist-clinician relationship. Virtues are predispositions to act so as to attain the end of the practice and further the internal goods. Technical growth in the practice of pathology must be accompanied by continued attempts to articulate the goals and internal goods of the practice. Only if pathologists are predisposed to act in accordance with proper goals will an ethical practice be assured.

This article is an introduction to a special issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics on clinical reasoning. Clinical reasoning encompasses the gamut of thinking about clinical medical practice--the evaluation and management of patients' medical problems. Theories of clinical reasoning may be normative or descriptive; that is, they may offer recommendations on how clinicians ought to think or they may simply attempt to describe how clinicians actually do think. This article briefly surveys these approaches in order to show the complexity of clinical reasoning and the inadequacy of any one theory for capturing the full richness of clinical reasoning. The authors of this issue offer both normative and descriptive elements in their accounts. Topics discussed include the importance for clinical reasoning of tacit knowing, risk assessment, narrative and hermeneutics, wisdom, and virtue epistemology.

Using ideas gleaned from the philosophy of technology of Martin Heidegger and Hans Jonas and the philosophy of health of Georges Canguilhem, I argue that one of the characteristics of emerging medical technologies is that these technologies lead to new conceptions of health. When technologies enable the body to respond to more and more challenges of disease, we thus establish new norms of health. Given the continued development of successful technologies, we come to expect more and more that our bodies should be able to respond to ever-new challenges of environment and disease by establishing ever-new norms of health. Technologies may aim at the prevention and treatment of disease, but they also bring about modifications of what we consider normal for the human being. Thus, new norms of health arise from technological innovation.

This paper explores the role of religious belief in public debate about physician-assisted dying and argues that the role is essential because any discussion about the way we die raises the deepest questions about the meaning of human life and death. For religious people, such questions are essentially religious ones, even when the religious elements are framed in secular political or philosophical language. The paper begins by reviewing some of the empirical data about religious belief and practice in the United States and Europe. It then explores the question of the proper role of religion in public policy debate and concludes with a discussion of the importance of religion and religious practices in considerations of how we die.

Virtually all activities of health care are motivated at some level by hope. Patients hope for a cure; for relief from pain; for a return home. Physicians hope to prevent illness in their patients; to make the correct diagnosis when illness presents itself; that their prescribed treatments will be effective. Researchers hope to learn more about the causes of illness; to discover new and more effective treatments; to understand how treatments work. Ultimately, all who work in health care hope to offer their patients hope. In this paper, I offer a brief analysis of hope, considering the definitions of Hobbes, Locke, Hume and Thomas Aquinas. I then differentiate shallow and deep hope and show how hope in health care can remain shallow. Next, I explore what a philosophy of deep hope in health care might look like, drawing important points from Ernst Bloch and Gabriel Marcel. Finally, I suggest some implications of this philosophy of hope for patients, physicians, and researchers.

"Geneticization" is a term used to describe the ways in which the science of genetics is influencing society at large and medicine in particular; it has important implications for the process of diagnostics. Because genetic diagnostics produces knowledge about genetic disease and predisposition to disease, it is essentially influenced by these innovations in the disease concept. In this paper, I argue that genetic diagnostics presents new ethical challenges not because the diagnostic process or method in genetic diagnostics is ethically different in kind from traditional medical diagnostics, but because it relies on a neo-ontological concept of disease in a context of genetic reductionism. Geneticization has not produced a radically new concept of disease, however, but has introduced innovations into the classical ontological concept of disease. When this new concept of disease is held in tandem with genetic reductionism, we are led to the absurd conclusion that disease is the very essence of the human being. I argue that neither the neo-ontological concept of disease nor genetic reductionism is necessary for a proper understanding of genetic diagnostics.

Scientific authority and physician authority are both challenged by Thomas Kuhn's concept of incommensurability. If competing "paradigms" or "world views" cannot rationally be compared, we have no means to judge the truth of any particular view. However, the notion of local or partial incommensurability might provide a framework for understanding the implication of contemporary philosophy of science for medicine. We distinguish four steps in the process of translating medical science into clinical decisions: the doing of the science, the appropriation of the scientific findings by the clinician, the transfer of the findings from the clinician to the patient, and the choice of a treatment regimen. Incommensurability can play a role in each stage. There is at least some theory- and value-ladenness in science that is dependent on the world view of those who construct the scientific theories. Clinicians who must use the results of scientific research will inevitably interpret the research from the standpoint of their own world view. There may be further incommensurability when these data are communicated to the patient. Finally, clinician and patient values must come into play in any decision about choice of treatment. No stage of medical research or practice is value-free. This position does not imply relativism; some scientific accounts are better than others. However, the challenge of the incommensurabilists shows that further analysis is needed to establish how particular accounts are better or worse.

It is common to talk of wise physicians, but not so common to talk of wise patients. "Patient" isa word derived from the Latin patior--"to suffer," but also "to let be." Suffering has been the universal lot of humanity, and medicine rightly tries to relieve suffering. Medical progress, like all technological progress, leads us more and more to hope that we can control our fate. However, we do well to ask whether our attempts to control our fate are wise. Wisdom played a major role in the philosophy of the ancient Stoics, and so I propose putting these questions into the context of a new stoicism. For the Stoic, happiness consists in living in accord with nature. Stoics are sometimes portrayed as apathetic fatalists, silently accepting whatever misfortune might come their way, but this is a misunderstanding. The Stoic sage, like the common person, wants to preserve life and health. The difference is that the sage's wisdom brings knowledge about what actions are appropriate in the face of suffering. The sage sees suffering not as something that demands immediate control, but as something that might reasonably direct actions. Suffering brings turmoil to the common patient, who will take any possible steps to end the suffering. The wise patient possesses the knowledge that enables a correct assessment of the options in the face of the reality that we ultimately do not control our own fate.