Preface.

• Author: Bopp, James, Jr.

The lead article in this edition provides evidence of more history "lite" in modern American bioethics. Bradford William Short, J.D., examines the writings of bioethicists Margaret Pabst Battin, Hilde L. Nelson, John Hardwig, and Lance K. Stell, and finds that all have misrepresented the moral theories of Immanuel Kant, John Locke, or both in order to argue in favor of assited suicide or euthanasia. In each case the author shows that the eror concerning Kant's or Locke's moral theory stems not simply from inaccurate quotations, but also from a refusal to present what Kant and Locke said and wrote in the relevant historical context. He concludes by demonstrating how this history lite harms the study and interpretation of the American Constitution.

The second article, by Che Ming Yang, M.D., J.D., Ph.D., and others reports the results of a study of the ethical attitudes on human cloning among professionals in healthcare, law, and religion, in Taiwan. The study reveals that members of these professions opposed human cloning. Religious professionals were most opposed, followed by legal professionals. Healthcare professionals were least opposed to human cloning. Age, education, and religion significantly influenced attitudes toward human cloning. Younger professionals, those with college education, but not graduate school, and those identifying themselves as atheists, Buddhists, or Taoists, were least opposed to human cloning. Older professionals, those with high school or graduate education, and Christians (Roman Catholic and Protestant), were more opposed to human cloning. The authors conclude that the regulation of human cloning will be influenced by professionals in healthcare, law, and religion, and the regulatory environment chosen now will play a pivoltal role in influencing whether human cloning will be accepted in...