Fourteenth Annual UFL Meeting Held in Minneapolis.

The fourteenth annual meeting of University Faculty for Life (UFL) was held June 4 and 5 at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. This was the first time that UFL had met in that city, and attendees were most impressed by the facilities at the Law School building and by the university's warm hospitality.

UFL is an interdisciplinary, non-denominational organization de-voted to using scholarship to advance the cause of respect for life. It believes that by looking more deeply at the roots of the issues of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, UFL can help shape a more effective response. The organization publishes an annual collection of pro-life scholarship entitled Life and Learning, and has presented briefs in court cases involving life issues.

As with all its previous conferences, presentations consisted of a mix of plenary speakers and sessions in which scholars took on a wide variety of topics. Following each plenary speaker, a "commentator" added to and critiqued the presentation.

The first of the plenary speakers was Dr. Jorge Garcia of the Philosophy Department of Boston College. His topic was "Intentions, Virtues, and Medicine," an examination of questions relating to the principle of "double effect." This is a concept of enormous importance in the area of medical decision making. It is of particularly significant in relation to the care of the terminally ill when a treatment may have the effect of both lessening suffering and also of shortening life.

Garcia provided a rigorous and sophisticated critique of current critics of double effect theory. The commentator was Dr. Thomas Cavanaugh of the Philosophy Department of the University of San Francisco.

Dr. Ian Dowbiggin delivered the other plenary address. He is an historian at the University of Prince Edward Island in Canada, and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America, which was reviewed in National Right to Life News. Dr. Dowbiggin's talk was titled, "Dead End: The Cautionary History of Euthanasia in the Twentieth Century."

He concluded his paper with this trenchant observation: "As the twenty-first century begins to unfold, the battle over euthanasia is shifting rapidly from the nation's courts and legislatures to its hospital, hospice, and nursing home wardsE.As a society we must decide if we are willing to invest in the resources necessary to provide compassionate and ethical medical care to the terminally ill and people with disabilities. If not, and we continue to either consciously or unwittingly ration health care, we must decide who are the neediest and most deserving patients. Either way, the choice is ours." Comment was provided by Prof. Teresa Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law.