Research on the use of propranolol as a pharmacological memory dampening treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder is continuing and justifies a second look at the legal and ethical issues raised in the past. We summarize the general ethical and legal issues raised in the literature so far, and we select two for in-depth reconsideration. We address the concern that a traumatized witness may be less effective in a prosecution emerging from the traumatic event after memory dampening treatment. We analyze this issue in relation to sexual assault, where the suggestion that corroborating evidence may remedy any memory defects is less likely to be helpful. We also consider the clinical ethical question about a physician's obligation to discuss potential legal consequences of memory dampening treatment. We conclude that this latter question reflects a general problem related to novel medical treatments where the broader socio-legal consequences may be poorly understood, and suggest that issues of this sort could usefully be addressed through the promulgation of practice guidelines.

<p>As bioethics is a field in transition, it is of the utmost importance that we discuss the implications that this flux is having on students and the future generation of bioethicists. While conversations about the regulation of the profession have been in the forefront, dialogue about the impact that the educational system has on aspiring bioethicists has been overlooked. The implications of bioethics education are not only essential to the next generation of bioethicists, but will play an integral role in shaping the profession itself. After completing bachelor’s degrees, many students interested in bioethics question whether to seek interdisciplinary degrees in bioethics departments or study in traditional streams, such as philosophy, law, or health policy, with a bioethics focus. Two models of graduate bioethics education have emerged: the departmental model, and the bioethics-centered model. This paper explores the merits and challenges of each model in light of a student’s individual ambitions and the bioethics landscape as a whole. </p>

<p>[Introduction]: "The Canadian Law of Toxic Torts is a welcome and much needed addition to the existing body of toxic tort scholarship. It is a recommended read for students who are interested in learning or practicing in the area of toxic torts; practitioners who want to initiate or defend these claims; and judges who are given the difficult task of deciding them." </p>

<p>[Introduction]: "The Canadian Law of Toxic Torts is a welcome and much needed addition to the existing body of toxic tort scholarship. It is a recommended read for students who are interested in learning or practicing in the area of toxic torts; practitioners who want to initiate or defend these claims; and judges who are given the difficult task of deciding them." </p>

<p>As bioethics is a field in transition, it is of the utmost importance that we discuss the implications that this flux is having on students and the future generation of bioethicists. While conversations about the regulation of the profession have been in the forefront, dialogue about the impact that the educational system has on aspiring bioethicists has been overlooked. The implications of bioethics education are not only essential to the next generation of bioethicists, but will play an integral role in shaping the profession itself. After completing bachelor’s degrees, many students interested in bioethics question whether to seek interdisciplinary degrees in bioethics departments or study in traditional streams, such as philosophy, law, or health policy, with a bioethics focus. Two models of graduate bioethics education have emerged: the departmental model, and the bioethics-centered model. This paper explores the merits and challenges of each model in light of a student’s individual ambitions and the bioethics landscape as a whole. </p>