Writers in Second Opinion, we expect and hope, seldom sound satisfied. Has their attitude and approach something to do with the word "faith" in the Park Ridge Center's name? If so, what is it about faith that leaves them restless?

Two motifs derived from the biblical witness flow through the four lead articles and many of the concerns in the book reviews. These reflect themes seen as essential by Glenn Tinder in his The Political Meaning of Christianity. Christianity does not have a monopoly on them.

Tinder writes first on "the exaltation of the individual" as being integral to faith. He then balances it with "prophetic hope," a hope that demands a prophetic community. Both of these themes are rooted in "the prophetic stance," which shows in the dissatisfaction of our authors with things as they are. This stance, says Tinder, deals with "how to live in the public world in such times as ours."

As for "prophetic hope," Tinder observes at once that "the world is not a fitting home for the exalted individual." To make the world more hospitable there must be community, because "a community is a setting in which individuals are exalted." He adds: "If community is what arises when we recognize one another as having a value beyond price, society is the kind of unity that comes about because of the necessities of life in the world."

Numerous apparently necessary aspects of society are critiqued in this issue. Jennifer Girod leads off: "As a society, we presume that organ donation is an unambiguous good….In fact we suppress awareness of an opposing, legitimate view." So she stimulates such awareness, in the interest of individuals and society alike.

Next, watch John L. Allen Jr. take up the traumatic situation of conjoined twins. In this case the tension was acute among parents of the fused babies and the individuals who determined that there must be an operation to sever the infants, though one would certainly die. Allen elucidates much of the reasoning that went into medical decisions in this case. His article celebrates "bodily integrity," though, of course, he cannot offer a simple prescription for putting it to work in cases like this, where "prophetic hope" seems countered by a hopeless situation.

Speaking of never being satisfied, what shall we think of Kelly A. Edwards's critique of a currently valued and sought element in the make-up and action of physicians—empathy? Certainly Edwards is not encouraging the production of more un-empathic physicians, when the empathic sorts are already in short supply. The prophetic itch for Edwards instead motivates the search for a different metaphor, a different conceptualization than the empathy/unempathy dialectic permits even at its best.

As for a fourth article, why not be satisfied with current humane modes of extending life and caring for the dying in a generation when many believe that society is doing better than before? Marie J. Giblin is not content and gives good reason for others to become restless about current approaches. Her Christian feminist alternative offers a promising re-conceptualization that can lead to better responses in the context of community.

These four authors and their counterparts in issues past and future are not chosen because they are crabby. Whiners are never welcome here, nor are we inclined to publish condescending pieces by writers who know it all and are ready prematurely to lay down prescriptions to a dull society or take simple sides on issues that Girod says cannot be seen as "unambiguous."

While I must resist the temptation to anticipate the plot of her article, which I have chosen for example—let her detail the case and some implied choices—Girod poses questions about organ donation that should trouble society, bemuse community, and leave the individual in some suspense. While those questions are compelling, I found it reassuring to read her, near the end, still saying, "Personally, I have yet to make a decision about organ donation."

No more satisfying to ideologues or the self-assured is Allen's conclusion, a quotation from Father Brian Johnstone: "This case will be studied and debated for a long time. It puts some fundamental issues on the table." Yet having them placed there is the first step beyond neglect of or mere reportage concerning the severing of conjoined twins.

The other two authors are able to move further toward constructive suggestions. Edwards and Giblin both offer versions of "relationality" to replace, in one case, unbalanced forms of interaction between physicians and the dying and, in the other, current unfulfilling versions of medical intervention or hospice care.

Years ago I wrote of the "equilibristic stance" needed by people who must balance contending and conflicting alternatives. In the German translation of the article the two words got fused creatively into one whose meaning is less escapable: we need a Balanzakt. In a more recent chapter, having appraised two potentially positive goods that were in tension with each other, I drew on Aristotle's conception and promoted "equipoise."

Balance-acts and equipoise, we know, can do considerable service during diagnosis or for description of a situation when an individual, a community, or a society is faced with troubling alternatives. They are less serviceable in the moments when responsible people have to decide quickly whether or not to make or receive an organ donation or to sever conjoined twins. One must anticipate such decisions by developing frameworks in whose context responsible people can make choices when they must. Yet we believe that those faced with dilemmas as here described will make more intelligent choices and live better with their consciences if they have first enlarged the repertory of options available to them.

Hence, we present these four articles, in continuity with those in past issues and those planned for the future. If you have a second opinion about anything in Second Opinion, do let us know.