Bioethics and human rights: curb your enthusiasm.

as they put it, Annas simply ‘‘hasmisunderstood andmisrepresented our positions on several key points.’’ Speaking as editors, such provocative phrases from both sides make for ‘‘Great Debate’’ fodder, indeed. We can only hope that, as readers, you concur. This introduction does little to explain the arguments produced herein, and, undoubtedly, the end of this debate has not settled the problems addressed. We hope that in reading the full text of the exchanges, what is provided is useful insight and needed stimulation for future arguments concerning the relationship between bioethical issues and human rights concerns. Aswasnotedwith the inaugural ‘‘GreatDebate,’’ thisCQ department is dedicated to bringing ‘‘noted bioethicists [together in order to] debate . . . some of the most perplexing contemporary bioethics issues.’’ In that light, we hope you find the following a fruitful debate between respected colleagues who wish, like all of us, to reach better conceptual clarity for the sake of our moral attitudes and behaviors. We (the editors) apologize for and it should be noted that in their Rejoinder to Annas, Fenton & Arras refer to material that was in the galley proofs of Annas’s debate paper. In proofing, Annas chose to change some of his material, which directly impacted the Rejoinder. Unfortunately, those changes came too late for Fenton & Arras to make substantive changes. The impacted quotations are noted in Fenton & Arras’s text.