Displaying: 201-220 of 1874 documents

0.059 sec

201. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Rev. Jonah Pollock, OP Ethics of Procreation and the Defense of Human Life: Contraception, Artificial Fertilization, and Abortion by by Martin Rhonheimer
202. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Thomas P. Sheahen New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer
203. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Pope Pius XII Discourse to Family Associations: November 27, 1951
204. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Joseph J. Piccione Who Shall Take Care of Our Sick? Roman Catholic Sisters and the Development of Catholic Hospitals in New York City by Bernadette McCauley and Unlikely Entrepreneurs: Catholic Sisters and the Hospital Marketplace, 1865–1925 by Barbra Mann Wall
205. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Journals in Science
206. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Christopher Kaczor Philosophy and Theology
207. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco Science
208. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Rev. Matt O’Reilly A Love for Life: Christianity’s Consistent Protection of the Unborn by Dennis Di Mauro
209. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Helen Watt Bodily Invasions: When Side Effects Are Morally Conclusive
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
What kind of interventions on the body of an innocent human being may be licitly intended? This question arises in relation to maternal–fetal conflicts such as ectopic pregnancy and obstructed labor, and to other cases such as organ harvesting and separation of conjoined twins. Many assume that harm must be intended for absolute moral prohibitions to apply; however, it is not always the case that foreseen harm is merely a factor to weigh against benefits we intend. On the contrary, foreseen harm (and absence of benefit) for someone we affect can be morally conclusive when linked to an immedi­ate intention to affect the person’s body or invade the space it fills. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 49–51.
210. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Journals in Philosophy and Theology
211. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Journals in Medicine
212. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Edward J. Furton Ethics Without Metaphysics: A Review of the Lysaught Analysis
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The recent moral analysis of Therese Lysaught concerning the death of a child by dilation and curettage is emblematic of a wider trend in Catholic moral theory that has forgotten Western metaphysics. Lysaught’s analysis depends on seeing the world as a mechanical system, lacking in all teleological order and thus incapable of providing the mind with moral guidance. The rejection of the traditional philosophical conviction that nature is under the governance of God, and its replacement with the view that nature is a merely physical order, explains why the new theorists do not see that direct killing of the innocent is wrong. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 53–62.
213. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Rita L. Marker End-of-Life Decisions and Double Effect: How Can This Be Wrong When It Feels So Right?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The doctrine of double effect has a firm, respected position within Roman Catholic medical ethics. In addition, public debate often incorporates this doctrine when determining the acceptability of certain actions. This essay examines and assesses the application of this doctrine to end-of-life decisions. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 99–119.
214. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Lisa Gasbarre Black Double Effect and U.S. Supreme Court Reasoning
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Legal minds have utilized the principle of double effect as proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas for centuries to shape legal authority in cases where moral judgment and legal reasoning meet. The U.S. Supreme Court had uti­lized double-effect reasoning in the realm of self-defense cases. This article discusses more recent use of double-effect reasoning in the landmark Supreme Court case Vacco v. Quill and its companion case, Washington v. Glucksberg. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the Court in Vacco, introduced double-effect reasoning to identify the distinctions between palliative care and assisted suicide in an effort to uphold the constitutionality of the ban on assisted suicide in New York. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 41–48.
215. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Edward J. Furton, MA, PhD In This Issue
216. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Richard M. Doerflinger Washington Insider
217. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Colloquy
218. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Call for Papers
219. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Greg F. Burke, MD Medicine
220. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 11 > Issue: 1
Marie A. Anderson, MD, Robert L. Fastiggi, David E. Hargroder, MD, Rev. Joseph C. Howard Jr., C. Ward Kischer Ectopic Pregnancy and Catholic Morality: A Response to Recent Arguments in Favor of Salpingostomy and Methotrexate
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Respected Catholic ethicists have recently defended the use of salpingostomy and methotrexate in the management of ectopic pregnancies.This article examines the arguments for the revised assessments to determine whether there are sound reasons to believe that these two methods do not constitute the direct and immediate killing of innocent human beings. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 11.1 (Spring 2011): 65–82.