Displaying: 321-340 of 1874 documents

0.095 sec

321. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Cory Andrew Labrecque In the Image of Dust and Heaven: The Resurrection in Religion, Science, and Bioethics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The Resurrection, like many other fundamental elements of the Christian Creed, stands outside the province of empirical science. If something that constitutes a mainstay feature of a person’s belief system cannot be measured by the standard tools and methods of the day, does this make it any less credible? Does immeasurability require a radical reformation of our understanding of the objects and principles of faith in order that they become more accessible to the reach of contemporary science, or does their immeasurability discount them altogether? This essay reflects on James Carroll’s rejection of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and its implications for Roman Catholic bioethics. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.2 (Summer 2012): 227–234.
322. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Edward J. Furton, MA, PhD In This Issue
323. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Helen Watt Cooperation and Immoral Laws: Preventing without Prescribing Harm
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In responding to an unjust legal situation involving human rights abuses, one approach is to seek a selective ban on some abuses if a more comprehensive ban is not feasible politically. While such an approach to embryo research or abortion, for example, can reasonably be applied, much harder to defend is regulation—that is, giving permission or instructions for others to do or prepare to do what we believe is morally wrong. Regulation necessarily involves us in wrongly intending that others choose wrongly, that is, in formal cooperation with evil. We should choose other means of making a bad situation better: selective banning or discouragement by, for example, withholding funding, and the mandating of acts that are good or potentially good in the context in which they are mandated. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.2 (Summer 2012): 241–248.
324. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Lawrence Masek, PhD Colloquy
325. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
E. Christian Brugger Fertility and Gender: Issues in Reproductive and Sexual Ethics edited by Helen Watt
326. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Patrick C. Beeman, MD Catholicism, Cooperation, and Contraception
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
A Catholic physician practices in a world that condones the use of contraception. In the effort to be morally consistent, Catholic physicians are faced with questions about the extent to which their participation in providing contraceptives constitutes immoral cooperation in evil. Particular challenges face resident physicians, who practice under attending physicians and within the constraints of local and specialty-wide training requirements. The author examines the nature of the moral act of referring for contraception and argues that, in limited cases, there is a moral distinction between a referral and an intra-residency patient transfer, and the latter may be morally licit according to the principle of material cooperation. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.2 (Summer 2012): 283–309.
327. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
William L. Saunders, Jr. Washington Insider
328. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Michael E. Allsopp This Mortal Flesh: Incarnation and Bioethics by Brent Waters
329. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
William E. May Debating Euthanasia by Emily Jackson and John Keown
330. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Joseph Meaney, Marina Casini, Antonio G. Spagnolo, MD Objective Reasons for Conscientious Objection in Health Care
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Conscientious objection in the health care field—that is, refusal on the part of a medical professional to perform or cooperate in a procedure when it violates his or her conscience—is a growing concern for international legislators and a source of contentious debates among ethicists and the general public. Recognizing a general right to conscientious objection based on individual liberty, and thus a subjective right, could have negative consequences. Conscientious objection in health care settings should be fully protected, however, when the objection is based on principles that are fundamental to the medical profession and the legal system. Examples from Italy and other nations show how protections there safeguard conscientious objection when a health professional objects to taking a human life. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 611–620.
331. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Index to Volume 12
332. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Edward J. Furton, MA., PhD. In This Issue
333. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Arland K. Nichols Are You My Mommies?: Toward Three-Parent IVF
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Researchers seek government support for “three-parent IVF” in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of bringing to clinical practice new techniques for avoiding inherited mitochondrial diseases. The author describes the development and processes of pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer and offers an ethical evaluation of this cutting-edge science in light of the Church’s teaching in Dignitas personae. Promoting a eugenic mentality, both pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer involve a radical manipulation of the human genome, inherited from three parents and passed on to future generations. Pronuclear transfer and maternal spindle transfer are immoral, because they represent an offense to marriage and the marital act and involve the destruction of innocent human life. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 589–596.
334. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco Science
335. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
E. Christian Brugger The Question of Duty in Refusing Life-Sustaining Care
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Critics sometimes claim that Catholic moral principles unreasonably oblige patients to adopt life-preserving medical treatments “at all costs,” even when the treatments are excessively burdensome or futile and when their adoption may badly disadvantage patients’ family members or caregivers. The author argues that this is a mischaracterization. Because of obligations arising from our relationships, not only is it sometimes licit to refuse lifesustaining medical care, but we sometimes have a duty to refuse it. This is the case when the treatments are morally extraordinary and when adopting them would unfairly disadvantage someone for whom we have responsibility. The author argues that this conclusion is not inconsistent with the duty we have to properly care for our own lives or with moral principles prohibiting self-killing. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 621–630.
336. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Carl A. Anderson A Mandate for All Seasons: Catholic Conscience and Secular Society
337. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Medicine Abstracts
338. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò Religious Freedom, Persecution of the Church, and Martyrdom
339. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Sister Mary Diana Dreger, OP, MD. Autonomy Trumps All: Medicine Loses Its Grounding in Science
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Over the last fifty years, medical practice has shifted to an autonomy-based model that promotes patient self-determination as the basis for decision making. Physicians and other health care professionals are often expected to acquiesce to patients’ wishes, even when these wishes are for inappropriate medical care. Three cases are used to illustrate specific conflicts between a professional’s understanding of the science of human biology and a patient’s autonomy. Medical professionals must carefully evaluate issues of patient autonomy in their practices if they are to provide care that displays deep respect for the full human dignity of their patients combined with respect for their own professional role and expertise. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 653–673.
340. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Rev. Robert E. Hurd, SJ, MD Hippocrates Is Not Dead: An Anthology of Hippocratic Readings edited by Patrick Guinan