Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Displaying: 1-10 of 85 documents


1. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Colloquy
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Edward J. Furton, MA., PhD. In This Issue
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
William L. Saunders Jr. Washington Insider
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
essays
4. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Arland K. Nichols Are You My Mommies?: Toward Three-Parent IVF
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
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.
5. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Carl A. Anderson A Mandate for All Seasons: Catholic Conscience and Secular Society
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
6. 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 | cited by
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.
7. 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 | cited by
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.
articles
8. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
John Butler Truthfulness and Thomism in Medical Practice
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Following a series of undercover sting operations organized by Live Action at several Planned Parenthood clinics in 2008, there has been renewed interest in truthfulness and lying from the perspective of St. Thomas Aquinas. Some scholars have used these stings as an opportunity to criticize Aquinas’s position on lying, while others have defended the position of the Angelic Doctor. What implications does this renewed discussion of truthfulness and lying have on medical practice? Although deception in medicine has long been the subject of scholarship, an authentic Thomistic analysis may shed new light on the issue and renew support for truthfulness in medicine while still permitting the prudent masking of the truth for the patient’s benefit. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 633–651.
9. 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 | cited by
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.
10. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly: Volume > 12 > Issue: 4
Robert L. Kinney III, PharmD Contraception and Conscientious Objection: A Pharmacist’s Reflection
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The 2012 contraception mandate issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services has intensified the debate over a health care practitioner’s right to conscientiously object to providing contraception. This paper approaches the debate over conscientious objection to contraception from a pharmacist’s standpoint. It shows that contraception is the cause of or a contributing factor to observed psychosocial suffering and is not “preventive health care” as labeled. It argues not only that a pharmacist should have the right to conscientiously object to dispensing contraception but also that, given the mission of the pharmacist as a health care practitioner, a pharmacist is obligated to refuse to dispense contraception. The paper argues that the obligation to refuse to dispense contraception applies to all who are involved in the provision of health care. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 12.4 (Winter 2012): 675–696.