The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly

Triage situations and other occurrences in which rationing of medical care is necessary require careful distribution of medical equipment, services, or resources. However, the evolution of triage has failed to eliminate certain biases in the standards of care, particularly for groups already facing societal disenfranchisement and discrimination. This article explores the use of triage calculators and other systems of rationing care, their implicit biases, and how to avoid allowing those biases to influence care.

In a recent issue of this journal, Steven Dezort criticizes two versions of the contralife argument, including my version and a version defended by some prominent new natural law theorists. In this essay, I argue that people should accept the contralife argument even if they disagree with other principles of new natural law theory. To defend this thesis, I correct some misstatements about the contralife argument and identify basic disagreements about defining actions and respecting human life.

This essay will reflect on the importance of Catholic social teaching in public health ethics, especially in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Catholic social teaching will be presented as being continuous with Catholic moral teaching—while the latter sets out norms and prohibitions often in relation to individual agents and their actions, the Church’s social doctrine invites us to think of the community and social dimension of the moral good. To illustrate this continuity of doctrine, I will argue that the COVID-19 pandemic has shown a need for a serious evaluation of the relationship between public health and the common good, in light of the far-reaching and long-lasting public health measures that have been used around the world, such that the good of health has dominated considerations of almost all other aspects of life.

Throughout history Christians have responded to the need for direct care for the sick in imitation of the healing ministry of Jesus and in the creation of hospitals as signs of God’s love. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a global, unprecedented modern experience of vulnerability. It has resulted in moral distress for doctors and health care workers in overwhelmed facilities. It has also revealed profound inequity in access to health care, the tragic consequences of the neglect of public health and its focus on communities, and the effects of poverty and marginalization on the risk of illness and death. This paper proposes insights from Catholic social teaching that can guide a renewal of public health by rebalancing duties to individuals and communities, and renewing medicine as a public trust. These insights can assist in reducing moral distress in scarcity.

This essay examines the development of a liberation bioethics in Latin America with its focus on public health equity from the experience and knowledge of those who are at the margins, the poor and historically oppressed groups. An encounter between bioethics and liberation theology contributed to form a Latin American bioethics marked by a double aspect: bioethical scholarly focus on public health equity and social activism for universal healthcare coverage. Liberation theology has a role in this bioethics oriented to public health, and Pope Francis offers a new contribution for this perspective at the same time that he brings it to a global discussion. Considering the exchange between liberation theology and bioethics and Francis’s insights, this essay offers a new perspective grounded in the Brazilian experiment and the Catholic social tradition to dialogue with US bioethical accounts by challenging the Western epistemological framework of bioethical studies in the Global North.

Mercy is a central idea of the Christian moral tradition, and Pope Francis’s papacy has only raised its profile in our collective moral consciousness. However, the concept of mercy is traditionally located at the individual level. This creates a challenge when studying moral questions related to public policy because one must either develop policy without its being informed by mercy or inelegantly apply what is primarily an individual-level concept to organizations and policies. To begin remedying this challenge, this article considers the question of mercy’s role in public policy by exploring public health policy as a starting point.

Reducing disparities in health for racial and ethnic minorities has been a focus for US public health since the Heckler Report. Yet, a majority of racial and ethnic minorities in the US continue to have lower life expectancies and are more susceptible to poorer health outcomes compared to their white counterparts. Improvements in public health have been thwarted by ideological differences and structural restraints that necessitate an alternative method aimed at reorienting ethical discourse and guiding the public health as an institution. Informed by a neo-Aristotelian concept of justice and the good life explicated through the Catholic social tradition, a new framework will enable public health to more wholly achieve its aim in the service of the populations that continue to be marginalized.

The Catholic moral tradition has a rich foundation that applies broadly to encompass all areas of human experience. Yet, there is comparatively little in Catholic thought on the ethics of the collection and use of data, especially in healthcare. We provide here a brief overview of terminology, concepts, and applications of data in the context of healthcare, summarize relevant theological principles and themes (including the Vatican’s Rome Call for AI Ethics), and offer key questions for ethicists and data managers to consider as they analyze ethical implications pertinent to data governance and data management.

Many Catholics have expressed hesitancy or resistance to being vaccinated for COVID-19, with magisterial authorities and influential Catholic organizations advocating divergent views regarding the moral liceity of the vaccines, the justification of vaccination mandates, and whether such mandates should include religious exemptions. We address each of these disputed points and argue that vaccination for COVID-19 falls within the definition of being an ordinary—and thereby morally obligatory—treatment. To that end, we offer a brief overview of the Catholic moral tradition regarding the development of the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment, show how the Church morally evaluates vaccination as a good act, and underline the importance of positive witnessing in supporting vaccination.