PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Religious Approach”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 451 records · Page 25Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Halachic perspective on involuntary psychiatric care of the mentally ill.

According to most mental health statutes in force around the world, doctors may involuntarily treat only acutely psychotic patients who present some danger to themselves, others or property. Chronic patients who, owing to volitional or cognitive defects, present a similar danger may not be thus treated. This may cause situations to arise where dangerous chronically ill patients who refuse treatment may cause serious harm because of physicians' inability to treat them. This article suggests changes to contemporary mental health statutes, in line with Judaic Halachic codes, which view all mentally ill patients as potentially harmful, and require physicians to treat--voluntarily or involuntarily--all mentally ill persons.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Using awareness of religious factors to enhance interventions in consultation-liaison psychiatry.

Religion plays an important role in the lives of most Americans and often influences the ways patients react to medical illness. However, the religious aspects of patients' lives are often ignored or only superficially explored by consultation-liaison psychiatrists. Building on an existing typology, the authors use six dimensions of religious experience to discuss approaches to incorporating religious factors in the psychiatric evaluation and treatment of the hospitalized medical patient; the dimensions include religious beliefs, participation in religious rituals, and affiliation with a religious community. Case examples illustrate how these approaches can enhance the work of the consultation-liaison psychiatrist and improve the patient's coping ability.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1998

Nihilism, relativism, and Engelhardt.

This paper is a critical analysis of Tristram Engelhardt's attempts to avoid unrestricted nihilism and relativism. The focus of attention is his recent book, The Foundations of Bioethics (Oxford University Press, 1996). No substantive or "content-full" bioethics (e.g., that of Roman Catholicism or the Samurai) has an intersubjectively verifiable and universally binding foundation, Engelhardt thinks, for unaided secular reason cannot show that any particular substantive morality (or moral code) is correct. He thus seems to be committed to either nihilism or relativism. The first is the view that there is not even one true or valid moral code, and the second is the view that there is a plurality of true or valid moral codes. However, Engelhardt rejects both nihilism and relativism, at least in unrestricted form. Strictly speaking, he himself is a universalist, someone who believes that there is a single true moral code. Two argumentative strategies are employed by him to fend off unconstrained nihilism and relativism. The first argues that although all attempts to establish a content-full morality on the basis of secular reason fail, secular reason can still establish a content-less, purely procedural morality. Although not content-full and incapable of providing positive direction in life, much less a meaning of life, such a morality does limit the range of relativism and nihilism. The second argues that there is a single true, content-full morality. Grace and revelation, however, are needed to make it available to us; secular reason alone is not up to the task. This second line of argument is not pursued in The Foundations at any length, but it does crop up at times, and if it is sound, nihilism and relativism can be much more thoroughly routed than the first line of argument has it. Engelhardt's position and argumentative strategies are exposed at length and accorded a detailed critical examination. In the end, it is concluded that neither strategy will do, and that Engelhardt is probably committed to some form of relativism.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2000

Who/se we are: baptism as personhood.

The attempt to arrive at some consensus on precisely what qualifies a human as a persons represents one of the more persistently debated and widely significant issues in modern biomedical ethics. The attribution of personhood has been and continues to be a powerful tool in moral discourse. Biomedical and bioethical debates about personhood seem especially morally significant in late modernity given the recent trends in biomedical technology. Our attempts to formally articulate universally agreed upon criteria for personhood represent some of the last vestiges of the hope that we can achieve substantial moral agreement in an otherwise morally fragmented world. In this essay, we argue that, from the perspective of certain strands of the Christian tradition, all bioethics grounded in attempts to develop formal, objective criteria by which we may designate a given individual a person are misguided. Criteria centering on the possession of reflective mental capacity, moreover, are for Christians especially problematic. We suggest that there are no morally neutral ways of designating personhood.

Christianity↗
PubMed2005

Christian bioethics, secular bioethics, and the claim to cultural authority.

Though the papers in this volume for the most part address the question, "What is Christian about Christian Bioethics", this paper addresses instead a closely related question, "How would a Christian approach to bioethics differ from the kind of secular academic bioethics that has emerged as such an important field in the contemporary university?" While it is generally assumed that a secular bioethics rooted in moral philosophy will be more culturally authoritative than an approach to bioethics grounded in the contingent particularities of a religious tradition, I will give reasons for rejecting this assumption. By examining the history of the recent revival of academic bioethics as well as the state of the contemporary moral philosophy on which it is based I will suggest that secular bioethics suffers from many of the same liabilities as a carefully articulated Christian bioethics. At the end of the paper I will turn briefly to examine the question of how, in light of this discussion, a Christian bioethics might best be pursued.

Bioethics↗