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 1,135 records · Page 63Linked to original sources

Informing the patient about a fatal disease: from paternalism to autonomy--the Jewish view.

Until the late 20th century, withholding a fatal diagnosis functioned as a paradigm for sharing other medical information with patients. The obligation of confidentiality was emphasized and disclosure was ignored. Ethicists perceived the doctor-patient relationship as oriented to therapy, reassurance, and avoiding harm. Physicians were to provide lies and truth instrumentally only insofar as they aided therapy (Jameton, A. Information disclosure. Ethical issues. In Encyclopedia of Bioethics. Revised Ed.; Reich, T.N.T., Ed.; MacMillan: New York, 1995; Vol. 3, 1225-1232). This was the era of paternalism. Since the 1960s, opinion on the role of disclosure was changed rapidly in the United States stimulated by the patient's rights movement and the rise of bioethics. The current climate supports honest and complete disclosure of medical information. In 1972, the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association affirmed A Patient's Bill of Rights, which states that the patient has the right to obtain from his physician complete current information concerning his diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in terms the patient can be reasonably expected to understand (Lee, A.L.; Jacobs, G. Workshop airs patient's rights. Hospitals 1973, 47, 39-43). Bioethicists now favor full disclosure as a means of respecting patient autonomy (Katz, J. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient; Free Press: New York, 1984). The American College of Physician Ethics Manual states that disclosure to patients is a fundamental ethical requirement (American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual, 3rd Ed. Ann. Intern. Med. 1992, 117, 947-960). The era of patient autonomy ended the traditional pattern of withholding information, which was characteristic of the previous era of paternalism. The Jewish view toward full disclosure of a fatal illness to a patient and especially a patient who is terminally ill is in general a negative one because of the fear that the patient may give up hope, suffer severe mental anguish (tiruf hadaat), become despondent, and die sooner than otherwise. Shortening a patient's life is strictly forbidden because Judaism espouses the concept that God given life is sacred, even only a short period thereof. Disclosure should be couched in the context of optimism. The most positive outlook should be imparted to the patient. Disclosure must be imparted with compassion, sensitivity and hope thus giving the patient an opportunity to "set his house in order" and recite the confessional penitent prayer known as viduy.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗

Screening Jews and genes: a consideration of the ethics of genetic screening within the Jewish community: challenges and responses.

Screening for genetic disorders, particularly Tay-Sachs Disease, has been traditionally welcome by the Jewish community. I review the history of genetic screening among Jews and the views from the Jewish tradition on the subject, and then discuss ethical challenges of screening and the impact of historical memories upon future acceptance of screening programs. Some rational principles to guide future design of genetic screening programs among Jews are proposed.

Abortion, Therapeutic↗

The role of religions in the analysis of the ethical issues of human gene therapy.

Beginning with critical writings of certain theological ethicists in 1965, religious bodies increasingly have been fostering studies of emerging issues implied by genetic technology. While perceiving this new science as consistent with belief in God as Creator, they define a number of dangers to human well-being and natural environment that might result from abuse of knowledge. The way in which religious concerns and their spokesman have now entered into discussions within the scientific community is of notable importance.

Ethics, Medical↗

Jewish medical ethics and end-of-life care.

While Judaism espouses the infinite value of human life, Judaism recognizes that all life is finite and, as such, its teachings are compatible with the principles of palliative medicine and end-of-life care as they are currently practiced. Jewish medical ethics as derived from Jewish law, has definitions for the four cardinal values of secular medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, with the major difference between Jewish law and secular medical ethics being that orthodox or traditional Jews are perceived to limit their autonomy by choosing, with the assistance and advice of their rabbis, to follow God's law as defined by the Bible and post-Biblical sources. With an understanding of Jewish medical ethics as defined by Jewish law, various issues pertaining to the care of Jewish patients who are near the end-of-life can be better understood. Jewish tradition contains within its textual sources the concept of terminal illness. The shortening of life through suicide, assisted suicide, or euthanasia is categorically forbidden. For patients who are terminally ill, treatments that are not potentially curative may be refused, especially when harm may result. Under certain circumstances, treatments may be withheld, but active treatment already started may not usually be withdrawn. While patients should generally not be lied to regarding their conditions, withholding information or even providing false information may be appropriate when it is felt that the truth will cause significant harm. Pain and suffering must be treated aggressively, even if there is an indirect risk of unintentionally shortening life. Finally, patients may execute advance directives, providing that the patient's rabbi is involved in the process.

Ethics, Clinical↗

Towards a Christian bioethics.

Rather than revealing itself as a single, unified, ecumenical faith, Christianity is sundered with Christians united neither in one communion nor in one baptism. Christian Bioethics seeks to examine the traditional content-full moral commitments which the Christian faiths bring to life, sexuality, suffering, illness and death within the contexts of medicine and health care. Seeking to understand the differences which separate the bioethics of Roman Catholics, Protestants, and the Orthodox, Christian Bioethics explores the manners in which the faiths diverge. The failure of the Enlightenment project to disclose a content-full communality that would bind mankind has left much to be reconsidered by Christians who face new ethical dilemmas in the novel guise of advances in health care technologies.

Bioethics↗

How Christian ethics became medical ethics: the case of Paul Ramsey.

Over the last century Christian ethics has moved from an attempt to Christianize the social order to a quandary over whether being Christian unduly biases how medical ethics is done. This movement can be viewed as the internal development of protestant liberalism to its logical conclusion, and Paul Ramsey can be taken as one of the last great representatives of that tradition. By reducing the Christian message to the 'ethical upshot' of neighbour love, Ramsey did not have the resources to show how Christian practice might make a difference for understanding or forming the practice of medicine. Instead, medicine became the practice that exemplified the moral commitments of Christian civilization, and the goal of the ethicist was to identify the values that were constitutive of medicine. Ramsey thus prepared the way for the Christian ethicist to become a medical ethicist with a difference, and the difference simply involved vague theological presumptions that do no serious intellectual work other than explaining, perhaps, the motivations of the ethicist.

Bioethics↗

Moral content, tradition, and grace: rethinking the possibility of a Christian bioethics.

Birth, suffering, disability, disease and death were by medicine's successes placed within a context of seemingly novel challenges that cried out for new responses. Secular bioethics rose in response to the demands of these new biomedical technologies in the context of culture fragmented in moral pluralism. While secular bioethics promised to unite persons separated by diverse religious and moral assumption, this is a promise that could not be fulfilled. Reason alone cannot provide canonical, content-full moral guidance or justify a moral community capable of binding all persons. Christian bioethics, as part of a way of life enbedded in authentic worship, offers content, meaning and understanding where secular bioethics has failed. For Christians, resolution of bioethical controversies will not be found through appeals to foundational rational arguments or isolated scriptural quotations, but only in a Christian community united in authentic faith.

Bioethical Issues↗

Towards a non-ecumenical interchange: Engelhardt, Hauerwas, and Ramsey on Christian bioethics.

Does a non-ecumenical journal on Christian bioethics make sense? Taking issue with Stanley Hauerwas' critique of Ramsey, the author argues (1) interdenominational exchange should not be construed as contest, and (2) the attempt on the part of Christians to address secular issues in secular terms should not be mistrusted or viewed as a contamination hazard. Instead (1) an awareness of human limits should render adherents of different traditions willing to learn from each other and (2) one should see in the love-of-neighbor principle an obligation to serve the world. Addressing the communication problem, the author recommends different language levels for intra-group and ever more encompassing inter-group exchanges.

Bioethics↗

From the profane to the sacred: why we need to retrieve Christian bioethics.

Christianity has been crucial in the conceptualization and articulation of the moral framework of the Western tradition. The social sciences, including ethics, were modeled on physical science. However, the Enlightenment project inculcated a metaphysics and an epistemology that reduced the subject to an object and thus undermined the conditions of freedom, agency and an accessible cosmic order; all of which are essential to morality. Competing value claims were shunted into a political context for resolution, but the politicalized morality itself requires a framework for evaluating resolutions. While neither the Enlightenment nor post-modernism can provide such a framework, Christian tradition can, in fact, provide just such a framework and response.

Bioethics↗

Whose tradition? Which Enlightenment? What content? Engelhardt, Hauerwas, Capaldo, and the future of Christian bioethics.

The development of a content-full Christian bioethics requires an analysis of the particular contents and traditions which different Christians bring to morality. For Hauerwas, the content of Christian ethics is the speech and practices of the community. For Engelhardt, only a content-full tradition, such as the Orthodox tradition, will be able to arrive at closure on the moral issues presented by the contemporary practice of medicine. Capaldi calls, in contrast, for a Kantian society of autonomous self-legislators whose responsible freedom is grounded in a cosmic order that must be explicated and retrieved in particular practices. The manner in which we view our own traditions and the shortcomings of modernity determine the content that Christianity brings to bioethics.

Bioethics↗

Does Christianity make a difference?

The human person makes great demands on the physician and calls for unique attention. Hence the doctor-patient relationship calls for the highest ideals of kindness, patience, trustworthiness, generosity and skill. The Catholic physician brings to these demands a specific meaning: ministering to the sick is to see Christ in them and to show Him to them.

Bioethics↗

The ecumenical and non-ecumenical dialectic of Christian bioethics.

Non-ecumenical Christian bioethics will seem a strange category for many. The category relies on the recognition that bioethics mediates morality and ethics in healthcare. As such bioethics will have particular content. It is the content of a moral vision that both divides and unites. The enterprise of non-ecumenical Christian bioethics explores how Christians are both divided and united on the issue of bioethics. Non-ecumenical Christian bioethics is opposed to a facile ecumenism that reduces the content of Christian morality to the lowest common denominator.

Bioethics↗

"Help must first come from the divine:" a response to Fr. George Eber's claim of the so-called incommensurability of Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian bioethics.

Orthodox bioethics is distinctive in how it reflects on issues in bioethics. This distinctiveness is found in the relationship of spirituality and liturgy to ethics. Eber's essay, however, treats the distinctiveness as absolute uniqueness. In so focusing on the incommensurability of Orthodox bioethics Eber fails to tell his reader what Orthodox bioethics is about. Furthermore, his description of Western Christian ethics is seriously inaccurate.

Attitude to Death↗

Nature and grace: the paradox of Catholic ethics.

Roman Catholic bioethics seems to be caught in a paradox. On the one hand it is committed to the natural law tradition and the power of reason to understand the structures of creation and the moral law. On the other hand there is a greater and greater appeal to Scripture and revelation. The tradition maintains that reason is capable of understanding the rational structures of reality and that ethics is properly built on metaphysics. In this way ethics, bioethics, is non-sectarian. However, the tradition also recognizes the effects of Original Sin on the will and intellect and the broad cultural changes that have affected our understanding of metaphysics. The appeal to Revelation is a corrective to many contemporary trends in ethics and bioethics. This article will examine the interplay of reason and revelation in the Church's teaching on sexuality (particularly contraception and in vitro fertilization), suffering, and death. Catholic bioethics is in the end prophetic and ecumenical and not gnostic and non-ecumenical.

Abortion, Induced↗

Christian bioethics as non-ecumenical.

A community's morality depends on the moral premises, rules of evidence, and rules of inference it acknowledges, as well as on the social structure of those in authority to rule knowledge claims in or out of a community's set of commitments. For Christians, who is an authority and who is in authority are determined by Holy Tradition, through which in the Mysteries one experiences the Holy Spirit. Because of the requirement of repentance and conversion to the message of Christ preserved in the Tradition, the authority of the community must not only exclude heretical teaching but heretical communities from communion. Understanding Christian bioethics requires a focus on the content of that bioethics in terms of its social context within a right-believing, right-worshipping community. Christian bioethics should be non-ecumenical by recognizing that true moral knowledge has particular moral content, is communal, and is not fully available outside of the community of right worship. The difficulty with Roman Catholicism's understandings of bioethics lies not just in its continued inordinate accent on the role of reason apart from repentance (as well as in its defining novel doctrines), but in Roman Catholicism's not recognizing that the contemporary, post-Christian age is in good measure the consequence of its post-Vatican II failure to call for a return to the traditional pieties and asceticisms of the Fathers so that all might know rightly concerning the requirements of Christian bioethics.

Abortion, Induced↗

Classical Anglican moral theology: unavoidably non-ecumenical.

In its specific moral conclusions ecclesiastical Anglican theology shares much with traditional Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. In its understanding of the method and purpose of moral theology classical Anglicanism sometimes diverges from earlier Roman Catholicism -- and anticipates the most positive developments in contemporary Roman Catholic moral theology -- while sharing a common theological heritage with Rome in its understanding of natural law, the moral agent, and the moral act. Anglicans situate moral reasoning within the Church of the patristic Tradition, which distinguishes them from Protestants, yet do not accept the Roman magisterium's self-understanding. Consequently, the Anglican mode of moral reasoning has strong affinities with the Orthodox churches.

Bioethics↗