Linacre Quarterly最新文献

Though clinicians aspire to benefit their patients and not harm them, conflict arises when patient and clinician disagree on what constitutes benefit and harm. Here, we report a case in which a patient has strong opinions on which treatments are appropriate for him. The clinician disagrees on the nature of the patient's illness and on the proposed treatments. However, she felt forced to ignore her intuition and conscience, which led to moral distress. This experience inspires her to reflect on her own moral development and the healthcare system around her. One framework that helps make sense of such moral distress is that offered by Curlin and Tollefsen in their 2021 book The Way of Medicine: Ethics and the Healing Profession. There, they distinguish between two contrasting accounts of medicine's purpose. In one, the Provider of Services Model (PSM), health care is a service provided to patients, and clinicians are viewed as technicians. In the other, the Way of Medicine (WoM), clinicians are entrusted to work collaboratively to support and promote their patients' health. In our case, the clinician was stuck in the PSM, which exposed her to moral distress. A framework based on the WoM, on the other hand, protects against moral distress and therefore benefits both patients and clinicians. We argue that a virtue ethics framework can help clinicians facing similar dilemmas better care for themselves and more effectively "do no harm."

Language shapes ethical perceptions, profoundly influencing societal attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Historically condemned by Western medicine as a violation of life's sanctity, euthanasia has undergone a dramatic transformation through deliberate linguistic reframing. Euphemisms such as "death with dignity" and "medical aid in dying" align euthanasia with values of compassion, autonomy, and patient empowerment, often overshadowing its moral implications for human dignity. This article critically examines how these linguistic shifts have influenced the normalization of euthanasia; broadened eligibility criteria; and facilitated its legal acceptance across nations like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. Engaging secular arguments from consequentialism and autonomy-based ethics reveals their limitations, particularly their disregard for moral intentionality, relational responsibilities, and the intrinsic worth of life. Drawing on Catholic moral theology and virtue ethics, this study advocates for precise, transparent language alongside actionable policies, expanded palliative care, robust conscience protections, comprehensive public education, and stringent safeguards to protect vulnerable populations and resist ethical erosion. Reclaiming ethical clarity requires more than abstract discussion - it demands bold action in language and policy to counter euphemistic normalization and affirm the inherent dignity of human life.

Mental health is an increasing area of concern for the Catholic Church in the United States, as evidenced by the 2023 launch of a National Mental Health Campaign by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Through an analysis of Catholic diocesan websites, this paper reviews how mental health is approached at the diocesan level in the US and then offers a commentary. Most diocesan websites display minimal information about mental health; several offer counseling services; some primarily provide resources; others have mental health ministries; a handful focus on spiritual healing; and two dioceses place information about mental health and demonic activity next to each other. While most dioceses conceptualize mental unhealth as mental illness, others emphasize disability, communal, or spiritual frameworks. Two pastoral letters by bishops emphasize the need for a distinctly Catholic framework. These varied approaches reflect the historical debate within American Catholicism about psychiatry and psychology. The review also reveals the need for further reflection upon the role of biology and the spiritual life in mental health, the relationship of the individual and communal dimensions of mental health, the potential overlap between mental disorders and disabilities, and the notion that mental health exists on a spectrum.

In this essay, the transhumanist movement is analyzed through the lens of liberation theology, vis-á-vis the founding fathers of their respective movements, secular transhumanist Julian Huxley and liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez. Although Gutiérrez is not a transhumanist, he delineates a theology of liberation which is driven by a social justice enhancement of the marginalized. The central question which will be analyzed is: How does a liberation theologian understand the transhumanist movement? Critically, both men begin on similar ground, arguing that the human condition is not as it should be. Through a careful exegesis of Guiterrez's seminal works on A Theology of Liberation and On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, the arguments of liberation theology will be elucidated with respect to the transhumanist discourse, arguing that Gutiérrez privileges the telos of drawing humanity out of poverty and illness. However, Gutiérrez's work on Job restricts the potential social justice enhancement espoused by liberation theology. For Gutiérrez, God's gratuitous love precedes God's justice, making it so humanity cannot occupy the creative space of God. After establishing the theoretical arguments, the paper turns to the clinic to underscore when and how Huxley and Gutiérrez differ in relying on medical technology in the present day. The distinction between caring and curing is the deciding clinical factor to denote when a liberation theologian can embrace the transhumanist impulse. While Huxley does not limit his transhumanist project to conquer the limits of humanity, Gutiérrez sequesters the capacity of human transcendence because of his faith and hope in God's deliverance on earth.

A one-day meeting was held as a pre-conference to the Catholic Medical Association Annual Educational event in 2024. A panel of eighteen physicians, scientists, and researchers involved in NFP work was convened to review the available evidence in four topical areas: (i) evidence for effectiveness of NFP methods to postpone and achieve pregnancy, (ii) evidence for effectiveness in the postpartum and perimenopause transition periods, (iii) evaluate the current state of technology in NFP (specifically app and quantitative hormone monitoring), and (iv) evidence examining the impact of NFP on marital relations. In each topical area, the panel worked to reach a consensus opinion on the currently available evidence and identified priorities for further research. Results from these discussions and a set of priorities for further work are presented here. Summary: An expert panel was convened to review the current evidence supporting use of NFP in various settings, utilization of new technology, and the impact of NFP on marital dynamics. Results from these discussions and a set of priorities for further work are presented here.