Linacre Quarterly最新文献

From the Catholic perspective, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is morally problematic because it artificially separates the procreative and unitive aspects of the conjugal act. Embryo selection (ES) in the context of IVF is an injustice against the resulting embryos because it treats them as commodities and works against their right to life by determining their implantation potential in light of their features. The Church opposes the eugenics mentality underlying ES. Meanwhile, the IVF industry increasingly uses artificial intelligence (AI) for ES. However, doing so could worsen the injustice by deepening the disrespect of human lives under the technocratic paradigm. As such, Catholic bioethicists are encouraged to advocate for the Church's teachings with renewed vigor. In this commentary, we will examine (1) ES in the context of IVF, (2) using AI for ES, (3) the moral implications of using AI for ES, and (4) points for further consideration. Summary: Using AI for Embryo selection in the context of IVF deepens the disrespect of human lives under the technocratic paradigm.

Responding to Pope John Paul II's call to give the "ethical grounds and personalistic reasons" behind the Church's teaching on sexual morality, this reflection written over the span of two articles analyzes the norms of the natural law related to human sexuality from a personalist perspective. The key ideas of this study are drawn from two passages: one from Gaudium et spes which states that "The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life", the other from Humanae vitae stating that "Conjugal love reveals its true nature and nobility when it is considered in its supreme origin, God, who is love … and it is of supreme importance to have an exact idea of these." Part I provides an overview of natural law theory, explaining what it means that the natural law is not arbitrary, but the moral norms governing our actions in relation to the beings in the world are rooted in the nature and value of those things. Second, on the background of John Paul II's idea that "the body is the person," this article brings to light a type of bodily act (which I call an "embodying act") that is not only bodily, but one that forms an organic union with an act of the spirit. Finally, we examine here the nature of love as consisting of two dimensions: of mutual self-giving as well as the fruitfulness arising from mutual self-gift. The analysis of "embodying acts" together with the analysis of love will be crucial for arriving at one of the main conclusions in Part II, namely, that the Church's moral norms governing the use of the spousal act are not grounded in the biological structure of sex, but in the laws of love.

The safety and efficacy of mifepristone antagonization with progesterone to avert medication abortion, also known as abortion pill rescue, is a subject of vigorous debate. Two prominent medical associations have taken positions that either entirely reject or fully support its use. This scoping review aimed to gain insight into the safety and efficacy of its use. Analysis of 16 studies showed that the continuing pregnancy rate after ingesting mifepristone alone is ≦25 percent for gestational ages ≦49 days. Analysis of four studies showed that two-thirds of the women who changed their minds and received progesterone after initiating their medication abortion with mifepristone could safely continue their pregnancies. There is no increased maternal or fetal risk from using bioidentical progesterone in early pregnancy. If a woman has already taken mifepristone for her medication abortion and then changes her mind, timely supplementation with progesterone may allow her pregnancy to continue. The conclusion that mifepristone antagonization with progesterone is a safe and effective treatment has implications for medication abortion informed consent. Summary: Two-thirds of the women who changed their minds and received progesterone after initiating their medication abortion with mifepristone could safely continue their pregnancies. If a woman has already taken mifepristone for her medication abortion and then changes her mind, timely supplementation with progesterone may allow her pregnancy to continue. Physicians should disclose this treatment option to their patients at the time of informed consent.

The shift from physicians as owners or shareholders of practices to being employees of corporations is now a widespread trend with over 50% of physicians now considered employees. If continued, this trend will have profound effects on the medical profession and on physicians' personal lifestyles and sense of agency. However, ownership is not a morally neutral consideration but is important for safeguarding the traditions of virtue in the medical profession. Virtue develops within localized communities of practice and thrives in settings that embody principles such as solidarity, subsidiarity, and participation found in Catholic social teaching. Ownership increases physicians' investment in moral communities where they practice, affording physicians greater agency to benefit these communities according to their best judgment. This ownership can vary by type of organization and degree of shareholding. Because moral communities are the settings in which physicians form virtue, and ownership increases physicians' commitment and investment in communities, I make a principled argument that physicians who value developing virtue should consider having ownership of their practices when planning their careers. Ownership will be an important aspect of any medical ethics based on virtue rather than on principlism.

The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been felt globally and in all spheres of life. Developing vaccines was an important milestone in ensuring the protection of lives, but there are concerns about vaccine availability in sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. The living conditions of persons with disabilities, in particular, in SSA societies have been described as deplorable and unsustainable, and they are at risk of discrimination. Such persons appear to be already struggling to obtain other basic services, and the extent of vaccine accessibility to this population remains unknown. This study aimed to assess the perceptions of persons with disabilities in Ghana of COVID-19 vaccines. Between July 2021 and December 2021, 336 persons with disabilities (hearing, visual, and physical) were recruited from two regions in Ghana. The attitude toward the COVID-19 vaccination scale was adapted for this study. The results showed that persons with disabilities were ambivalent toward vaccination, and differences were observed between participant groups. The background variables found to influence attitude were age, place of residence, educational qualification, gender, and COVID-19 acquisition status. The study concludes with a clarion call to policymakers to expedite public education for persons with disabilities.

Applying the moral principles of Catholic social teaching's (CST) on capitalism, distributive justice, private ownership, the common good, and the role of the state in the economy as the overall theoretical framework and utilizing secondary data, media reports, and scientific literature, this article explores the corporate moral responsibility of the top drug makers in the ownership and pricing of their essential medicines and COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, it presents the case of the Gilead Sciences' business strategies and overpricing of Remdesivir drug to illustrate how predatory capitalism undermines the moral responsibility of drug makers and CST's moral principle on the common good in today's pandemic. Distributive justice requires that the publicly funded and developed medicines and vaccines should be priced and distributed fairly to promote the common good and prevent the public from "paying twice" for these essential medicines. Given the public character of these medicines and the demands of social justice, the price of Remdesivir and other essential medicines of Gilead Sciences and Big Pharma for COVID-19 could have been lower than what was officially announced. Ultimately, these medicines could have been made global public health goods in accordance with CST's doctrines on distributive justice, the common good, and the social dimension of private ownership.