Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What is the Appropriate Role of Reason in Secular Clinical Ethics? An Argument for a Compatibilist View of Public Reason.Abram Brummett - 2021 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 24 (2):281-290.
    This article describes and rejects three standard views of reason in secular clinical ethics. The first, instrumental reason view, affirms that reason may be used to draw conceptual distinctions, map moral geography, and identify invalid forms of argumentation, but prohibits recommendations because reason cannot justify any content-full moral or metaphysical commitments. The second, public reason view, affirms instrumental reason, and claims ethicists may make recommendations grounded in the moral and metaphysical commitments of bioethical consensus. The third, comprehensive reason view, also (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Primary Care Ethics is Just Medical Ethics: A Philosophical Argument for the Feasibility of Transitioning Acute Care Ethics to the Primary Care Setting.Stephen Perinchery-Herman - forthcoming - HEC Forum:1-22.
    Whether practiced by ethics committees or clinical ethicists, medical ethics enjoys a solid foundation in acute care hospitals. However, medical ethics fails to have a strong presence in the primary care setting. Recently, some ethicists have argued that the reason for this disparity between ethics in the acute and primary care setting is that primary care ethics is distinct from acute care ethics: the failure to translate ethics to the primary care setting stems from the incorrect belief that acute care (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • If You Love the Forest, Then Do Not Kill the Trees: Health Care and a Place for the Particular.Nicholas Colgrove - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (3):255-271.
    There are numerous ways in which “the particular”—particular individuals, particular ideologies, values, beliefs, and perspectives—are sometimes overlooked, ignored, or even driven out of the healthcare profession. In many such cases, this is bad for patients, practitioners, and the profession. Hence, we should seek to find a place for the particular in health care. Specific topics that I examine in this essay include distribution of health care based on the particular needs of patients, the importance of protecting physicians’ right to conscientious (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Doing Theology in Medical Decision-Making.John Brewer Eberly Jr & Benjamin Wade Frush - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):718-719.
    Religious considerations in medical decision-making have enjoyed newfound attention in recent years, challenging the assumption that the domains of biological and spiritual flourishing can be cleanly separated in clinical practice. A surprising majority of patients desire their physicians to engage their religious and spiritual concerns, yet most never receive such attention, particularly in cases near the end of life where such attention seems most warranted.1–3 As physicians Aparna Sajja and Christina Puchalski recently wrote in the AMA Journal of Ethics theme (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Physicians’ Duty to Refrain From Religious Discourse: A Response to Critics.Ryan K. Hubbard & Jake Greenblum - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):721-722.
    We recently argued that—contrary to what we call the dominant view— physicians ought to avoid engaging patients on religious grounds.1 The six responses to our article present an array of concerns and have provided us with the opportunity to consider further aspects of our view. While we cannot reply to all the relevant issues, our aim here is to reply to the most significant concerns. Against our Public Reason Argument, Nick Colgrove maintains that physicians are not relevantly akin to public (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Public Reason’s Private Roles: Legitimising Disengagement From Religious Patients and Managing Physician Trauma.Heather Patton Griffin - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):714-715.
    Greenblum and Hubbard argue that physicians are duty-bound by the constraints of Rawlsian ‘public reason’ to avoid engaging their patients’ religious considerations in medical decision-making.1 This position offers a number of appealing benefits to physicians. It will appear plausible because Rawls’s philosophical tradition of Political Liberalism enjoys the status of ideological orthodoxy in institutions tasked with forming the moral imaginations of physicians and other elites.2 3 It casts the physician in the role of a ‘reasonable person’ occupying the space of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Professionalism Eliminates Religion as a Proper Tool for Doctors Rendering Advice to Patients.Udo Schuklenk - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):713-713.
    Religious considerations and language do not typically belong in the professional advice rendered by a doctor to a patient. Among the rationales mounted by Greenblum and Hubbard in support of that conclusion is that religious considerations and language are incompatible with the role of doctors as public officials.1 Much as I agree with their conclusion, I take issue with this particular aspect of their analysis. It seems based on a mischaracterisation of what societal role doctors fulfil, qua doctors. What obliges (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Remaining Ambiguities Surrounding Theological Negotiation and Spiritual Care: Reply to Greenblum and Hubbard.Trevor Bibler - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):711-712.
    Readers have much to consider when evaluating Greenblum and Hubbard’s conclusion that ‘physicians have no business doing theology’.1 The two central arguments the authors offer are fairly convincing within the confines they set for themselves, the provisos they stipulate and their notions of ‘privacy’ and ‘public reason’. However, I would ask readers to consider two questions, the answers to which I believe the authors leave opaque. First, what is theological negotiation? Second, what makes chaplains the singular group of healthcare professionals (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Responding (Appropriately) to Religious Patients: A Response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ Argument.Nicholas Colgrove - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):716-717.
    Jake Greenblum and Ryan K Hubbard argue that physicians, nurses, clinical ethicists and ethics committee members should not cite religious considerations when helping patients (or their proxies) make medical decisions. They provide two arguments for this position: The Public Reason Argument and the Fiduciary Argument. In this essay, I show that the Public Reason Argument fails. Greenblum and Hubbard may provide good reason to think that physicians should not invoke their own religious commitments as reasons for a particular medical decision. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations