9 found
Order:
See also
  1.  18
    Responding to Religious Patients: Why Physicians Have No Business Doing Theology.Jake Greenblum & Ryan K. Hubbard - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):705-710.
    A survey of the recent literature suggests that physicians should engage religious patients on religious grounds when the patient cites religious considerations for a medical decision. We offer two arguments that physicians ought to avoid engaging patients in this manner. The first is the Public Reason Argument. We explain why physicians are relevantly akin to public officials. This suggests that it is not the physician’s proper role to engage in religious deliberation. This is because the public character of a physician’s (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  2.  13
    Forget Evil: Autonomy, the Physician–Patient Relationship, and the Duty to Refer.Jake Greenblum & T. J. Kasperbauer - 2018 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15 (3):313-317.
    Aulisio and Arora argue that the moral significance of value imposition explains the moral distinction between traditional conscientious objection and non-traditional conscientious objection. The former objects to directly performing actions, whereas the latter objects to indirectly assisting actions on the grounds that indirectly assisting makes the actor morally complicit. Examples of non-traditional conscientious objection include objections to the duty to refer. Typically, we expect physicians who object to a practice to refer, but the non-traditional conscientious objector physician refuses to refer. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  3.  52
    Parental Decision Making: The Best Interest Principle, Child Autonomy, and Reasonableness.Ryan Hubbard & Jake Greenblum - 2019 - HEC Forum 31 (3):233-240.
    On what basis should we judge whether a parent’s medical decision for their child is morally acceptable? In a recent article, Johan Bester attempts to answer this question by defending a version of the Best Interest Standard for parental decision making. The purpose of this paper is to identify a number of problems faced by Bester’s version of BIS and to suggest ways to redress these problems. Accordingly, we intend to advance the project of formulating a method for guiding parents’ (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  8
    In Defence of Forgetting Evil: A Reply to Pilkington on Conscientious Objection.Jake Greenblum & T. J. Kasperbauer - 2021 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 18 (1):189-191.
    In a recent article for this journal, Bryan Pilkington makes a number of critical observations about one of our arguments for non-traditional medical conscientious objectors’ duty to refer. Non-traditional conscientious objectors are those professionals who object to indirectly performing actions—like, say, referring to a physician who will perform an abortion. In our response here, we discuss his central objection and clarify our position on the role of value conflicts in non-traditional conscientious objection.
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  6
    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  
  6. Distributive and Retributive Desert in Rawls.Jake Greenblum - 2010 - Journal of Social Philosophy 41 (2):169-184.
    In this paper I examine John Rawls’s understanding of desert. Against Samuel Scheffler, I maintain that the reasons underlying Rawls’s rejection of the traditional view of distributive desert in A Theory of Justice also commit him to rejecting the traditional view of retributive desert. Unlike Rawls’s critics, however, I view this commitment in a positive light. I also argue that Rawls’s later work commits him to rejecting retributivism as a public justification for punishment.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  11
    Public Reason and the Limited Right to Conscientious Objection: A Response to Magelssen.Jake Greenblum - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (3):206-209.
    In a recent article for this journal, Morten Magelssen argues that the right to conscientious objection in healthcare is grounded in the moral integrity of healthcare professionals, a good for both professionals and society. In this paper, I argue that there is no right to conscientious objection in healthcare, at least as Magelssen conceives of it. Magelssen’s conception of the right to conscientious objection is too expansive in nature. Although I will assume that there is a right to conscientious objection, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  3
    On Surrogates’ Moral Authority: A Reply to Berger.Ryan K. Hubbard & Jake Greenblum - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):64-66.
    Volume 20, Issue 2, February 2020, Page 64-66.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  5
    Surrogates and Artificial Intelligence: Why AI Trumps Family.Ryan Hubbard & Jake Greenblum - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3217-3227.
    The increasing accuracy of algorithms to predict values and preferences raises the possibility that artificial intelligence technology will be able to serve as a surrogate decision-maker for incapacitated patients. Following Camillo Lamanna and Lauren Byrne, we call this technology the autonomy algorithm. Such an algorithm would mine medical research, health records, and social media data to predict patient treatment preferences. The possibility of developing the AA raises the ethical question of whether the AA or a relative ought to serve as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark