Some health care organizations allow physicians to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation from a patient, despite patient or surrogate requests that it be provided, when they believe it will be more harmful than beneficial. Such cases usually involve patients with terminal diagnoses whose medical teams argue that aggressive treatments are medically inappropriate or likely to be harmful. Although there is state-to-state variability and a considerable judicial gray area about the conditions and mechanisms for refusals to perform CPR, medical teams typically follow a (...) set of clearly defined procedures for these decisions. The procedures are based on the principle of nonmaleficence and typically include consultation with hospital ethics committees, reflecting the guidelines of relevant professional associations. Ethical debates about when CPR can and should be limited tend to rely more on discussions of theory, principles, and case studies than systematic empirical study of the situations in which such limitations are applied. Sociologists of bioethics call for empirical study, arguing that what ethicists and health professionals believe they are doing when they draft policies or invoke principles does not always mirror what is happening on the ground. In this article, we begin the task of modeling the empirical analyses sociologists call for, focusing on a cohort at Massachusetts General Hospital. We inductively analyzed ethics committee notes and medical records of nineteen patients whose surrogates did not accept the decision to withhold CPR. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed extraordinary stress on frontline healthcare providers as they encounter significant challenges and risks while caring for patients at the bedside. This study used qualitative research methods to explore nurses and respiratory therapists' experiences providing direct care to COVID-19 patients during the first surge of the pandemic at a large academic medical center in the Northeastern United States. The purpose of this study was to explore their experiences as related to changes in staffing models and to (...) consider needs for additional support. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen nurses and four respiratory therapists via Zoom or by telephone. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, identifiers were removed, and data was coded and analyzed thematically. Five major themes characterize providers' experiences: a fear of the unknown, concerns about infection, perceived professional unpreparedness, isolation and alienation, and inescapable stress and distress. This manuscript analyzes the relationship between these themes and the concept of moral distress and finds that some, but not all, of the challenges that providers faced during this time align with previous definitions of the concept. This points to the possibility of broadening the conceptual parameters of moral distress to account for providers' experiences of treating patients with novel illnesses while encountering institutional and clinical challenges. (shrink)

We reflect personally and historically on some of the institutions that have nurtured and shaped conversations at the intersections of sociology and religious studies, particularly professional associations. Our argument is simple. The ways different scholars understand the relationship between the sociology of religion and religious studies have a lot to do with the institutions that nurtured us and through which we engage in the conversation. We push back on simple black and white distinctions that paint their approaches in oppositions: more (...) historical vs. more contemporary, more qualitative vs. more quantitative, more concerned with normative concerns vs. more “objective”—in favor of a more nuanced view. We keep in mind the Christian origins of the main professional organizations at these intersections and call for deeper dialogue not just between sociologists and scholars in religious studies but with colleagues involved with a range of other groups. (shrink)

This article examines how organizational context shapes the way gender is socially constructed in two non-Judeo-Christian religious organizations in the United States, one Theravada Buddhist organization founded by immigrants and one started by converts. People at the two organizations disagree with each other about what Theravada Buddhism teaches about women in teaching and leadership positions but agree that outside of these positions, women and men are equally able to gain access to and practice the tradition. Despite these understandings, women and (...) men have distinct gender roles and responsibilities at each organization that are in tension with what the leaders and attendees understand the tradition to teach. The extent to which teachers and attendees recognize these tensions and the ways they respond to them are explored, and their implications for each organization and for studies of gender and religious organizations are discussed. (shrink)

Chaplains often describe their work in health care as “translation” between the world of the patient and the world of hospital medicine. Translators usually work with texts, interpreters with words. However, when chaplains use this metaphor, it describes something other than a discrete task associated with the meaning of words. While medical professionals focus on patients' medical conditions, chaplains seek to read the whole person, asking questions about what people's lives are like outside of the hospital, what they care about (...) most, and where they find joy and support in the world. Chaplains offer a supportive presence that serves to remind patients and caregivers that people are more than just their medical conditions or their current collection of concerns. Some chaplains are skilled at translating patients' experiences and sources of meaning in real time, allowing medical teams to better understand the person they are treating. “Translation” is also defined as metamorphosis. Chaplains provide this sort of translation when they are alone with patients, listening to their deepest concerns, helping them redefine their lives. (shrink)

. This article traces the intellectual history of scientific studies of intercessory prayer published in English between 1965 and the present by focusing on the conflict and discussion they prompted in the medical literature. I analyze these debates with attention to how researchers articulate the possibilities and limits medical science has for studying intercessory prayer over time. I delineate three groups of researchers and commentators: those who think intercessory prayer can and should be studied scientifically, those who are more skeptical (...) and articulate the limits of science around this topic, and those who focus primarily on the pragmatic applications of this knowledge. I analyze these contests as examples of what Thomas Gieryn calls “epistemic authority” as medical researchers engage in what he describes as “boundary‐work” or “the discursive attribution of selected qualities to scientists, scientific methods, and scientific claims for the purposes of drawing a rhetorical boundary between science and some less authoritative residual non‐science.” ). (shrink)