Monaghandreyer7692

Thomas Merton's vision of the original unity of humankind speaks of the oneness of the inner life of the Trinity. It is a vision that we need and one that the healers among us can offer us, whether they are acting as doctors or simply as Christians.Patients present to physicians searching for more than scientific names to call their maladies. They rather enter examination rooms with value-laden narratives of illness, suffering, hopes, and worries. One potentially helpful paradigm, inspired in part by existentialism, is to see patients on a search for meaning. This perspective is particularly important in the seemingly meaningless ruins of modernity. Here, we will summarize Victor Frankl's account of logotherapy found in his much-circulated book Man's Search for Meaning and assess the limitations imposed by his religious agnosticism. At best he can offer patients a finite, impersonal meaning this side of the grave. Following Kierkegaard's depiction of the religious sphere of existence, American novelist Walker Percy will be shown to supplement logotherapy with a theological mooring. The spiritual crisis of the modern world is treatable only by Christian faith supplying ultimate meaning. Taken together, Frankl and Percy show how Catholic physicians can bering and tragedy in a post-modern world lacking transcendence. As shown in Walker Percy's literature, however, ultimate meaning can only be found in Christian faith where the Word became flesh and continues to dwell among us.In the present time, what has been called the "medical-industrial insurance complex" in the United States needs reform. As health insurance in the United States remains inaccessible to millions of people, and as prices continue to rise, questions arise about the most moral ways to ensure delivery of health care especially to the most vulnerable populations. In this essay, I offer a virtue analysis of the moral implications of health insurance mandated by the US Government in contrast to an increasingly popular alternative to insurance, namely, healthcare sharing ministries. In part 1, I list some of the moral problems entangled with US Government-mandated health insurance, including injustice, disrespect for patient autonomy, limitations on patient freedom, exploitation of patients for profit, undermining of conscience rights, cooperation with evil, and scandal. In part 2, I discuss the issue of risk and then list some potential moral advantages to healthcare ministries, including respect for patient autonomy, conscience, and the religious freedom to witness to the Catholic faith in charity and solidarity.

Mandated health insurance the United States presents some moral challenges for conscientious Catholics, whereas healthcare sharing ministries appear to ameliorate some of these issues. Ultimately, the individual should have freedom to choose either insurance or healthcare sharing, given the different benefits and risks entailed by both.

Mandated health insurance the United States presents some moral challenges for conscientious Catholics, whereas healthcare sharing ministries appear to ameliorate some of these issues. Ipatasertib Ultimately, the individual should have freedom to choose either insurance or healthcare sharing, given the different benefits and risks entailed by both.This article reviews the work of Fr. John F. Kavanaugh, SJ (1941-2012), on the human person as embodied reflexive consciousness (RC). It then analyzes the implications of his work for the subject of brain death. Case studies are reviewed which suggest that RC persists unchanged in the setting of substantial brain trauma. RC is posited as an immaterial endowment, rather than a material phenomenon, which is fully present so long as a person is alive and becomes absent when a person is truly dead. As the endowment which makes possible ethical action and is common to all human persons, RC becomes the foundation of human equality. Empirically ascertaining the presence or absence of RC may not be possible-its demonstration may be precluded by physical immaturity or damage. Therefore, until the human person (and not only the brain) has wholly and irreversibly died, RC should be assumed to be present. The current criteria for brain death are incapable of ensuring that the entire brain has permanently and irreversibly ceased to function. Therefore, RC may still be present in those whose organs are harvested after meeting the criteria for brain death. As such, a human person would still be present, albeit a wounded human person. Based on this, a healthcare provider could (and likely should) in good conscience oppose the use of brain death criteria for purposes of harvesting vital organs. On a societal level, utilizing brain death criteria to declare a person dead has the potential in any given case to violate the dead donor rule, and as such conflicts with the widely held moral consensus that organs should only be harvested from those who are dead. Healthcare providers should advocate for medicolegal frameworks consistent with their informed consciences.Since his election in March 2013, Pope Francis has brought significant attention to the concept of "throwaway culture." This moral paradigm-which has been defined by Francis in various speeches and the encyclical Laudato si'-characterizes a present-day culture in which food, disposable objects, and even human beings themselves are "discarded as 'unnecessary.'" As Catholic physicians, it is our duty to ensure that we are working to counteract throwaway culture in our daily clinical practice by embracing and exhibiting a culture of encounter. When throwaway culture is discussed within the context of medical practice, it is easy to think of major life and systemic issues including abortion, assistive reproductive technology, physician assisted suicide, and so on. However, rejection of throwaway culture has much broader implications for Catholic physicians. We are called to resist this perverse culture whenever we experience a situation that requires special attention to the respect of human dignity. In this artir.Christ has fashioned a remedy for the human condition out of mortality, making death the paradoxical means of salvation. Thus, the early Church saw martyrdom as the best kind of death, epitomized in the story of St. Ignatius of Antioch. He saw his death in Christ to be a birth into eternal life. Yet martyrdom and suicide can be conflated under crafty definitions and novel terminology, leading inevitably to calls to soften prohibitions against physician-assisted suicide. Whereas martyrdom locates death within the Christian lived experience of the Paschal mystery, suicide transfers the sovereignty of God over life and death to the individual, necessarily denying the goodness of creation in the process. I point to a liturgical foundation for bioethics as a better starting point for understanding martyrdom and suicide. Entering Christ's sacrifice, Christians receive divine life and new vision to locate suffering, death, and health care within the Christian salvation narrative.

Confusing martyrdom and suicide locates ethics outside the Church by bending language around the 5th commandment.