Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Religious Approach”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Requests for "inappropriate" treatment based on religious beliefs.

Requests by patients or their families for treatment which the patient's physician considers to be "inappropriate" are becoming more frequent than refusals of treatment which the physician considers appropriate. Such requests are often based on the patient's religious beliefs about the attributes of God (sovereignty, omnipotence), the attributes of persons (sanctity of life), or the individual's personal relationship with God (communication, commands, etc). We present four such cases and discuss some of the basic religious tenets of the three Abrahamic faith traditions as they relate to such requests. We suggest that religious reasons for requesting "inappropriate" treatment are "special" and deserve serious consideration. We offer guidance to assist clinicians and clinical ethicists as they attempt to resolve these conflicts, emphasising the importance of understanding the religious beliefs of the patient/surrogate and suggesting the assistance of a religious interpreter. We suggest open discussion with patients and families of both the clinical situation and the theological basis for these requests. We also suggest that clinicians use additional religious doctrines or principles from patients' own traditions to balance the reasons behind the requests. We conclude that most persistent requests for "inappropriate" treatment should be honoured.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Should informed consent be based on rational beliefs?

Our aim is to expand the regulative ideal governing consent. We argue that consent should not only be informed but also based on rational beliefs. We argue that holding true beliefs promotes autonomy. Information is important insofar as it helps a person to hold the relevant true beliefs. But in order to hold the relevant true beliefs, competent people must also think rationally. Insofar as information is important, rational deliberation is important. Just as physicians should aim to provide relevant information regarding the medical procedures prior to patients consenting to have those procedures, they should also assist patients to think more rationally. We distinguish between rational choice/action and rational belief. While autonomous choice need not necessarily be rational, it should be based on rational belief. The implication for the doctrine of informed consent and the practice of medicine is that, if physicians are to respect patient autonomy and help patients to choose and act more rationally, not only must they provide information, but they should care more about the theoretical rationality of their patients. They should not abandon their patients to irrationality. They should help their patients to deliberate more effectively and to care more about thinking rationally. We illustrate these arguments in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing life-saving blood transfusions. Insofar as Jehovah's Witnesses should be informed of the consequences of their actions, they should also deliberate rationally about these consequences.

Christianity↗
PubMed1998

Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Part 1. Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views?

Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs) refusal of blood transfusions has recently gained support in the medical community because of the growing popularity of "no-blood" treatment. Many physicians, particularly so-called "sympathetic doctors", are establishing a close relationship with this religious organization. On the other hand, it is little known that this blood doctrine is being strongly criticized by reform-minded current and former JWs who have expressed conscientious dissent from the organization. Their arguments reveal religious practices that conflict with many physicians' moral standards. They also suggest that a certain segment of "regular" or orthodox JWs may have different attitudes towards the blood doctrine. The author considers these viewpoints and argues that there are ethical flaws in the blood doctrine, and that the medical community should reconsider its supportive position. The usual physician assumption that JWs are acting autonomously and uniformly in refusing blood is seriously questioned.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1998

The cost of refusing treatment and equality of outcome.

Patients have a right to refuse medical treatment. But what should happen after a patient has refused recommended treatment? In many cases, patients receive alternative forms of treatment. These forms of care may be less cost-effective. Does respect for autonomy extend to providing these alternatives? How for does justice constrain autonomy? I begin by providing three arguments that such alternatives should not be offered to those who refuse treatment. I argue that the best argument which refusers can appeal to is based on the egalitarian principle of equality of outcome. However, this principle does not ultimately support a right to less cost-effective alternatives. I focus on Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood and requesting alternative treatments. However, the point applies to many patients who refuse cost-effective medical care.

Australia↗
PubMed1998

Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses: respecting the autonomous patient's rights.

Do six million Jehovah's Witnesses mean what they say? Muramoto's not-so-subtle proposition is that they don't, because of a system of control akin to the Orwellian "thought police". My response is that the fast developing cooperative relationship between our worldwide community and the medical profession as a whole, and the proven record of that community's steadfast integrity in relation to their Christian principles is the evidence that we do! I seek to highlight the inaccuracy of information, which Muramoto admits came largely from dis-enchanted ex-members, by quoting "established" medical ethical opinion that refusal of blood transfusions must be respected as evidence of patient autonomy. Personal experience of my work on hospital liaison committees for Jehovah's Witnesses is reviewed and I endeavour to prove that our view of blood, and its association with life, goes to the very core of the human psyche. Lastly I suggest that faith transcends rationality. Human beings are more than just minds! Our deep moral sense and consciousness that our dignity is diminished by living our lives solely on the "self interest" principle, lies at the heart of true personal autonomy. Maybe it's a case of "two men looking through the same bars: one seeing mud, the other stars".

Advance Directives↗
PubMed1998

Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses: respecting the autonomous patient's motives.

What makes Jehovah's Witnesses tick? What motivates practitioners of medicine? How is benevolent human behaviour to be interpreted? The explanation that fear of censure, mind-control techniques or enlightened self-interest are the real motivators of human conduct is questioned. Those who believe that man was created in "God's image", hold that humanity has the potential to rise above selfishly driven attitudes and actions, and reflect the qualities of love, kindness and justice that separate us from the beasts. A comparison of general medical ethics and disciplines, and those of the Jehovah's Witness community, is made in this context. The easy charge that frequent deaths result from refusal of blood transfusions is examined. The central source of antipathy towards Jehovah's Witnesses, namely the alleged imposition of extreme and even harmful refusal of blood therapy on our children is addressed. Of course, "...few dilemmas are likely to be resolved wisely or satisfactorily by a blinkered adherence to abstract principles alone. Solutions to most cases will be dictated by a combination of factors. The support of medical ethics by Jehovah's Witnesses, and their willingness to share in reasoned and ethical debate, while at the same time holding firm to their religious and conscientious principles are emphasised.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Two worlds apart: religion and ethics.

In a recent article entitled, Requests "for inappropriate" treatment based on religious beliefs, Orr and Genesen claim that futile treatment should be provided to patients who request it if their request is based on a religious belief. I claim that this implies that we should also accede to requests for harmful or cost-ineffective treatments based on religious beliefs. This special treatment of religious requests is an example of special pleading on the part of theists and morally objectionable discrimination against atheists. It also provides an excellent illustration of how different the practices of religion and ethics are.

Cultural Diversity↗
PubMed1998

Medicine, ethics and religion: rational or irrational?

Savulescu maintains that our paper, which encourages clinicians to honour requests for "inappropriate treatment" is prejudicial to his atheistic beliefs, and therefore wrong. In this paper we clarify and expand on our ideas, and respond to his assertion that medicine, ethics and atheism are objective, rational and true, while religion is irrational and false.

Cultural Diversity↗
PubMed1999

To clone or not to clone--a Jewish perspective.

Many new reproductive methods such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilisation, freezing of human embryos, and surrogate motherhood were at first widely condemned but are now seen in Western society as not just ethically and morally acceptable, but beneficial in that they allow otherwise infertile couples to have children. The idea of human cloning was also quickly condemned but debate is now emerging. This article examines cloning from a Jewish perspective and finds evidence to support the view that there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of human cloning. A hypothesis is also advanced suggesting that even if a body was cloned, the brain, which is the essence of humanity, would remain unique. This author suggests that the debate should be changed from "Is cloning wrong?" to "When is cloning wrong?".

Cloning, Organism↗
PubMed1999

Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Part 3. A proposal for a don't-ask-don't-tell policy.

Of growing concern over Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs) refusal of blood is the intrusion of the religious organisation into its members' personal decision making about medical care. The organisation currently may apply severe religious sanctions to JWs who opt for certain forms of blood-based treatment. While the doctrine may be maintained as the unchangeable "law of God", the autonomy of individual JW patients could still be protected by the organisation modifying its current policy so that it strictly adheres to the right of privacy regarding personal medical information. The author proposes that the controlling religious organisation adopt a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, which assures JWs that they would neither be asked nor compelled to reveal personal medical information, either to one another or to the church organisation. This would relieve patients of the fear of breach of medical confidentiality and ensure a truly autonomous decision on blood-based treatments without fear of organisational control or sanction.

Blood Transfusion↗
PubMed1999

Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood: obedience to scripture and religious conscience.

Jehovah's Witnesses are students of the Bible. They refuse transfusions out of obedience to the scriptural directive to abstain and keep from blood. Dr Muramoto disagrees with the Witnesses' religious beliefs in this regard. Despite this basic disagreement over the meaning of Biblical texts, Muramoto flouts the religious basis for the Witnesses' position. His proposed policy change about accepting transfusions in private not only conflicts with the Witnesses' fundamental beliefs but it promotes hypocrisy. In addition, Muramoto's arguments about pressure to conform and coerced disclosure of private information misrepresent the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and ignore the element of individual conscience. In short, Muramoto resorts to distortion and uncorroborated assertions in his effort to portray a matter of religious faith as a matter of medical ethical debate.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2000

Human embryonic stem cells and respect for life.

The purpose of this essay is to stimulate academic discussion about the ethical justification of using human primordial stem cells for tissue transplantation, cell replacement, and gene therapy. There are intriguing alternatives to using embryos obtained from elective abortions and in vitro fertilisation to reconstitute damaged or dysfunctional human organs. These include the expansion and transplantation of latent adult progenitor cells.

Aborted Fetus↗
PubMed2000

Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy.

In their responses to Dr Osamu Muramoto (hereafter Muramoto) Watchtower Society (hereafter WTS) spokesmen David Malyon and Donald Ridley (hereafter Malyon and Ridley), deny many of the criticisms levelled against the WTS by Muramoto. In this paper I argue as a Jehovah's Witness (hereafter JW) and on behalf of the members of AJWRB that there is no biblical basis for the WTS's partial ban on blood and that this dissenting theological view should be made clear to all JW patients who reject blood on religious grounds. Such patients should be guaranteed confidentiality should they accept whole blood or components that are banned by the WTS. I argue against Malyon's and Ridley's claim that WTS policy allows freedom of conscience to individual JWs and that it is non-coercive and non-punitive in dealing with conscientious dissent and I challenge the notion that there is monolithic support of the WTS blood policy among those who identify themselves as JWs and carry the WTS "advance directive".

Blood Transfusion↗
PubMed2000

Medical confidentiality and the protection of Jehovah's Witnesses' autonomous refusal of blood.

Mr Ridley of the Watch Tower Society (WTS), the controlling religious organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs), mischaracterises the issue of freedom and confidentiality in JWs' refusal of blood by confusing inconsistent organisational policies with actual Biblical proscriptions. Besides exaggeration and distortion of my writings, Ridley failed to present substantive evidence to support his assertion that no pressure exists to conform to organisational policy nor systematic monitoring which compromises medical confidentiality. In this refutation, I present proof from the WTS's literature, supported by personal testimonies of JWs, that the WTS enforces its policy of blood refusal by coercive pressure to conform and through systematic violation of medical confidentiality. Ridley's lack of candour in dealing with the plea of dissident JWs for freedom to make personal and conscientious decisions regarding blood indicates that a serious breach of ethics in the medical care of JWs continues. The medical community should be seriously concerned.

Blood Transfusion↗
PubMed1994

Assisted reproduction in contemporary Jewish law and ethics.

This article recapitulates and extends a discussion of the position of halakhic Judaism (traditional Jewish law and ethics) on various issues that relate to assisted reproduction, including genetic and legal relationships, disposal of untransplanted embryos, embryo tissue research, multifetal pregnancy reduction, preimplantation genetic screening and sex selection and donor gametes.

Aborted Fetus↗
PubMed1984

Nuclear death: an unprecedented challenge to psychiatry and religion.

The growing danger of a nuclear holocaust has intensified two aspects of the human predicament that concern both religion and psychiatry: the inevitability of death and the disastrous consequences of the characteristic termed "pride" by theologians and "narcissism" by psychiatrists. For the first time, humans have power to exterminate themselves and death threatens all ages equally. Pride of power causes leaders to exaggerate their ability to control nuclear weapons; moral pride leads to demonizing enemies. The author considers implications for psychiatrists and clergy, with special reference to preventing a nuclear holocaust.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗