自引率: 3.9%
被引量: 1530
通过率: 暂无数据
审稿周期: 暂无数据
版面费用: 暂无数据
国人发稿量: 暂无数据
投稿须知/期刊简介:
The Hastings Center Report is a leading journal in bioethics featuring original scholarship and commentary on issues in health, medicine, medical research, and biotechnology as they affect individuals, communities, and societies. It is published by The Hastings Center, an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit organization.
期刊描述简介:
The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
-
Conscience, Caricatures, and Catholic Identities.
Catholic health care is often viewed as antithetical to secular conceptions of autonomy. This view can engender calls to protect "choice" in Catholic facilities. However, this view is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs). This commentary, which responds to "Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience," by Abram Brummett et al., seeks to demonstrate the nuance of the ERDs as well as to address some of the challenges various Catholic identities have when interpreting and living out the ERDs so that all patients receive high-quality, compassionate care. By highlighting the Church's desire to protect all people at every stage, I hope to dispel the caricatures that often result from misunderstandings by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
被引量：- 发表：2024
-
Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience.
"Conscientious provision" refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors "conscientious objection," which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument-the principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens-justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals.
被引量：- 发表：2024
-
Colonial and Neocolonial Barriers to Companion Digital Humans in Africa.
This letter responds to the essay "Digital Humans to Combat Loneliness and Social Isolation: Ethics Concerns and Policy Recommendation," by Nancy S. Jecker, Robert Sparrow, Zohar Lederman, and Anita Ho, in the January-February 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report.
被引量：- 发表：2024
-
Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.
For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.
被引量：- 发表：2024
-
The Open Donor View and Procreative Beneficence.
This letter responds to the article "What Do Prospective Parents Owe to Their Children?," by Abigail Levin, in the March-April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report.
被引量：- 发表：2024
