Debate over whether health care institutions or individual providers should have a legally protected right to conscientiously refuse to offer legal services to patients who request them has grown exponentially due to the increasing legalization of morally contested services. This debate is particularly acute for Catholic health care providers. We elucidate Catholic teaching regarding the nature of conscience and the intrinsic value of being free to act in accord with one’s conscience. We then outline the primary positions defended in this debate and respond to critics of Catholic teaching. In so doing, we show how Catholic health care providers’ claims to conscientiously refuse to offer specific health care services are not essentially faith-based, but are founded upon publicly defensible reasons. We also address the question of whether conscientiously refusing health care providers may become complicit in moral wrongdoing or potentially cause scandal by means of disclosure or referral to another provider.

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, several scholars wrote on the topic of ethics expertise in clinical ethics consultation. The articles in this issue exemplified what we consider to be two troubling trends in the quest to articulate a unique expertise for clinical ethicists. The first trend, exemplified in the work of Lisa Rasmussen, is an attempt to define a role for clinical ethicists that denies they have ethics expertise. Rasmussen cites the dependence of ethical expertise on irresolvable meta-ethical debates as the reason for this move. We argue against this deflationary strategy because it ends up smuggling in meta-ethical assumptions it claims to avoid. Specifically, we critique Rasmussen's distinction between the ethical and normative features of clinical ethics cases. The second trend, exemplified in the work of Dien Ho, also attempts to avoid meta-ethics. However, unlike Rasmussen, Ho tries to articulate a notion of ethics expertise that does not rely upon meta-ethics. Specifically, we critique Ho's attempts to explain how clinical ethicists can resolve moral disputes using what he calls the "Default Principle" and "arguments by parity." We show that these strategies do not work unless those with the moral disagreement already share certain meta-ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two trends of (1) attempting to avoid meta-ethics by denying that clinical ethicists have ethics expertise, and (2) attempting to articulate how ethics expertise can be used to resolve disputes without meta-ethics both fail because they do not, in fact, avoid doing meta-ethics. We conclude that these trends detract from what clinical ethics consultation was founded to do and ought to still be doing-provide moral guidance, which requires ethics expertise, and engagement with meta-ethics. To speak of ethicists without ethics expertise leaves their role in the clinic dangerously unclear and unjustified.

The Catholic moral tradition has a rich foundation that applies broadly to encompass all areas of human experience. Yet, there is comparatively little in Catholic thought on the ethics of the collection and use of data, especially in healthcare. We provide here a brief overview of terminology, concepts, and applications of data in the context of healthcare, summarize relevant theological principles and themes (including the Vatican’s Rome Call for AI Ethics), and offer key questions for ethicists and data managers to consider as they analyze ethical implications pertinent to data governance and data management.

In this article, we provide an update to Catholic ethicists and clinicians about the current status of Catholic teaching and practice regarding brain death. We aim to challenge the notion that the question has been definitively settled, despite the widespread application of this concept in medical practice including at Catholic facilities. We first summarize some of the notable arguments for and against brain death in Catholic thought as well as the available magisterial teachings on this topic. Although Catholic bishops, theologians, and ethicists have generally signaled at least tentative approval of the neurological criteria for the determination of death, we contend that no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death currently exists; therefore, Catholics are not currently bound to uphold any position on these criteria. In the second part of the article, we describe how Catholics, particularly Catholic medical practitioners, must presently inform their consciences on this issue while awaiting a more definitive magisterial resolution. Summary: Some prominent Catholic theologians and physicians have argued against the validity of brain death; however, most Catholic ethicists and physicians accept the validity of brain death as true human death. In this paper, we argue that there is no definitive magisterial teaching on brain death, meaning that Catholics are not bound to uphold any position on brain death. Catholics in general, but especially Catholic medical practitioners, should inform their consciences on this intra-Catholic debate on brain death while awaiting more definitive magisterial teaching.

In this paper, I discuss prenatal screening, testing, and diagnosis, before highlighting the literature on the incidence of selective abortion after prenatal diagnosis. For Catholic health care professionals and institutions, the correlation between prenatal diagnosis and abortion is highly problematic. Several authors have discussed the concern of illicit cooperation with selective abortion in this context; and while avoiding any illicit cooperation is necessary, it is not sufficient. Given the biases against disability that exist in both medicine and society, Catholic health care professionals and institutions are called to witness to the ontological and moral truths of our faith regarding the unborn and persons with disabilities by offering prenatal genetic testing and counseling in a radically transformed way.