Joseph Tham

This paper looks at the ethics of opt-in vs. opt-out of organ donation as Scotland has transitioned its systems to promote greater organ availability. We first analyse studies that compare the donation rates in other regions due to such a system switch and find that organ increase is inconclusive and modest at best. This is due to a lack of explicit opt-out choices resulting in greater resistance and family override unless there are infrastructures and greater awareness to support such change. The paper then looks at the difference between informed consent of the opt-in vs. presumed consent in the opt-out approaches. Patient autonomy and dignity are better reflected with informed consent. Eighteen months have passed since the new organ donation policy has come into effect, this paper recommends more research into organ donors’ psychological motivations to help governments and the healthcare profession obtain more organs for transplantation.

This volume is a collection of papers commissioned and presented in a 4-day workshop where bioethics experts from six major world religions—Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism—gathered to discuss the meaning and implications of the social and ethical implications of the notion of social responsibility in their respective traditions and the ways in which their respective traditions could, or could not, uphold the tenets of Article 14. Judaism conceives social responsibility as universal equality, Islam as duty to God, Christianity as neighborly love, Confucianism as duty toward the family, Hinduism as a right balance of different duties, and Buddhism as active compassion. Each religion emphasizes a particular aspect of the principle. The summation of the different perspectives further enriches and completes the vision of social responsibility and promotion of health. Common concerns raised by these religious traditions are further explored. They regard the relationship between state and religion in an ever-secularized world, the relationship between health and salvation, the question of equalitarian distribution, and the relation between responsibility and rights.

I am grateful that the editors of this volume invited me to write a chapter on beginning-of-life issues. In examining the enormous corpus of Pellegrino’s writing, they could not find articles that directly address the issues of fertility control, reproduction, and abortion. It is quite a peculiar anomaly in his prolific writing career, mainly because these issues were hotly debated in the early days of bioethics during which he was a prominent protagonist. As president of the Catholic University of America (CUA) and as director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Pellegrino was directly involved in the debate. He testified in the court case against theologian Charles Curran who was fired from CUA because of his open dissent with Catholic teaching on contraception and which was therefore deemed incompatible with the university’s identity. CUA won that court case against Curran. As a doctoral student under Dr. Pellegrino, I was fortunate to enjoy long conversations with him on some of these topics since my dissertation touches on the secularization of bioethics and the debate on fertility control in the 1960s and ’70s. He was familiar with the stances of Joseph Fuchs, Richard McCormick, Warren Reich, Bernard Häring, Bruno Schüller, and William E. May, all prominent moral theologians and bioethicists. From these exchanges and the clues that he left in his writings, we can garner some of the reasons he shied away from addressing these issues publicly...

Higher education has become more student-centered as the Bologna process assigns students more time to study and research. Online teaching has been needed during the pandemic, which can be challenging regarding didactic and assessment. This paper analyzes project-based learning (PBL) as a form of teaching and assessing students in a bioethics course on reproductive ethics. The team project was the final assessment of the Faculty of Bioethics core curriculum course, "Bioethics, Technology and Procreation,” offered to two student groups in the 2019–2020 school year. The analysis of the results of PBL is descriptive qualitative with semi-quantitative data from student feedback. Forty students were presented with a detailed methodology of team projects and were encouraged to form teams of 3 to 5. They need to develop a team project with creativity and pastoral sensibility that will communicate the content assimilated in class to a selected target audience, with adequate means to measure the impact of their project on their target. Thirty-eight students formed ten teams and presented ten projects. Each team had 2–4 encounters with the professor and 6–10 encounters among team members. Six of the ten projects were categorized as didactic, three mediatic, one didactic-mediatic and 0 artistic. The grades of this final assignment ranged from 7 to 10, with an average of 8.7 out of 10. The survey feedback demonstrated high satisfaction, as students discovered new values in teamwork and pastoral applications. However, this innovation can be more time-consuming for the professor and the students, requiring more significant time management, teamwork and communication competency.

With the advance of biomedicine, certain individuals and groups are vulnerable because of their incapacities to defend themselves. The International Bioethics Committee as a UNESCO working group has for the last several years dedicated to deepen this principle of human vulnerability and personal integrity. This book serves to supplement this effort with a religious perspective given a great number of the world's population is affiliated with some religious traditions. While there is diversity within each of these traditions, all of them carry in them the mission to protect the weak, the underprivileged, and the poor. Thus, here presented is a collection of papers written by bioethics experts from six major world religions-Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism-who were gathered to discuss the meaning and implications of the principle of vulnerability in their respective traditions.

This book deals with the thorny issue of human rights in different cultures and religions, especially in the light of bioethical issues. In this book, experts from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism and Confucianism discuss the tension between their religious traditions and the claim of universality of human rights. The East-West contrast is particularly evident with regards to human rights. Some writers find the human rights language too individualistic and it is foreign to major religions where the self does not exist in isolation, but is normally immersed in a web of relations and duties towards family, friends, religion community, and society. Is the human rights discourse a predominantly Western liberal ideal, which in bioethics is translated to mean autonomy and free choice? In today's democratic societies, laws have been drafted to protect individuals and communities against slavery, discrimination, torture or genocide. Yet, it appears unclear at what moment universal rights supersede respect for cultural diversity and pluralism. This collection of articles demonstrates a rich spectrum of positions among different religions, as they confront the ever more pressing issues of bioethics and human rights in the modern world. This book is intended for those interested in the contemporary debates on religious ethics, human rights, bioethics, cultural diversity and multiculturalism.

This book explores the challenges of informed consent in medical intervention and research ethics, considering the global reality of multiculturalism and religious diversity. Even though informed consent is a gold standard in research ethics, its theoretical foundation is based on the conception of individual subjects making autonomous decisions. There is a need to reconsider autonomy as relational-where family members, community and religious leaders can play an important part in the consent process. The volume re-evaluates informed consent in multicultural contexts and features perspectives from Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is valuable reading for scholars interested in bioethics, healthcare ethics, research ethics, comparative religions, theology, human rights, law and sociology.

With the advance of CRISPR technology, parents will be tempted to create superior offspring who are healthier, smarter, and stronger. In addition to the fact that many of these procedures are considered immoral for Catholics, they could change human nature in radical and possibly disastrous ways. This article focuses on the question of human perfectionism. First, by considering the relationship between human nature and technology, it analyzes whether such advances can improve human nature in addition to curing diseases. Next, it looks at the moral and spiritual dimensions of perfection by analyzing the cardinal virtues. It argues that seeking perfection in the physical sense alone may not be prudent or wise and may produce greater injustices and weaken the human spirit in the long run. Understanding our true calling to perfection can help us resist the temptation of hubris to enhance the human race through technology.

This article addresses the ethics of betel nut use in Taiwan. It first presents scientific facts about the betel quid and its consumption and the generally accepted negative health consequences associated with its use: oral and esophageal cancer, coronary artery disease, metabolic diseases, and adverse effects in pregnancy. It then analyzes the cultural background and economic factors contributing to its popularity in Asia. The governmental and institutional attempts to curb betel nut cultivation, distribution, and sales are also described. Finally, the article analyzes the bioethical implications of this often-ignored subject from the perspectives of human dignity, the good of health, vulnerable groups, cultural diversity, informed consent, and ethical blind spots.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in English ; abstract also in Chinese. This paper explores the need for and place of input from local cultures and religious traditions when addressing the highly complex questions that frequently arise in the field of bioethics, something which is often overlooked and even questioned in much of the relevant academic literature. It begins by examining the historical roots of religious bioethics and the secularization of the discipline before then recounting the experience of the Bioethics, Multiculturalism and Religion Project of the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights. Over the past 12 years, this Project has brought together Christians, Buddhists, Confucians, Daoists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and secular ethicists in eight encounters to discuss bioethical topics. First, the paper describes the different orientations, goals and methodological changes involved in these encounters. The methodology of meeting evolving is a search for possible convergence or common ground in the Project. The paper then addresses the most salient questions that have emerged these years. They are i) the problem of universalism vs. pluralism, which is witnessed in global bioethics vs. local diversity; ii) the East-West divide on the conception of human rights vs. duties; iii) cross-cultural and interreligious dialogue goals are framed as convergence, consensus or conversation; and iv) the ongoing issue of science and faith as different traditions confront modernity. 本文在探討解決生命倫理學領域經常出現的高度複雜問題時，當地文化和宗教傳統的涉入是必要的，也是應該具有一定地位的，但這一點在許多相關的學術文獻中卻經常被忽視，甚至被質疑。本文首先考察宗教生命倫理學的歷史根源和該學科的世俗化，然後敘述聯合國教科文組織生命倫理學和人權教席的“生命倫理學、多元文化與宗教”國際項目的經驗。在過去12年裡，該項目將基督教、佛教、儒教、道教、猶太教、印度教、穆斯林教及世俗倫理學的學者聚集在一起，進行了8次會議，討論生命倫理學課題。本文首先描述這些會議所涉及的不同取向、目標和方法論的演變。方法論的演變是為了尋求項目可能的趨同點或共同點。然後，本文討論這些年出現的最突出的問題。它們是：i)普遍主義與多元主義問題，即體現在全球生命倫理學與地方倫理學之間的問題；ii)東西方在人權與義務概念上的分歧；iii)跨文化和跨宗教對話的目標應該被框定為趨同、共識還是對談；以及iv)在不同傳統面對現代性時所持績存在的科學與信仰之間的問題。

Attitudes towards science, medicine and the body are all profoundly shaped by people's worldviews. When discussing issues of bioethics, religion often plays a major role. In this volume, the role of genetic manipulation and neurotechnology in shaping human identity is examined from multiple religious perspectives. This can help us to understand how religion might affect the impact of the initiatives such as the UNESCO Declaration in Bioethics and Human Rights. The book features bioethics experts from six major religions: Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. It includes a number of distinct religious and cultural views on the anthropological, ethical and social challenges of emerging technologies in the light of human rights and in the context of global bioethics. The contributors work together to explore issues such as: cultural attitudes to gene editing; neuroactive drugs; the interaction between genes and behaviours; the relationship between the soul, the mind and DNA; and how can clinical applications of these technologies benefit the developing world. This is a significant collection, demonstrating how religion and modern technologies relate to one another. It will, therefore, be of great interest to academics working in bioethics, religion and the body, interreligious dialogue, and religion and science, technology and neuroscience.

The chapter argues that the natural law tradition’s conception of public reason is more consistent than that of political liberalism, especially when it comes to bioethical legislation. After offering a précis of Thomist natural law theory, the chapter examines Alasdair MacIntyre’s treatment of the rational resolution of moral disagreements and argues that, in line with the natural law tradition, public reason should be construed as a shared political deliberation that is rooted in truth-directed inquiry. Furthermore, MacIntyre points to how such a truth-directed inquiry requires a set of commitments which correspond to the primary precepts of natural law. A just political order should pursue and promote this sort of public reasoning, even amid the systematic and apparently intractable moral disagreement of a pluralistic society. However, whereas MacIntyre believes that such shared deliberation is no longer possible outside local communities, we shall reflect, with the aid of the natural law tradition’s conception of legislation, on how his proposals might carry over to the full-fledged public reasoning of political decision-making. We conclude that the natural law tradition’s conception of public reason is more consistent than that of political liberalism when it comes to legislation on bioethical issues, such as abortion and medically assisted suicide. By requiring that laws be morally justified through truth-directed inquiry into the relevant second-order issues, it has more rigorous standards against arbitrariness.

This article looks at the question of sin and disease in bioethics with a spiritual-theological analysis from the book of Job. The biblical figure Job is an innocent and just man who suffered horrendously. His dialogues with others—his wife, his friends, and God—can give many valuable insights for patients who suffer and for those who interact with them. Family, friends, physicians, nurses, chaplains, and pastoral workers can learn from Job how to communicate properly with sufferers. The main question for Job was how to maintain the tension between God’s justice and God’s mercy and not yield to the temptation of cursing God but to speak well of Him in moments of difficulties