Epistemic trust is an unacknowledged feature of medical knowledge. Claims of medical knowledge made by physicians, patients, and others require epistemic trust. And yet, it would be foolish to define all epistemic trust as epistemically responsible. Accordingly, I use a routine example in medical practice to illustrate how epistemically responsible trust in medicine is trust in epistemically responsible individuals. I go on to illustrate how certain areas of current medical practice of medicine fall short of adequately distinguishing reliable and unreliable (...) processes because of a failure to systematically evaluate health outcomes. I conclude by articulating the devastating obstacles to the consilience assumption, which takes intellectual character as the standard for epistemic responsibility. (shrink)

Most discussions of medical futility try to answer the Futility Question: when is a medical procedure futile? No answer enjoys universal support. Some futility policies say that the health care provider will answer this question when the provider and patient cannot agree. This raises the Decision Question: who has the moral authority to decide what to do in cases where futility is disputed? I look for a procedural answer to this question, an answer that does not turn on whether a (...) given party happens to answer the Futility Question correctly. I argue that these policies get it right; the provider should decide because providers have a right of conscientious refusal that extends to refusing procedures on grounds of futility. This is a procedural answer because providers have this right even if they are sincerely mistaken about whether a procedure is futile. (shrink)

Given Kant's exceptionless moral prohibition on lying, one might suspect that he is committed to a similar prohibition on withholding diagnostic and prognostic information from patients. I confirm this suspicion by adapting arguments against therapeutic privilege from his arguments against lying. However, I show that all these arguments are importantly flawed and submit that they should be rejected. A more compelling Kantian take on informed consent and therapeutic privilege is achievable, I argue, by focusing on Kant's duty of beneficence, which (...) requires us to aim at furthering others’ ends. But I show that there are some cases in which furthering a patient's ends requires withholding material medical information from her. Although I concede that these cases are probably quite rare, I conclude that the best Kantian thinking agrees with that of therapeutic privilege's advocates. (shrink)

The argument presented by Jeffrey Bishop that “tradition” justifies female circumcision is grounded on the assumption that reason is always situated within traditions and that traditions are the foundational source of values. I argue that the concept of tradition is inherently vague and, as such, cannot support the weight of the argument that makes it the final arbiter of moral values. The concept especially does not justify intense pain and suffering inflicted on children.

This essay sets down three directives for conscientiously objecting clinicians—physicians, particularly obstetrician/gynecologists, trained in NaProTechnology by the Pope Paul VI Institute and Creighton University School of Medicine and any medical professionals who share their natural law vision of reproductive health care—to protect their right to well-formed conscientious objection in reproductive medicine. Directive one: understand the nature of a well-formed conscience and its rightful exercise. Directive two: fulfill all reasonable American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ requirements for conscientious refusal. Directive three: (...) execute a political strategy to protect health-care conscience rights. (shrink)