Abstract: In the face of managed care and market economies infringing on the practice of medicine, reducing its autonomy and determining the moral guidelines for medical practice, many physicians are calling out for a return to what is perceived as a traditional medical ethic. Many religiously motivated critics of certain modern developments in medicine have made similar appeals. These calls are best understood as an attempt to define medicine as a practice that is necessarily ethical in nature, a practice the moral basis of which is internal to that practice. This article examines and assesses this definition of medicine in reference to Aristotle's division of human undertakings into three distinct categories: theory, poieisis (i.e., production), and praxis. It is concluded that medicine can be understood as a praxis (as opposed to a theory or production, both of which are morally neutral), because the practice of medicine, and all of its constitutive acts, can only be explained and assessed in reference to health, which is itself a final good and hence of moral value. Such an understanding would immunize medicine against usurpation by the free market. However, by the same token it would also dissociate medicine from all other moralities external to it, including those grounded in faith and religion.

Abstract: (2002). Globalization and Universality: Chimera and Truth. Christian Bioethics: Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 199-207.

Abstract: A point of contention: the scriptural basis for the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of blood transfusions.\" (2002). I. Introduction It is questionable whether the \" Christian Community \" has ever been truly unified. Even very early references to the community, such as the \" Apostolic Council \" (Acts 15:1—35), attest to conflict and debate within the community. Over the centuries there have been many areas of contention, and one of the frequent battlegrounds has been the understanding of scripture. In some cases the different interpretations of scripture have been minor, with little or no important consequences. In other instances, significant differences have led to radically different claims as to what is ethically or morally appropriate and as to what is so fundamental that one must be willing to die for it. Furthermore, such differences in interpretation have lead to sharp, even violent clashes not only within the Christian community but also between elements of the Christian community and the secular world around them.