We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Healthcare has an impact on everyone, and healthcare funding decisions shape how and what healthcare is provided. In this book, Stephen Duckett outlines a Christian, biblically grounded, ethical basis for how decisions about healthcare funding and priority-setting ought to be made. Taking a cue from the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), Duckett articulates three ethical principles drawn from the story: compassion as a motivator; inclusivity, or social justice as to benefits; and responsible stewardship of the resources required to achieve the goals of treatment and prevention. These are principles, he argues, that should underpin a Christian ethic of healthcare funding. Duckett's book is a must for healthcare professionals and theologians struggling with moral questions about rationing in healthcare. It is also relevant to economists interested in the strengths and weaknesses of the application of their discipline to health policy.
Life patents are a form of intellectual property protection being enshrined and strengthened in bi-lateral and multi–lateral trade agreements. The Church’s teaching and societal engagement to protect human rights has grown in response to the expanded use of patents on living matter, including human genes, DNA and stem cells, as well as microorganisms, plants and animals. This analysis is based on three assets of the work of the Church in the United States: 1) the teaching of the Church; 2) relationships with the Church in other nations; and 3) on–the–ground experience in developing nations, especially through the Conference’s relief and development agency, Catholic Relief Services (CRS). The paper explores two questions: What lessons can be learned from the Church’s engagement with life patents as they touch the rights of persons who are poor, indigenous or marginalized? How can the Church appropriately defend the rights of persons at the margins of the global economy, insuring their just and fair treatment, and their access to the life–saving benefits of life patents?
The preferential option for the poor (POP) has become an essential element of Catholic social teaching (CST). There are two major currents of interpretation of this preferential love of the poor. One interpretation is that of Latin American theology of liberation, where the expression originated. Another one is the position taken by the magisterium, especially by the papal magisterium, that Pope Francis has developed and modified, nevertheless remaining in the range of the precedential magisterial texts, as I try to show. In this chapter I concentrate on the way the Catholic magisterium has presented the preferential option for the poor. The Second Vatican Council and the various General Assemblies of the Latin-American Bishops’ Conference (CELAM) after their second gathering in Medellín in 1968 are of paramount importance to the development of the POP.
The common good (bonum commune) has, since antiquity, referred to the aim of social and political association, and was particularly prominent in medieval Christian political theology. Since St. John XXIII’s 1961 encyclical letter, Mater et magistra, ecclesiastical statements about social teaching have employed a formulation of the common good, usually in the version that appeared in the Second Vatican Council’s 1965 Pastoral Constitution for the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes, as “the sum of those conditions of social life that allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.” This chapter discusses the origins and development of this formulation as well as the ways that it has been used in subsequent Catholic Social Teaching. While it has sometimes been interpreted as an “instrumental” account of the common good, the sources and uses of the notion suggest that it is the particularly modern political component of a fuller notion of the common good continuous with the tradition. In particular, the recent formulation is concerned to limit the power of the modern state and protect the dignity of the human person in the challenging conditions of political modernity.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.