Christian physicians are in danger of losing the right of conscientious objection in situations they deem immoral. The erosion of this right is bolstered by the doctrine of "physician value neutrality" (PVN) which may be an impetus for the push to require physicians to refer for procedures they find immoral. It is only a small step from referral to compelling performance of these same procedures. If no one particular value is more morally correct than any other (a foundational PVN premise) (...) and a physician ought to be value neutral, than conscientious objection to morally objectionable actions becomes a thing of the past. However, the argument for PVN fails. Therefore, Christian physicians should state their values openly, which would allow patients the ability to choose like-minded physicians. Some possible responses to this erosion of conscientious objection include, disengagement from non-Christian institutions, the formation of distinctly Christian medical institutions and political action. However, for the Christian the initial focus should be on a life of holiness which requires each of us to avoid evil. (shrink)

Physician conflict of interest has been of concern since Hippocrates and rarely is this concern more evident than in the relationship between pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSR) and physicians. Given the acrimonious public debates concerning this issue a careful exploration of the concerns at sake and the conceptual arguments which support such concerns is called for. In this piece I will take as heuristic the conceptual philosophical framework argued for by H. Tristram Engelhardt. This framework would sanction interactions between PSRs and (...) physicians given that such relationships are free and without coercion. Further, patients must be informed, uncoerced and free in choosing such relationships with physicians who engage in interactions with PSRs. I consider four major criticisms which claim that PSR-physician interactions are morally impermissible: 1) influence, 2) “patients do not choose, but they pay,” 3) violation of ethical principles, and 4) erosion of the patient-physician relationship. Each is shown to be unpersuasive under Engelhardtian philosophy. As long as the principle of permission and informed consent obtain without coercion than the interaction between PSRs and physicians would be construed to be morally permissible. (shrink)