Medical migration appears to be an increasing global phenomenon, with complex contributing factors. Although it is acknowledged that such movements are inevitable, given the current globalized economy, the movement of health professionals from their country of training raises questions about equity of access and quality of care. Concerns arise if migration occurs from low- and middle-income countries to high-income countries. The actions of HICs receiving medical practitioners from LMICs are examined through the global justice theories of John Rawls and Immanuel (...) Kant. These theories were initially proposed by Pogge and Tan and, in this work, are extended to the issue of medical migration. Global justice theories propose that instead of looking at health needs and workforce issues within their national boundaries, HICs should be guided by principles of justice relevant to the needs of health systems on a global scale. Issues of individual justice are also considered within the framework of rights and social responsibilities of individual medical practitioners. Local and international policy changes are suggested based on both global justice theories and the ideals of individual justice. (shrink)

This response has two parts: a reply to Nigel Biggar's specific criticisms of my exegesis and an appeal for attention to more fundamental theological issues. Biggar generally disregards the narrative and epistolary contexts of the verses he cites and introduces anachronistic conceptual distinctions. Beyond specific exegetical disagreements, his argument fails to address the broader christological, ecclesiological, and eschatological warrants for Christians to embody Jesus' way of peace. The moral vocation of the people of God is grounded in the story of (...) Jesus Christ. It is this story that makes just war theologically problematical. (shrink)

This response has two parts: a reply to Nigel Biggar's specific criticisms of my exegesis and an appeal for attention to more fundamental theological issues. Biggar generally disregards the narrative and epistolary contexts of the verses he cites and introduces anachronistic conceptual distinctions. Beyond specific exegetical disagreements, his argument fails to address the broader christological, ecclesiological, and eschatological warrants for Christians to embody Jesus' way of peace. The moral vocation of the people of God is grounded in the story of (...) Jesus Christ. It is this story that makes just war theologically problematical. (shrink)

Reason and experience can hardly serve as warrants sufficient for the self-sacrificial service to which the New Testament calls the church; the commonsense counsels they dispense must be disciplined by the divine foolishness of Scripture.