Ethical considerations in the integration of religion and psychotherapy: three perspectives.

The authors maintain that the integration of religion in psychotherapy is, at best, problematic and requires a respect for boundaries, but that the integration of a nonreligious but spiritual psychotherapy consisting of the three elements identified above (attention to the person, not the disease, considering one's work as vocation, and the pursuit of empathic understanding) is a therapeutic necessity and an ethical duty. The authors speak with distinct voices in the three major sections of the article but come to remarkably similar conclusions: (1) the ability to inquire into the religious and spiritual life of patients is an important element of psychotherapeutic competency; (2) information about the religious and spiritual lives of patients often reveals extremely important information; (3) the inquiry process must communicate respect and curiosity for this dimension of the patient's life even (and perhaps especially) when the content is at variance from that of the therapist; and (4) there is significant potential for therapeutic abuse when the therapist communicates in a manner reflecting a personal agenda that abandons the principle of psychotherapeutic neutrality. One area of potential disagreement came as the authors considered the possibility of different combinations of faith disciplines and therapy in designated religious settings that all parties recognize as such. One author (G.P.M.) believes that such combinations in these settings may be ethically permissible. The other two authors are concerned about such combinations because of the powerful but covert factor of transference in healing relationships. The authors eventually decided that this question was beyond the scope of the article and limited themselves to discussions about psychotherapy in secular settings. They each advocate the systematic inclusion of spiritual assessment as a core competency for psychotherapy education. In a way similar to the exploration of any deeply personal dimension of human experience, integrating spiritual and religious dimensions of our patients' lives into their treatment requires consummate professionalism, the highest quality of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and thorough grounding in a sophisticated biopsychosocial model.

Whose tradition? Which Enlightenment? What content? Engelhardt, Hauerwas, Capaldo, and the future of Christian bioethics.

The development of a content-full Christian bioethics requires an analysis of the particular contents and traditions which different Christians bring to morality. For Hauerwas, the content of Christian ethics is the speech and practices of the community. For Engelhardt, only a content-full tradition, such as the Orthodox tradition, will be able to arrive at closure on the moral issues presented by the contemporary practice of medicine. Capaldi calls, in contrast, for a Kantian society of autonomous self-legislators whose responsible freedom is grounded in a cosmic order that must be explicated and retrieved in particular practices. The manner in which we view our own traditions and the shortcomings of modernity determine the content that Christianity brings to bioethics.

A bad disease, a fatal cure: why sterilization is permissible and the autonomy of medicine is not.

The debate in this issue regarding the Roman Catholic condemnation of the morality of sterilization is puzzling for Protestants. As I will argue the puzzlement arises on two grounds. First, why would anyone object to direct sterilization for the cure or prevention of disease? Second, if one wanted to challenge such an objection on moral grounds why would one turn to medicine to do so? For Christian ethics there is nothing wrong in principle with direct sterilization when there are good reasons for precluding the possibility of an additional pregnancy; and it is a serious theological mistake to treat medicine as an independent moral authority.