The "neuromoral" medical explanatory model of antisocial or inadequately prosocial behavior posits a biological cause for what advocates judge to be immoral activity. Proponents of this model hold that immoral behavior is the result of a dysfunction in a network of neural circuits primarily located in the frontal lobes, believed to be the "neurobiological seat" of ethical choice. Advocates encourage medical treatments, such as transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex, to correct brain functional impairments that presumably cause aggressive, risk-affirming, antisocial, or non-empathetic behavior. Assuming therapy successfully modifies patient behavior toward higher levels of empathy and prosocial activity, while reducing risky or aggressive behavior, such an outcome, given these background assumptions, would constitute medical treatment for immoral behavior-plausibly, a form of "moral enhancement." As I argue, however, neurobiological claims to have found the source of moral decision-making are ambiguous and unjustified or, at least, overstated. Consequently, assertions regarding neurological treatment as moral enhancement should be approached with skepticism.

Careful critical analysis is central to reigning in untutored desires to claim the current canons of political correctness, social assumptions, or personal intuitions as moral truth or as necessarily reliable indicators of appropriate choice. This outlook is particularly essential in medicine since its conceptual and moral convictions are not merely theoretical but are applied directly (often irretrievably) to persons. The growing cleft between traditional Christianity and the methodological atheism of contemporary bioethics colors the very contours of how one appreciates public deliberation regarding morality and medicine. It shapes what is judged acceptable social debate and appropriate moral discussion, proper institutional goals and objectives of public policy. As the authors in this issue of Christian Bioethics reflect, while there exist family resemblances among various accounts of medical professionalism, claims that medicine is governed by uniquely true and universal secular moral obligations is implausible, especially given how far contemporary medical practice has drifted from traditional Christian understandings. Christian witness and traditionally Christian bioethics are central elements of a distinctly Christian practice of medicine.

Secular bioethics fails to grasp the central moral and spiritual realities of medicine. As the authors in this issue of Christian Bioethics argue, contemporary healthcare practice is often based on the false premise that medical science can secure the safety of human life. Yet, the standard "biopsychosocial model" of medicine fails to grasp the theological dimensions of healthcare often harming patients and their families in the process. Indeed, as the articles explore, all too often secular bioethics manipulates medicine to achieve immoral purposes, such as active euthanasia of the sick or elderly. Such spiritual decay is acutely manifested in the pressure put on patients to accept an economically efficient and medically expedient assisted death as well as in how society often treats the human body as mere res-a thing unimportant in itself apart from animation as a living person. Together the articles illustrate that without careful religiously grounded advice modern medicine is often spiritually disorienting for both patients and practitioners.

Altruism-based systems of organ procurement are not adequate to meet medical demand. Appropriately framing public policy requires critical assessment of those strategies for organ procurement and allocation that would most improve access to human organs, thereby saving lives, reducing human suffering, and advancing health care outcomes, as well as increasing the efficient and effective use of scarce resources, while also avoiding moral harms, such as the exploitation of persons. Each of these challenges is best met through the use of a variety of market-oriented policies. In some limited aspects, public policy has already adopted more market-friendly incentives to encourage organ donation. Proper regulation is essential to ensure that such a system benefited those in need, and that those who provided organs are properly compensated. However, without significant changes to public policy, far too many patients will languish on waiting lists until they run out of time.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform many aspects of scholarly publishing. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors might use AI in a variety of ways, and those uses might augment their existing work or might instead be intended to replace it. We are editors of bioethics and humanities journals who have been contemplating the implications of this ongoing transformation. We believe that generative AI may pose a threat to the goals that animate our work but could also be valuable for achieving those goals. In the interests of fostering a wider conversation about how generative AI may be used, we have developed a preliminary set of recommendations for its use in scholarly publishing. We hope that the recommendations and rationales set out here will help the scholarly community navigate toward a deeper understanding of the strengths, limits, and challenges of AI for responsible scholarly work.

Bioethics functions within a world of deep moral pluralism; a universe of discourse debating ethical analysis, public policy, and clinical practice in which a common, generally accepted morality does not exist. While religious thinkers are often approached within a hermeneutic of suspicion for assuming moral standards that cannot be justified in rational terms, secular bioethicists routinely find themselves in exactly the same intellectual predicament. That ethical theory, proposed values, or normative content is secular, that it does not invoke God or any particular religious perspective, does not mean that it is rationally grounded, necessarily true, or universally binding. As the authors in this issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy make clear, this normative reality directly impacts debates regarding concepts of health, illness, and disease, accounts of socially acceptable health-risky behaviors, and the political frameworks that shape public policy. As a result, honest discussion of diverse moral, religious, and political perspectives remains essential in clarifying the intellectual challenges, ethical intuitions, and ideological judgments that shape clinical practice and healthcare policy. Depending on which moral, political, or scientific concepts are guiding bioethical analysis, careful scrutiny will tend to support rather different policies and practices, each of which is likely to be worth careful consideration.

How can we definitively determine which biomedical choices are morally correct and which engage in seriously wrongful acts? Depending on whom one asks, one is informed that choices such as abortion, euthanasia, and significant body modification involve real moral harm (either as forms of murder or as denying the goodness of the body that God has provided), or that disallowing such "medical care" violates the basic rights of persons (where abortion, active euthanasia, and body modification are appreciated as positive expressions of personal autonomy). Secular bioethics appears no longer able to appreciate what could possibly be wrong with such activities, provided that the individuals involved consent in some fashion. Indeed, many actions that were once openly and easily recognized as sinful have become so commonplace, as well as politically desirable, as to appear as if they were obviously good. As the authors in this issue of Christian Bioethics explore, fully to appreciate the serious moral issues raised by modern medicine requires a foundational orientation to the Christian God.

This issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy brings together an international group of scholars from Hong Kong, Mainland China, and North America, critically to explore whole-body/head transplantation. The proposed procedure raises significant philosophical, ethical, and social/political questions. For example, assuming transplant is successful, who survives the surgery? Does personal identity necessarily follow the head? The contributors to this special thematic issue explore the nature and ground of personal identity, what it would mean to preserve personal identity, given such a significant set of physical changes, as well as the morality of such a procedure. As the authors make clear, careful conceptual philosophical analysis is essential for understanding whether whole-body/head transplantation is a life-saving/life-enhancing technological innovation, or a bioethical morass that should not be attempted. How we come to terms with such conceptual and moral concerns will have a significant impact on the future of medicine and medical technological innovation.

Bioethicists often remind health care professionals to pay close attention to issues of diversity and inclusion. Approaches to ethics consultation, where the perspective of the bioethicist is taken to be more morally correct or necessarily authoritative, have been critiqued as inappropriately authoritarian. Despite such apparent recognition of the importance of respecting moral diversity and the inclusion of different viewpoints, authoritarianism is all too often the approach adopted, especially as bioethics has shifted evermore into concerns for public policy. Yet, secular values and philosophical principles are not morally neutral; nor are the private moral convictions of bioethicists. Such analysis is always grounded in particular understandings of the right and the good, the virtuous and the just. Critical examination of common treatments and new alternatives is essential for the careful scientific practice of medicine. The same is true with regard to bioethics. Stagnating in customary or accepted claims of a common secular morality or a standard set of bioethical principles out of an unwillingness to explore the real diversity of moral thought, including traditional religious and cultural worldviews, fails to tap the human capacity to find innovative solutions to the complex challenges facing medicine.

Brain transplants have long been no more than the subject of science fiction and engaging thought experiments. That is no longer true. Neuroscientists have announced their intention to transplant the head of a volunteer onto a donated body. Response has been decidedly mixed. How should we think about the moral permissibility of head transplants? Is it a life-saving/life-enhancing opportunity that appropriately expands the boundaries of medical practice? Or, is it a bioethical morass that ought not to be attempted? For the purposes of this paper, I set aside questions regarding the surgical operation's technological plausibility so as to focus on very basic questions regarding personal identity and the morality of head transplantation. The analysis begins with an exploration of the embodiment of persons. It considers whether persons can be conceptually distinguished from all parts of their body, even if they cannot be physically separated from some parts without loss of personhood. It argues that in most cases replacing body parts with reasonably similar parts will not destroy the conditions for sustaining personhood. However, as I explore, the phenomenology of personhood is such that some physical changes may prove to be too significant to maintain personal identity successfully over time. Given such complexity and the significance of the costs involved, the moral permissibility of head transplantation likely depends on recognizing that persons may give permission to collaborate in common activities, including projects with which others deeply disagree, provided that they only utilize the services and resources of free and consenting others.

This article refers to:Secular Clinical Ethicists Should Not Be Neutral Toward All Religious Beliefs: An Argument for a Moral-Metaphysical Proceduralism

This volume brings together a set of conceptual, moral, and cultural concerns carefully to assess a significant public policy issue: the development and proliferation of sex robots. Critics argue, for example, that sex robots present a clear risk to real persons as well as a degradation of society. They claim that the prevalence of sex robots will increase sexual violence, immorally objectify women, encourage pedophilia, reinforce negative body image stereotypes, increase forms of sexual dysfunction, and pass on sexually transmitted disease. Proponents judge robotic sexual companionship as just another step in the exploration of human erotic desire. Sex robots, and similar technology, such as virtual reality pornography and other forms of “digi-sexuality,” are appreciated as providing autonomy affirming companionship, sexual release for the lonely, and a relatively harmless outlet for sexual fantasies that avoids the use of human prostitutes and thus reduces sexual victimization. As these chapters explore, to secure normative claims about sexual activity with artificial humanoids, one will need first to understand what the meaning of the morality of sexual activity can be as well as the significance of various practices with robotic partners on such cardinal social institutions as the family and the relationship between the sexes. One will also need to consider in terms of which ranking of human goods, right-making conditions, social outcomes, or personal virtues we ought to evaluate the significance of sexual relations with robots that look like women, men and children. Without such analysis, it will be unclear whether sex robots ought to be appreciated as a social evil that will further degrade moral culture, a positive technological innovation that will help preserve human dignity, or a more or less harmless pastime.

Secular bioethicists do not speak from a place of distinction, but from within particular culturally, socially, and historically conditioned standpoints. As partisans of moral and ideological agendas, they bring their own biases, prejudices, and worldviews to their roles as ethical consultants, social advocates, and academics, attempting rhetorically to sway others and shift policy to a preferred point of view. Their pronouncements represent just one voice among others, even when delivered with strident rhetoric, in an educated and knowing tone, from within institutional positions of power. This essay argues that, given the hegemony of progressive secular bioethics, traditional Christians routinely face epistemic injustice within medicine. That is, Christian knowledge regarding moral reality is all too often demeaned or dismissed, unless such norms can be translated into and defended within a secular ethos. Given such systemic bias, I argue, Christians also experience significant moral distress: they are fully aware of their moral obligations and what they ought to do, but institutionalized power structures make it nearly impossible to so act. But, Christian physicians are not mere technicians, obliged to provide whatever patients request from the list of legally available treatments. That antireligious critics seek to remove the rights of Christian physicians to limit how they practice medicine, where they do not offer or refer for abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other inappropriate forms of care, is unjustified and prejudicial, singling out Christians, and other religious groups, for singular treatment. Regardless of what the law requires or institutional policy demands, however, Christians are obliged to submit to God in all things. As a result, they may at times find themselves required to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

This issue of Christian Bioethics explores foundational debates regarding the orientation and application of Christian bioethics. Should Christian bioethics be approached as essentially a human activity, grounded in scholarly study of theological arguments and religious virtues, oriented toward practical social ends, or should Christian bioethics be recognized as the result of properly oriented prayer, fasting, and asceticism leading to an encounter with God? The gulf between these two general perspectives—the creation of immanent human goods versus submission to a fully transcendent God—is significant and, as ongoing debate in Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality over the past nearly three decades has made clear, the implications are both intellectually engaging and spiritually profound.

The day-to-day work of clinical ethics consultants and healthcare ethics committees can easily become overly routine. Too much routine, however, comes with a risk that morally important practices will be reduced to mere bureaucratic formalities, while practitioners become desensitized to ethically significant distinctions between cases. Clinical ethics consultation and organizational ethics must be set within the broader social and cultural context of the healthcare environment. This practice requires looking beyond mere legal compliance and the routinely false assumption that there are unambiguous ethical norms that easily govern clinical ethics and hospital policy formation. Together the essays in this issue of HEC Forum challenge readers to rethink taken-for-granted assumptions regarding patient care, physician obligation, clinical ethics consultation, and organizational ethics.

The papers in this number of Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality explore the complex set of bioethical concerns related to sex. That the secular world appreciates human sexuality and sexual ethics rather differently than Christianity is obvious. For secular sexual ethics, autonomous individual consent usually draws the only morally relevant distinction between permissible and impermissible choice. As a result, secular bioethics typically advocates nontraditional understandings of sex, gender, and marriage, rejecting biological, psychological, or spiritual differences between men and women. For Christianity, sex, as in being male or female as well as in appropriate expressions of sexuality and sexual intimacy, is appreciated as foundational to who persons are and how they maintain proper orientation toward God. Moreover, a sexual ethics is embraced that understands that all sexual intimacy is to be placed within the marriage of one man and one woman, through which husband and wife are to be transfigured in the Mystery of marriage by Christian love. Representing a wide range of Christian perspectives, the authors in this issue draw on the phenomenological reflections of Pope John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Natural Law tradition, contemporary Orthodox Christianity, and the ancient Church Fathers to explore the nature of the self, sexuality, sex, and gender.

This paper critically explores key aspects of the gulf between traditional Christian bioethics and the secular moral reflections that dominate contemporary bioethics. For example, in contrast to traditional Christian morality, the established secular bioethics judges extramarital sex acts among consenting persons, whether of the same or different sexes, as at least morally permissible, affirms sexual freedom for children to develop their own sexual identity, and holds the easy availability of abortion and infanticide as central to the liberty interests of women. Secular bioethics seeks to separate children from the authority of their parents, placing children themselves as in authority to make their own judgments about appropriate lifestyle choices, including sexual behaviors. As I argue, however, absent God, there exists no standpoint outside of our own cultural sociohistorically conditioned understanding from which to communicate any deeper perspective of reality or the bioethics that such a perspective would secure. Consequently, rather than discerning moral truth, secular bioethics merely affirms its own particular cultural sociohistorically conditioned ideological perspective. It is a social and political worldview bereft of definitive moral foundation, independent moral authority, or unambiguous content.

This special thematic issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy brings together a cross-cultural set of scholars from Asia, Europe, and North America critically to explore foundational questions of familial authority and the implications of such findings for organ procurement policies designed to increase access to transplantation. The substantial disparity between the available supply of human organs and demand for organ transplantation creates significant pressure to manipulate public policy to increase organ procurement. As the articles in this issue explore, however, even if well intentioned, the desire to maximize organ procurement does not justify undermining foundational elements of human flourishing, such as the family. While defending at times quite different understandings of autonomy, informed consent, and familial authority, each author makes clear that a principled appreciation of the family is necessary. Otherwise, health care practice will treat the family in a cynical and instrumental fashion unlikely to support social or individual good.