The Ethical Challenges to Christian Healing in the Covid-19 Pandemic

From its very beginning, the message and practice of the Christian faith have been inextricably related to healing. Although the eternal salvation of sinful human beings' body and soul is provided by justification through faith, the Church teaches that our soul and body should be purified and healed by sacraments and communal Christian life. These in-person activities are essential to Christian practice. Moreover, historically, the Church has dispensed medicine and taken care of the sick during pandemics. Christianity's caring service has been well respected by the public throughout its history, and in pre-modern society, Christian healthcare services often contributed substantially to the psychological and physical wellbeing of many people. In modern society, however, the role of the Church has been replaced by the public healthcare and medical systems. Particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Christian understanding and practice of healing has sometimes been accused of endangering public health. This paper therefore investigates the ethical landscapes behind the change of public opinion and the strategies used by Christian churches to meet this challenge.

Are healthcare workers obligated to risk themselves during the COVID-19 pandemic according to Jewish law? A response to Solnica et al.

Solnica et al argue that "Jewish law and modern secular approaches based on professional responsibilities obligate physicians to care for all patients even those with communicable diseases". The authors base their viewpoint on the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and apply it to suggest that physicians are obligated to endanger themselves during epidemics, such as COVID-19. It is argued that Solnica et al's analysis of Rabbi Waldenberg's text and their conclusion that healthcare workers are obligated to endanger themselves while treating patient who suffer from contagious illness during epidemics according to Jewish law suffer from various shortcomings. Indeed, Jewish law looks favourably on healthcare workers who take a reasonable risk in treating their patients in the context of epidemics. However, it is considered a voluntary supererogatory act-not obligatory. Solnica et al may express a legitimate ethical viewpoint. However, it does not seem to represent the mainstream approach of what Jewish law would demand as obligatory from its practitioners.

Allocation of scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Jewish ethical perspective.

The novel COVID-19 pandemic has placed medical triage decision-making in the spotlight. As life-saving ventilators become scarce, clinicians are being forced to allocate scarce resources in even the wealthiest countries. The pervasiveness of air travel and high rate of transmission has caused this pandemic to spread swiftly throughout the world. Ethical triage decisions are commonly based on the utilitarian approach of maximising total benefits and life expectancy. We present triage guidelines from Italy, USA and the UK as well as the Jewish ethical prospective on medical triage. The Jewish tradition also recognises the utilitarian approach but there is disagreement between the rabbis whether human discretion has any role in the allocation of scarce resources and triage decision-making.