Search Results Search Sort by RelevanceMost Recent Viewpoint Jan 2006 Is Prenatal Genetic Screening Unjustly Discriminatory? Jeff McMahan, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):50-52. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped1-0601. Viewpoint Jan 2006 The Uncertain Rationale for Prenatal Disability Screening David Wasserman, JD and Adrienne Asch, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):53-56. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped2-0601. Policy Forum May 2007 The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason Nicholas J. Kockler, MS, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(5):369-374. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2007.9.5.pfor2-0705. Policy Forum Mar 2013 Institutional Conscience and Access to Services: Can We Have Both? Cameron Flynn, JD and Robin Fretwell Wilson, JD Qualifying conscience protections for institutions with requirements that they minimize hardship caused to the patient would prevent religious institutions from acting as a choke point on the path to services. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(3):226-235. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.3.pfor1-1303.
Viewpoint Jan 2006 Is Prenatal Genetic Screening Unjustly Discriminatory? Jeff McMahan, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):50-52. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped1-0601.
Viewpoint Jan 2006 The Uncertain Rationale for Prenatal Disability Screening David Wasserman, JD and Adrienne Asch, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2006;8(1):53-56. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.1.oped2-0601.
Policy Forum May 2007 The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason Nicholas J. Kockler, MS, PhD Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(5):369-374. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2007.9.5.pfor2-0705.
Policy Forum Mar 2013 Institutional Conscience and Access to Services: Can We Have Both? Cameron Flynn, JD and Robin Fretwell Wilson, JD Qualifying conscience protections for institutions with requirements that they minimize hardship caused to the patient would prevent religious institutions from acting as a choke point on the path to services. Virtual Mentor. 2013;15(3):226-235. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.3.pfor1-1303.