ArticleJournal of religion and health2026
Defining Moral Injury: A Natural Scaffold.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remaining Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Spiritual and Psychiatric Reflections on Magnifica Humanitas.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Healing the Moral Self: Al-Ghazālī's Psychology of the Heart and Moral Injury, with Implications for Muslim Mental Health and Spiritual Care in Indonesia.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of moral injury (MI), while increasingly referenced across disciplines, remains under-theorised philosophically, with current definitions often relying on subjective intuitions of "what is right." This paper addresses a critical gap by interrogating the ethical foundations of MI and proposing a normative framework that resists conceptual drift. Drawing on natural law theory with its roots in natural justice, I argue that the developing construct requires grounding in principles of intelligibility, universality, and objectivity-all criteria essential for any robust ethical theory. Through a systematic conceptual analysis, I delineate the dynamic interplay between ethics, moral conscience, and behaviour, demonstrating how natural law thinking can safeguard the construct from moral relativism and ideological annexation. This approach not only strengthens definitional clarity but also enhances interdisciplinary applicability, offering a philosophically rigorous foundation for future research and practice. By anchoring MI within an enduring ethical tradition, the paper advances its theoretical development and positions it as a concept of significant interdisciplinary and societal relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.