Vicarious liability and non delegable duty of Hospitals

     Vicarious liability and non delegable duty of Hospitals

                                              Dr KS Dhillon LLM

What is vicarious liability?

Hospitals can be legally liable to patients for injury under two circumstances. The first is where the injury is due to negligence of the hospital itself and is referred to as corporate negligence. The second is based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. Corporate negligence can be due to using defective equipment, negligence in the selection or retention of incompetent personnel, or the failure to properly maintain the buildings and grounds.

The second type of liability is called vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is where A is held responsible for the wrongful or negligent act of B committed against C when A himself had no part in B's conduct.

The doctrine of respondeat superior simply means, "let the master answer" and it makes the master liable for the wrongs committed by his servant while furthering the master's business. The applicability of the respondeat superior will depend on the type of employment relationship which exists between the hospital and the person responsible for causing injury to the patient. The employment relationship can be that of either master-servant, principal-agent, or employer- independent contractor.
Hospitals in Malaysia are government owned or are privately owned for profit institutions or are privately owned by non-profit organizations.

Employment relationship

As a matter of law an employment relationship may be that of ‘principal-agent, master-servant, or employer-independent contractor’[1]. The respondeat superior doctrine holds that the principal/master is liable for third party injuries caused by his agent or servant. Employers are hence vicariously liable for the torts of their employees which were committed during the course of the employment.

Two conditions must be fulfilled for such liability to arise, first there has to be a particular relationship between the employer and his/her employee. Secondly the tort committed must be committed in the course of the employment [2].

The finding of liability is not based on any improper action by the employer. The employer liability exists irrespective of the employer having acted reasonably in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining the employee [3]. The underlying premise of the doctrine of respondeat superior is that in the conduct of any business, any tort committed should be borne by that enterprise as a cost of doing business (4).

There appears to be no precise unanimity between judges (or between academics) about the rationale of the doctrine of vicarious liability.

The main justifications usually advanced by the judges in case law appears to be that of loss distribution and enterprise liability [5].
The basis of loss distribution is that the loss is passed on to the 2nd defendant (D2) who is more able to bear the loss as compared to the 1st defendant (D1). D2 is usually insured against such loss and is often able to pass on the cost to buyers or users of the services provided by D2.

Enterprise liability justifications on the other hand are based on the idea that when there are benefits in an enterprise there has to be some losses and the enterprise should be able to absorb those losses.

Vicarious Liability in Medical Care

Tortious act of an employee of a hospital or a doctor can make the hospital or the doctor vicariously liable for a claim. The employees could include physicians, nurses, laboratory staff, imaging and other technicians, clinic nurse assistants, administrative and other staff members. Since the employer can be held vicariously liable, it is crucial for the employer to make sure that the employees are well qualified and have the right credentials to perform their job.

An employer-employee relationship exists when the employer has the
 “right of control” over the employee [3]. Right of control means the employer has the ability to control the way in which the employee performs his/her job.

Contract for services (independent contractor).

An independent contractor is defined as "one who exercises some independent calling, occupation, or employment, in the course of which he undertakes, supplying his own materials, servants, and equipment, to accomplish a certain result, not being subject while doing so to the direction and control of his employer, but being responsible to his employer for the end to be achieved, and not for the means by which he accomplished it.''[6].

The basic principle of vicarious liability has been that whilst one may be vicariously liable for wrong committed by an employee, one is not vicariously liable for the wrongs committed by an independent contractor [7]. The agreement between the two parties determines  whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. When the agreement is a contract of service than the relationship is that of an employer and employee and when the contract is for services, than the person providing the services is an independent contractor.

Unlike in employer-employee relationship where the employer has the right of control, in an employer-independent contractor relationship no right of control exists. Hence the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply when the person employed is an independent contractor. Independent contractors usually have independent businesses, and are hired solely to perform specific tasks for which they are paid “by the job” (8). Independent contractors usually have “sole control over the means and methods of the work to be accomplished” (3).

“Sole control” is only one of the factors which determine the type of relationship and it is not determinative of whether a person is an employee or independent contractor. This is especially true in the medical setting where employed doctors, residents and medical faculty, exercise independent medical judgment in treating their patients (9).

In some situations the employment contract specifically states that the hired party is an independent contractor and in such situations the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply. In some situations the contract may show an employer and “independent contractor” relationship but in reality
the contract's characterization of the relationship maybe a mere sham to avoid  the employer’s liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior (10).

Under certain circumstances even when an employer hires an independent contractor, the employer can be held responsible for the tortious conduct of the independent contractor. This has been variously referred to as ostensible agency, agency by estoppel, apparent agency, and also apparent authority (11).

The basis for imposing such liability on the employer of an independent contractor is that the employer has done something to give the impression or led the 3rd party to believe that the independent contractor is an employee [11].

Vicarious Liability in Malaysia

In Malaysia all doctors and paramedical staff working in public health institutions are employees of the government. Hence there is an employer and employee relationship which would make the government vicariously liable for any tort committed by the doctors and other paramedical staff.
Section 34B of the Medical Act 1971 also gives protection to non government practitioners while attending to patients at the request of or by arrangement with the Government. The Act makes the government vicariously liable for any tort committed by these practitioners in line of their duty.
The owners and operators of private hospitals are also vicariously liable for the negligence of doctors and paramedical staff employed by them and are practicing at their facilities. These employees are paid a salary and the hospital has control over the type of work they do and the hours they work at the facility. This element of control establishes their employer-employee relationship where the doctrine of respondeat superior applies. Despite the vicarious liability of the employer, the doctor nevertheless remains primarily liable for his/her actions. The existence of an impaired practitioner at the private health care facility will also make the party in charge of the facility vicariously liable for any tort committed by the impaired practitioner.

The basic principle of vicarious liability is that whilst one may be vicariously liable for an employee’s wrong, one is not vicariously liable for the wrongs of an independent contractor.
The definition of an independent contractor has been a problem. One of the most comprehensive definition enunciated in 1923 is one which says that an independent contractor is "one who exercises some independent calling, occupation, or employment, in the course of which he undertakes, supplying his own materials, servants, and equipment, to accomplish a certain result, not being subject while doing so to the direction and control of his employer, but being responsible to his employer for the end to be achieved, and not for the means by which he accomplished
it.''[6].

Although specialists working in private hospitals in Malaysia are labelled as independent contractors in their contract with the hospital, the doctors do not have their own set up for the treatment, management and care of the patients. They are not at liberty to charge what they like. The charges are controlled by the hospital. The hospital controls the flow of patients to the doctors. The doctors do not own the clinic where they work. The staff working in the clinic are employees of the hospital. They do not own any material used and they do not hire any staff who are working with them in the hospital. Hence the specialist do not fit the definition of independent contractors. Therefore specialist working in private hospitals are neither employees nor independent contractors. The hospitals, therefore, cannot be held vicarious liable for torts committed by the specialists.

The boundaries of vicarious liability have over time been expanded by court decisions to embrace tortfeasors who are not employees of the defendant, but stand in a relationship which is sufficiently similar to employment [12].

The Courts in Malaysia have adapted the doctrine of non-delegable duty of care as expounded in Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and others [2014] AC 537, when dealing with torts committed by specialists in private hospitals [13].

In Malaysia, the concept of a non-delegable duty was first applied in Datuk Bandar Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur v Ong Kok Peng & Anor [1993] 2 MLJ 234 in the context of extra-hazardous operations. The Supreme Court than explained that a non-delegable duty of care requires the defendant who engages a contractor to make sure  that duty of care is exercised by the contractor, otherwise he would be equally liable as the contractor. In the law of negligence there is positive duty to protect another from harm. Whenever there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, there is a positive duty to guard against harm caused by a third party. This is true for the relationship between the patient and the private health care facility.

Many have erroneously considered non-delegable duties as a kind of vicarious liability. This, however, is a misconception. The effect of these two doctrines is similar where liability is imposed on the defendant for the an injury caused to the plaintiff as a result of the negligence of another party (the tortfeasor).

The nature and basis of non-delegable duties and vicarious liability are distinct. In the former personal liability is imposed on the defendant for the breach of his own duty towards the plaintiff, regardless of who the defendant has engaged to perform the task. The latter on the other hand imposes vicarious liability on the defendant for the employee’s breach of duty towards the plaintiff [13]. Hence personal liability is imposed on all  private hospitals on the basis of non delegable whenever a tort is committed by the doctors on a patient who walks into the hospital.

Some doctors on the other hand are “truly independent contractors” and no liability exists in the form of vicarious liability or non delegable duty for the hospital, when such doctors commit a tort.  These are doctors who have their independent premises outside a private hospital, where they attract and treat patients but they use the operating facilities of the private hospital. In such situations the doctors medical services are not integrated into or conducted on behalf of the hospital and the plaintiff selects the surgeon to provide the medical services and the Hospital has no say as to what the doctor does in its premises. In these situations the liability for the Plaintiff’s injuries rests solely with the doctor [13].

References

1. Southwick SF. Vicarious Liability of Hospitals. Marq. L. Rev. 1960; Vol 44 (2): 153-182 .
2. Cooke, J. (2009). Law of Tort. (9thed.). England: Pearson Education Ltd. 
3. St Joseph Hosp v Wolff, 94 SW3d 513, 541–42 (Tex 2002); Baptist Mem'l Hosp Sys v Sampson, 969 SW2d 945, 947 (Tex 1998).
4. Wolff, 94 SW3d at 540.
5. Morgan P. Recasting vicarious liability. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2012; 71: 615-­650.
6. Mechen, Agency, p. 13, §20 (3rd ed. 1923).
7. D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989] A.C. 177, 208. C.f. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, pp. 948–9.
8. Limestone Products Distributor Inc v McNamara, 71 SW3d 308, 312 (Tex 2002).
9. Murk v Scheele, 120 SW3d 865, 866 (Tex 2003); Miers v Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, 2009 Tex App LEXIS 9818 *10–11 (Tex App—Waco) (Dec. 30, 2009).
10. Newspapers Inc v Love, 380 SW2d 582, 588–90 (Tex 1964).
11. Sampson (Tex 1998), 969 SW2d at 948 n2.
12. Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society [2012] UKSC 56, [2013] 1 All ER 670, [2013] 2 AC 1.
13. Soo Cheng Lin v Dr kok Choong Seng and Sunway medical Centre Berhad In The Federal Court of Malaysia (Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-58-08/2016(B).

What is Theodicy?

                             What is Theodicy?
                

                                                       Dr KS Dhillon

What is Theodicy?

Theodicy is a branch of theology and philosophy and the word theodicy is derived from the Greek words, theos means “god”; and dikē which means “justice”. It literally means “justifying God.” [1]. The term was first coined in 1710 by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his work entitled ‘Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Essay of theodicy about the benevolence of God, the free will of man and the origin of evil")’ [2]. Theodicy attempts to answer the question as to why a perfectly good, almighty, and all-knowing God would permit evil.
According to Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil” [3].

Types Of Theodicy

According to John Hick, the English philosopher and theologian, Christian theology has two main approaches to theodicy. The first comes from the work of St. Augustine (also known as Saint Augustine of Hippo), (354–430), and the second from that of St. Irenaeus (c. 120/140–c. 200/203). Saint Augustine’s approach has been much more influential, though John Hick believes that the ideas of Irenaeus are more in harmony with modern thought and likely to prove more fruitful.

The Augustinian believe emphasizes the importance of Adam and Eve’s sin and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. It sees all evil as a consequence of Adam's and Eve’s failure to obey the commandments of God. The evil can be moral where humans carry out wrongful acts or maybe natural as seen with diseases and natural disasters. In this Augustinian model, natural evil is a punishment for sins or the result of moral evil causing disturbance of the order of things. Earth’s ecology maybe disturbed as a result of human greed and exploitation by humans of the earth’s natural resources [1].

The Irenaean view, on the other hand, has an evolutionary perspective where Adam’s sin is seen as a lapse due to immaturity and weakness. The Fall of man from the Garden of Eden is not supposed to be a catastrophe for humans but a lesson from which humans can learn. The Irenaean view sees the world as a mixture of good and evil, where humans can grow and mature toward the perfection for which they were created by God [1].

Mark Scott has refuted John Hick's description of theodicy. Mark Scott believes that neither Augustine of Hippo nor Irenaeus of Lyons provides an appropriate explanation of Hick's theistic version of theodicy. According to Mark Scott, Origen of Alexandria, as a theologian among the Church Fathers who articulated a theory of apokatastasis (or universal reconciliation), provides a more direct theological comparison of universal salvation and theodicy. Neither Irenaeus nor Augustine endorsed a theology of universal salvation in any form [4].

The problem of evil

For theists the problem of evil lies in the existence of a contradiction in the following three statements:

• That God is omnipotent
• That God is good (or loving, or beneficent)
• That evil and suffering exist in the world

The question that arises is, how can an omnipotent and good God create such an evil world?
The problem of contradiction can be solved if one of the above statement can be shown to be false. Most traditionally received theistic theodicies try to reconcile those statements by arguing that one or another of the statements is false. Hence  there are three major types of traditional theodicies, the first  which denies or qualifies the omnipotence of God, second which denies or qualifies the goodness of God and the third which denys or qualifies the reality of evil [2].

These theodicies have been criticized some insightful thinkers. The first criticism is that these traditional theodicies are simply logical attempts to solve the contradictions without offering any real solution for the actual removal of evil. The evil is still there till today. Secondly any attempt to affirm or deny the omnipotence and goodness of God is rather simplistic and superficial. There is no means to further understand the true nature of God. Hence critic are attempting to find a solution on a different horizon.

Three major traditional theodicies

There are 3 major traditional theodicies which include:

• Finitism: God is not omnipotent
• Despotism: God is not fully good
• Evil is not real

Finitism: God is not omnipotent

The Finite God theodicy qualifies the omnipotence of God. It maintains that God is all-good (omnibenevolent) but not all-powerful (omnipotent). It says that the finite God cannot avoid evil. The finite God theodicy has various forms of dualism. Religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism came up with the cosmic dualism of God and Satan (the good and evil). Plato and Aristotle believed in metaphysical dualism where there are two co-eternal principles in conflict with each other; such as matter and form, good and evil or a conflict between God and the Devil [2].

Despotism: God is not fully good

Calvinism, a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin, believes in this type of theodicy. It presupposes the absolute sovereignty of God. It says that God is so sovereign that although he may be a good God in principle, he actually is not fully good. God is believed to be the active creator and instigator of all sin and evil, including the fall. Satan is believed to be God's puppet and satan has no power of his own. Nothing happens unless God wills it and hence there is no such thing as a problem of evil.

Maltheism also attributes evil to God. Hence there can be no such thing as evil because it is God’s will [2].

Evil is not real

Evil as "non-being"

The “non-being” theme of evil started with St. Augustine who regarded all being as good and hence referred to evil as non-being. St Augustine believed that the universe, including matter and its creator, God, are unambiguously good and therefore evil is a non-being. Evil is the privation, corruption, or perversion of good. Evil came about through the free action of otherwise good beings, angels and humans.

Sin consists of turning away from the higher to lower good of God. Sin is not choosing evil because there is no evil to choose. In Hinduism and Buddhism many believe that evil simply is an illusion. Many have argued that evil is not absolute but simply "less good" than good [2].

Aesthetic conception of evil

Augustine prescribed to the aesthetic conception of evil which says that evil is not real. In the universe there are higher and greater things as well as lower and lesser things. Lower beings are thus not evil but simply different and lesser goods. What appears to be evil is such because it is seen in isolation or a limited context but when seen in totality of the universe it is good because it is a necessary element in the good universe [2].

John Calvin ‘asserted that all events are part of God's righteous plan, and therefore although they may involve evil in themselves, they are intended by God for morally justified purposes’ [2].

The Book of Job, John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Kopf, and Kenneth Surin, unlike the three types of traditional theodicies: 1) finitism, 2) despotism, and 3) the position that denies the reality of evil, find no logical contradiction between evil and an omnipotent God and they shift the problem of evil to a different horizon. They do still believe that God is omnipotent and good and that evil really exists. They address the problem of evil by taking a path towards the eventual removal of evil and improving their  understanding of the true nature of God.

Islamic theodicy

During the 8th to the 10th centuries the Muʿtazilites worked to resolve the theological "problem of evil" and they tried to reconcile the justice of an all-powerful God with the reality of evil in the world. They worked within a framework of moral realism where humans can make moral judgements about divine acts. They believed that individuals have free will to commit evil and God is not responsible for the act. God's justice will reward or punish individuals in afterlife. They argued that the divine act of creation is good despite the existence of suffering [5].
After the demise of Mu'tazila school, their theodicy was adopted in the Zaydi and Twelver branches of Shia Islam.

The Ashʿarite school is the foremost theological school of Sunni Islam which established an orthodox dogmatic guideline based on clerical authority. It opposed the views of the Mu'tazili school because of the Mu'tazili school’s over-emphasis on reason. Ash'arites believe that God creates everything, including human actions, they, however, distinguish creation (khalq) from acquisition (kasb) of actions [6 ]. They believe that God gives man the power, ability, choice, and will to freely choose and perform any act.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was one of the most influential Muslim philosopher who analyzed theodicy from an ontological, neoplatonic standpoint. He believed that God created a good world and that evil is a quality of another entity, or its imperfection.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who represented the mainstream Sunni view disagreed with Ibn Sina's analysis and argued that Ibn Sina’s analysis merely sidesteps the real problem of evil, which is rooted in the human experience of suffering in this world that contains more pain than pleasure [5].
Ibn Taymiyya, a controversial medieval Sunni Muslim theologian, argued that, though God creates human acts, humans are ultimately responsible for their deeds as the agents of their acts. He believed that divine creation is good and that God creates all things for wise purposes and apparent evil is in actuality good in view of its purpose, and that pure evil does not exist [7].

Jewish anti-theodicy

Zachary Braiterman, a Jewish theologian in 1998 coined the term anti-theodicy. He used the term anti-theodicy in his book ‘(God) After Auschwitz’ to describe the jews both in the biblical and post-Holocaust context who refused to connect God with evil or suffering, as well their refusal to justify God. Anti-theodicy is the opposite of theodicy and it places full blame for all experience of evil onto God.  Anti-theodicy rejects the idea that there is a meaningful relationship between God and evil or that God could be justified for the experience of evil [8].

Christian alternatives to theodicy

There have been several Christian writers who opposed theodicies. Todd Billings believed that constructing theodicies is a “destructive practice” [9]. Nick Trakakis holds the view that ‘the way of thinking about God and evil enshrined in theodical discourse can only add to the world’s evils, not remove or illuminate them’[10].

Some theologians have suggested that reflecting on tragedy is a better response to evil than to advocate theodicy [11]. Wendy Farley believes that theodicy’s justification of evil should be replaced with “a desire for justice” and “anger and pity at suffering”[12]. Sarah K. Pinnock believes that we should be against any theodicy which tends to legitimize evil and suffering. We should encourage discussions which make people ponder about God, evil, and suffering[13].

Free will defense

A free will defence can be offered as an alternative to theodicy. The existence of God is not made logically impossible by the existence of evil. It does not need to be true or plausible but it has to be merely logically possible. Alvin Plantinga offers a free will defense by arguing that human free will is sufficient to explain the existence of evil, while at the same time maintaining that God's existence remains logically possible [14]. He argues that, no evidence has been provided that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically inconsistent, hence the existence of God and evil must be consistent. Some have argued that God’s existence is not consistent with free will logic since there is existence of non-human related evil such as droughts, tsunamis and malaria [15].

Cosmodicy and anthropodicy

Cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil while anthropodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of grave human evil [16].

Several theologians have grappled with the relationship between cosmodicy and theodicy. Johannes van der Ven has argued that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma [17]. Philip E. Devenish has proposed "a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts" [18].

 J. Matthew Ashley sums up the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy, thus:
‘In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy – justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes’ [19].

Essential kenosis

Essential kenosis is one version of open and relational theology which was first proposed by Thomas Jay Oord when he said that “God is Essentially Kenotic”. It also known as  "open theism". It allows one to affirm that God is almighty, but God, however, cannot prevent genuine evil. Because God loves us He gives us freedom to choose and God cannot override, withdraw, or fail to provide us with these choices. God therefore is not culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. God is not a dictator who mysteriously pulls the strings. God never controls others [20].
Gijsbert van den Brink, however, refutes any view which says God has restricted His power because of his love. This according to him creates a "metaphysical dualism", which would not reduce God's responsibility for evil because God could have prevented evil by not restricting himself [21].

Conclusion

The question, ‘if God is all powerful, why must evil and suffering exist in the the world?’ remains unanswered. We have evil, suffering, pain, illness and death, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc that ravage the earth, despite the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and loving God. The holiest of the holy are not spared the pain, suffering and misery. Why doesn't God do anything about it? The most common answers to the question are that God’s ways are “mysterious” or that God has an overarching plan that we cannot know. However these answers remain far from convincing or satisfactory.

References

1. Encyclopedia Britannica at https://www.britannica.com/topic/theodicy-theology. Accessed on 29/8/18.
2. New World Encyclopedia at  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Theodicy. Accessed on 30/8/18.
3. Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
4. Scott, Mark (2012). Origen and the Problem of Evil, Oxford University Press.
5. Ayman Shihadeh (2005). "Suffering". In Josef W. Meri. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 772.
6. Roy Jackson. What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. pp. 32–33.
7. Hoover, Jon (2014). "Ḥanbalī Theology". In Sabine Schmidtke. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 642.
8. Gibbs, Robert; Wolfson, Elliot (2002). Suffering religion. Psychology Press. Pg 38.
9. Billings, Todd (2000) "Theodicy as a "Lived Question:" Moving Beyond a Theoretical Approach to Theodicy," Journal for Christian Theological Research. 2000: Vol. 5 , Article 3.
10. Nick Trakakis, “Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?” at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11841-008-0063-6 accessed 5/9/1918.
11. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price, eds., A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Abingdon Press, 1992), s.v. “Tragedy.”
12. Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: a Contemporary Theodicy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) 12, 23.
13. Sarah Katherine Pinnock, Beyond Theodicy (SUNY Press, 2002), 135, 141.
14. McGrath, Alister (1995). The Blackwell encyclopedia of modern Christian thought. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-19896-3. Pg 193.
15. Bart D. Ehrman (13 October 2009). God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer. HarperCollins. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-06-174440-2.
16. Carsten Meiner, Kristin Veel, eds., The Cultural Life of Catastrophes and Crises (Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 243.
17. Johannes A. van der Ven, “Theodicy or cosmodicy: a false dilemma?”, Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 2, Number 1, 1989, pp. 5-27(23).
18. Devenish, Philip E. “Theodicy and Cosmodicy: The Contribution of Neoclassical Theism”, Journal of Empirical Theology 4 (1992): 5-23.
19. J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", Theological studies, 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870—902.
20. Oord, Thomas Jay (2015), The Uncontrolling Love of God. Intervarsity Academic. ISBN 978-0830840847. 
21. "van den Brink", Gijsbert (1993). Almighty God: A Study on the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos publishing House. pp. 263–73.