Medicine, ethics and religion: rational or irrational?
Savulescu maintains that our paper, which encourages clinicians to honour requests for "inappropriate treatment" is prejudicial to his atheistic beliefs, and therefore wrong. In this paper we clarify and expand on our ideas, and respond to his assertion that medicine, ethics and atheism are objective, rational and true, while religion is irrational and false.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- Jehovah's Witnesses and autonomy: honouring the refusal of blood transfusions
- Epistemic injustice, children and mental illness
- Religion's place at the table of ‘secular’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- Rationality, religion and refusal of treatment in an ambulance revisited
- Decolonising ideas of healing in medical education
- Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar
- Assessing the ethical weight of cultural, religious and spiritual claims in the clinical context
- Cultural sensitivity in paediatrics
- Ethical reflections on the thoughts and lives of Kurosawa's doctors