Article Text
Clinical ethics
Response
Religious red herrings
Abstract
Brierley et al take big polarised political debates deep into the context of paediatric intensive care. They are concerned that ‘deeply held belief in religion leads to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care’. However, it can be argued that they make a mistake in categorising this as a problem derived from religion, religious belief or the depth of religious conviction. Religion here is a red herring.
- Cloning
- virtue theory and bioethics
- resource allocation/priority setting
- artificial reproduction
- biotechnology
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children?
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- The role of religious beliefs in ethics committee consultations for conflict over life-sustaining treatment
- Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine
- The effect of religion on the perception of health states among adults in the United Arab Emirates: a qualitative study
- The fox and the grapes: an Anglo-Irish perspective on conscientious objection to the supply of emergency hormonal contraception without prescription
- Assessing the ethical weight of cultural, religious and spiritual claims in the clinical context
- The role of the church in developing the law
- Religion influencing medical decisions made for children
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality