Abstract

Biggar (2015) argues that “religion” deserves a place in secular medicine. Against this view, I argue that religion (as most people would understand the term) should not play a role in shaping secular health policy, and I provide some illustrations of the potential dangers of the contrary. However, I also suggest that—upon closer inspection—Biggar seems to be using the term “religion” to refer to obliquely to what most people would call “moral philosophy.” On this less controversial interpretation, Biggar's proposal is inoffensive—but also unoriginal.