Article Text
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.
- Abortion
- Moral and Religious Aspects
- Religious Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
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.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Clinical ethics
- Commentary
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine
- Religion 's place at the table of ‘ secular ’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries
- On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar ’s ‘ Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine ’
- Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion
- Some principles of Islamic ethics as found in Harrisian philosophy
- The religious beliefs of students and the teaching of medical ethics: a comment on Brassington
- Aiming towards “ moral equilibrium ”: health care professionals ’ views on working within the morally contested field of antenatal screening
- Sources of bias in clinical ethics case deliberation
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- FIGO 's ethical recommendations on female sterilisation will do more harm than good: a commentary