Nigel Biggar has argued that religion ought to be given a seat at the negotiating table of medical ethics. I respond in broadly utilitarian terms, arguing that the flawed empirical basis, lack of rationality and non-universality inherent in religion disqualify it from ethical discourse. I conclude that while it would be unacceptable to attempt to debar religious individuals from the negotiating table, an exclusively secular approach is required for ethical decision making in medicine.
- Religious Ethics
- Philosophical Ethics
- Moral and Religious Aspects
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.
- Clinical ethics
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Religion's place at the table of ‘secular’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries
- Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine
- On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’
- The Italian reaction to the Giubilini and Minerva paper
- Does religion deserve a place in secular medicine?
- Doing good medical ethics: a Christian perspective
- In defence of academic freedom: bioethics journals under siege
- You shall bury him: burial, suicide and the development of Catholic law and theology
- Some principles of Islamic ethics as found in Harrisian philosophy
- After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?