Abstract

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.