Article Text
Abstract
As a science and practice transcending metaphysical and ethical disagreements, ‘secular’ medicine should not exist. ‘Secularity’ should be understood in an Augustinian sense, not a secularist one: not as a space that is universally rational because it is religion-free, but as a forum for the negotiation of rival reasonings. Religion deserves a place here, because it is not simply or uniquely irrational. However, in assuming his rightful place, the religious believer commits himself to eschewing sheer appeals to religious authorities, and to adopting reasonable means of persuasion. This can come quite naturally. For example, Christianity (theo)logically obliges liberal manners in negotiating ethical controversies in medicine. It also offers reasoned views of human being and ethics that bear upon medicine and are not universally held—for example, a humanist view of human dignity, the bounding of individual autonomy by social obligation, and a special concern for the weak.
- Religious Ethics
- Cultural Pluralism
- Moral and Religious Aspects
- Philosophical Ethics
- Political Philosophy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’
- Doing good medical ethics: a Christian perspective
- Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews
- Further clarity on cooperation and morality
- Religion's place at the table of ‘secular’ medical ethics: a response to the commentaries
- Senior doctors' opinions of rational suicide
- Medical expertise, existential suffering and ending life
- African vital force and the permissibility of euthanasia
- Does religion deserve a place in secular medicine?
- You shall bury him: burial, suicide and the development of Catholic law and theology