Article info
PDFCommentary
Responding (appropriately) to religious patients: a response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ argument
- Correspondence to Dr Nick Colgrove, Philosophy, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798-7151, USA; nick_colgrove{at}baylor.edu
Citation
Responding (appropriately) to religious patients: a response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ argument
Publication history
- Received July 3, 2019
- Accepted July 12, 2019
- First published August 1, 2019.
Online issue publication
October 25, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (1 August 2019).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Responding to religious patients: why physicians have no business doing theology
- Physicians’ duty to refrain from religious discourse: a response to critics
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- Whither religion in medicine?
- Doing theology in medical decision-making
- Public reason’s private roles: legitimising disengagement from religious patients and managing physician trauma
- The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
- Public deliberation and private choice in genetics and reproduction
- Preventing ethics conflicts and improving healthcare quality through system redesign
- Does the General Medical Council’s 2020 guidance on consent advance on its 2008 guidance?