Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
  1. Robin Gill
  1. Applied Theology, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NZ, UK
  1. Correspondence to Emeritus Professor Robin Gill, Applied Theology, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NZ, UK; R.Gill{at}

Statistics from

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.

I should declare at the outset that I much enjoyed this thoughtful paper and personally agree with its overall stance. For the last 20 or more years I have been a member of various British and European bioethics committees—typically appointed to them because I am a theologian—and, within them, I have tried assiduously to adhere to public reason arguments.

However, I do so, not out of a sense of moral obligation, but because I regard public reasoning to be more appropriate and inclusive on these committees than specifically religious reasoning. This is my main point of difference with this otherwise admirable paper.

Although towards the end of their paper the two authors do admit to rare exceptions, it does seem that there is a deontological basis to their Public Reason Argument. They state explicitly that ‘physicians have a moral duty to avoid engaging substantive religious considerations when helping patients or surrogates reach a medical decision’. For them non-sectarian public reasoning is ‘in keeping with the spirit …

View Full Text


  • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles