Article Text
Commentary
The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
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
- Concise argument
- Feature article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Responding to religious patients: why physicians have no business doing theology
- Doing theology in medical decision-making
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- Whither religion in medicine?
- Physicians’ duty to refrain from religious discourse: a response to critics
- Legitimacy in bioethics: challenging the orthodoxy
- Remaining ambiguities surrounding theological negotiation and spiritual care: reply to Greenblum and Hubbard
- Public reason’s private roles: legitimising disengagement from religious patients and managing physician trauma
- On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’
- Responding (appropriately) to religious patients: a response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ argument