Article info
PDFCommentary
The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
- Correspondence to Emeritus Professor Robin Gill, Applied Theology, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NZ, UK; R.Gill{at}kent.ac.uk
Citation
The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
Publication history
- Received August 7, 2019
- Accepted August 8, 2019
- First published September 7, 2019.
Online issue publication
October 25, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (25 October 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
- 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