Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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 …
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