Article Text
PDFCommentary
Physicians’ duty to refrain from religious discourse: a response to critics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @RyanKHubbard
Contributors Both authors contributed substantially and equally to the content, arguments and organisation of the paper.
Funding The authors have 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
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
- Commentary
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’s private roles: legitimising disengagement from religious patients and managing physician trauma
- Responding (appropriately) to religious patients: a response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ argument
- Public reason and the limited right to conscientious objection: a response to Magelssen
- Whither religion in medicine?
- The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
- Remaining ambiguities surrounding theological negotiation and spiritual care: reply to Greenblum and Hubbard
- Pharmacist conscience clauses and access to oral contraceptives
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine