Article info
PDFCommentary
Public reason’s private roles: legitimising disengagement from religious patients and managing physician trauma
- Correspondence to Ms Heather Patton Griffin, Theology, Medicine, and Culture Initiative, Duke Divinity School, Durham, NC 27708, USA; heather.griffin{at}duke.edu
Citation
Public reason’s private roles: legitimising disengagement from religious patients and managing physician trauma
Publication history
- Received August 22, 2019
- Accepted August 26, 2019
- First published September 11, 2019.
Online issue publication
October 25, 2019
Article Versions
- Previous version (25 October 2019).
- 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
- 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
- Physicians’ duty to refrain from religious discourse: a response to critics
- Doing theology in medical decision-making
- Whither religion in medicine?
- The importance of prudence within inclusive bioethics
- Rawlsian justice in healthcare: a response to Cox and Fritz
- Legitimacy in bioethics: challenging the orthodoxy
- Does the General Medical Council’s 2020 guidance on consent advance on its 2008 guidance?