Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Nigel Biggar has argued that religion ought to be given a seat at the negotiating table of medical ethics. I respond in broadly utilitarian terms, arguing that the flawed empirical basis, lack of rationality and non-universality inherent in religion disqualify it from ethical discourse. I conclude that while it would be unacceptable to attempt to debar religious individuals from the negotiating table, an exclusively secular approach is required for ethical decision making in medicine.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)867-869
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume41
Issue number11
Early online date19 Jun 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 22 Oct 2015

Fingerprint

Religion and Medicine
Ethical Theory
Negotiating
Religion
medicine
Medical Ethics
medical ethics
rationality
Decision Making
Medicine
decision making
discourse
lack
Utilitarianism

Cite this

@article{d9f3627ec5fe4f67ba401f9b865cd685,
title = "Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism: a response to Biggar",
abstract = "Nigel Biggar has argued that religion ought to be given a seat at the negotiating table of medical ethics. I respond in broadly utilitarian terms, arguing that the flawed empirical basis, lack of rationality and non-universality inherent in religion disqualify it from ethical discourse. I conclude that while it would be unacceptable to attempt to debar religious individuals from the negotiating table, an exclusively secular approach is required for ethical decision making in medicine.",
author = "Smith, {Kevin R.}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2015-102786",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "867--869",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism : a response to Biggar. / Smith, Kevin R.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 41, No. 11, 22.10.2015, p. 867-869.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Religion, secular medicine and utilitarianism

T2 - a response to Biggar

AU - Smith, Kevin R.

PY - 2015/10/22

Y1 - 2015/10/22

N2 - Nigel Biggar has argued that religion ought to be given a seat at the negotiating table of medical ethics. I respond in broadly utilitarian terms, arguing that the flawed empirical basis, lack of rationality and non-universality inherent in religion disqualify it from ethical discourse. I conclude that while it would be unacceptable to attempt to debar religious individuals from the negotiating table, an exclusively secular approach is required for ethical decision making in medicine.

AB - Nigel Biggar has argued that religion ought to be given a seat at the negotiating table of medical ethics. I respond in broadly utilitarian terms, arguing that the flawed empirical basis, lack of rationality and non-universality inherent in religion disqualify it from ethical discourse. I conclude that while it would be unacceptable to attempt to debar religious individuals from the negotiating table, an exclusively secular approach is required for ethical decision making in medicine.

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102786

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102786

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 41

SP - 867

EP - 869

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 11

ER -