Responding (appropriately) to religious patients: a response to Greenblum and Hubbard’s ‘Public Reason’ argument

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (11):716-717 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Jake Greenblum and Ryan K Hubbard argue that physicians, nurses, clinical ethicists and ethics committee members should not cite religious considerations when helping patients (or their proxies) make medical decisions. They provide two arguments for this position: The Public Reason Argument and the Fiduciary Argument. In this essay, I show that the Public Reason Argument fails. Greenblum and Hubbard may provide good reason to think that physicians should not invoke their own religious commitments as reasons for a particular medical decision. But they fail to show that it is wrong for physicians to cite the patient’s own religious commitments as reasons for a particular decision. As such, if Greenblum and Hubbard’s thesis is to survive, the Fiduciary Argument (or some unmentioned argument) will have to do the bulk of the work.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
COLRAT-7
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-05-24
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Foundations of Bioethics.Engelhardt, H. Tristham

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2019-08-01

Total views
31 ( #46,664 of 50,310 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #30,500 of 50,310 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.