Literature DB >> 31221768

Responding to religious patients: why physicians have no business doing theology.

Jake Greenblum1, Ryan K Hubbard2.   

Abstract

A survey of the recent literature suggests that physicians should engage religious patients on religious grounds when the patient cites religious considerations for a medical decision. We offer two arguments that physicians ought to avoid engaging patients in this manner. The first is the Public Reason Argument. We explain why physicians are relevantly akin to public officials. This suggests that it is not the physician's proper role to engage in religious deliberation. This is because the public character of a physician's role binds him/her to public reason, which precludes the use of religious considerations. The second argument is the Fiduciary Argument. We show that the patient-physician relationship is a fiduciary relationship, which suggests that the patient has the clinical expectation that physicians limit themselves to medical considerations. Since engaging in religious deliberations lies outside this set of considerations, such engagement undermines trust and therefore damages the patient-physician relationship. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  applied and professional ethics; clinical ethics; decision-making; moral and religious aspects

Year:  2019        PMID: 31221768     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105452

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  1 in total

1.  The Need to Adjust the Informed Consent for Jewish Patients for Treatments Involving Porcine Medical Constituents.

Authors:  Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2022-07-18
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.