You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Professionalism eliminates religion as a proper tool for doctors rendering advice to patients
  1. Udo Schuklenk
  1. Department of Philosophy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Udo Schuklenk, Department of Philosophy, Watson Hall 309, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada; udo.schuklenk{at}pm.me

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105703

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Religious considerations and language do not typically belong in the professional advice rendered by a doctor to a patient. Among the rationales mounted by Greenblum and Hubbard in support of that conclusion is that religious considerations and language are incompatible with the role of doctors as public officials.1 Much as I agree with their conclusion, I take issue with this particular aspect of their analysis. It seems based on a mischaracterisation of what societal role doctors fulfil, qua doctors. What obliges doctors to communicate by means of content that is expressed in public reason-based language is not that they are public officials. Doctors as doctors are not necessarily public officials.

    Rather, doctors have such obligations, because they are professionals. Unlike public officials doctors are part of a profession that is to a significant extent self-governing. This holds true for all professions. The …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors US is the sole author of the document.

    • 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