{"id":2883,"date":"2015-02-26T18:49:17","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T17:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/?p=2883"},"modified":"2015-10-01T02:40:44","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T01:40:44","slug":"does-religion-deserve-a-place-in-secular-medicine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/2015\/02\/26\/does-religion-deserve-a-place-in-secular-medicine\/","title":{"rendered":"Does Religion Deserve a Place in Secular Medicine?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Brian D. Earp<\/a><\/p>\n

The latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics<\/em><\/a> is out, and in it, Professor Nigel Biggar\u2014an Oxford theologian\u2014argues that \u201creligion\u201d should have a place in secular medicine (click here<\/a> for a link to the article).<\/p>\n

Some people will feel a shiver go down their spines\u2014and not only the non-religious. After all, different religions require different things, and sometimes they come to opposite conclusions. So whose<\/em> religion, exactly, does Professor Biggar have in mind, and what kind of \u201cplace\u201d is he trying to make a case for?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

When one thinks of stories\u00a0like the 2012 death of a woman in Ireland due to septicemia after being denied an abortion (\u201cThis is a Catholic country,\u201d she was reportedly told<\/a> by medical staff), one is reminded of the ways in which some<\/em> people\u2019s religious beliefs can have profound (even fatal) consequences for others who may not share those same beliefs. As Mother Jones<\/em> reported in 2013<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A growing number of patients are finding their health care options governed by [religious] guidelines as Catholic hospitals, long major players in the health care market, have been on a merger streak, acquiring everything from local hospital systems to medical practices, nursing homes, and health insurance plans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the U.S. context, at least, Catholic hospitals are required to follow health care directives<\/a> handed down by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops<\/a>\u2014a group described as \u201ccelibate older men who have become increasingly conservative over the past few decades\u201d by the author of the Mother Jones<\/em> piece.<\/p>\n

What are the implications? What does this mean<\/em>\u2014in other words\u2014for individuals who, say, reject Catholic doctrine on principle, but don\u2019t have feasible alternatives for personal healthcare as a result of the \u201cmerger streak\u201d described above? Stephanie Mencimer lays out<\/a> some of the concrete effects: (1) abortion services disappear, (2) doctors may be prohibited from prescribing birth control (and hospital pharmacies won’t sell it), (3) emergency contraception may be denied to rape victims, (4) tubal ligations and vasectomies are prohibited, (5) patients’ requests to be removed from feedings tubes or life support — as expressed in living wills — may be ignored, (6) hospitals are permitted to discriminate against gays and lesbians, whether they are employees or patients … and so on.<\/p>\n

So there seems to be some cause for concern. At least, there is if you don\u2019t agree with the moral worldview of the \u201ccelibate older men\u201d we\u2019ve been talking about. But when you actually read the article<\/a> by Professor Biggar\u2014with apologies to non-subscribers, as it is behind a paywall\u2014you may\u00a0find yourself\u00a0detecting a certain hint of a bait-and-switch. This is because (or so I\u2019ll suggest) the word \u201creligion\u201d in the title of Professor Biggar\u2019s piece ends up meaning something not so very different from \u201cphilosophy\u201d\u2014which is a lot less controversial.<\/p>\n

Here is some evidence for my view:<\/p>\n

First, Biggar begins by ruling out the \u201cirrational\u201d parts of religion (since he doesn\u2019t see irrationality as being uniquely the province of religions, and he thinks we should stay away from it whatever its source, so long as our goal is to make a convincing argument), as well as all appeals to authority, \u201cwhether to that of the Bible or of the Pope or of the Qur\u2019an\u201d (p. 230).<\/p>\n

Then, he goes on to suggest that religious people cannot just force their views on others, but instead must attempt to \u201cpersuade\u201d them using, well, all the ordinary tools of philosophical debate<\/strong>. So, to illustrate, he says that:<\/p>\n

If I, a religious believer, am going to succeed in persuading you, an agnostic or atheist or different kind of religious believer, of my moral view [about abortion, as he discusses in this passage], then I will have to show you that your view has weaknesses or problems, that these cannot be adequately repaired in your terms, but that they can be repaired in mine. (p. 230)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ok \u2026 but so what? How is that different from just doing philosophy? You can imagine a slight adjustment to the phrasing:<\/p>\n

If I, a utilitarian, am going to succeed in persuading you, a Kantian, or Rawlsian, or different kind of moral philosopher, of my moral view, then I will have to show you that your view has weaknesses or problems, that these cannot be adequately repaired in your terms, but that they can be repaired in mine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You get the idea: other moral frameworks\u00a0could be slotted right in. The point is, we all<\/em> have certain meta-ethical commitments (whether explicit or implicit)\u2014religious or otherwise\u2014and we all <\/em>have to try to convince those we disagree with that our meta-ethical commitments make more sense than theirs do, or do a better job of explaining a shared moral intuition, or whatever. That\u2019s just \u201cdoing philosophy.\u201d<\/p>\n

So what does religion<\/em>, specifically, have to do with Biggar\u2019s argument? His answer is this:<\/p>\n

Religion has the following to do with it. As a Christian monotheist, I esteem the lives of human individuals very highly: all individuals are equally the creatures of one divine Father, and each has a special vocation in their time and place. As a consequence, even if I believe that it can be morally right for one individual to take another’s life, I think that killing is a morally and socially hazardous business and that it should never be done casually and without cogent reason. (p. 230)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019m not sure that answers the question. After all, any number of non-religious philosophies or moral worldviews could end up reaching the (kind of obvious) conclusion that \u201ckilling \u2026 should never be done casually and without cogent reason\u201d without having to avail themselves of such peculiar premises as there being\u00a0\u201cdivine Fathers\u201d (of which we are all \u201cequally the creatures,\u201d whatever that means), or the like.<\/p>\n

In other words, if P entails Q, and Q is true (here, “Q” means: we shouldn’t\u00a0kill people willy nilly without good reason), we have little reason to think that P (Christianity?) is true, too \u2013 simply on account of the fact that A, B, C, and D (and all the rest of the alphabet for that matter) could just as well entail Q, and one of those <\/em>might be the one that\u2019s correct. Biggar actually concedes this point\u00a0a little later on.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, it is about as persuasive to say \u201cAs a Christian monotheist\u201d before delivering a moral argument as it is to say \u201cAs a Marxist\u201d (or whatever else you please): what matters is whether your premises are reasonable, and whether your conclusions follow from your premises. Whether your premises are<\/em> reasonable is, yes, the million-dollar question\u2014and to convince me, you\u2019ll have to do some meta-ethics. But that doesn\u2019t have anything to do specifically with religion.<\/p>\n

As you might expect, Biggar does have some additional arguments up his sleeve, and his paper goes on for a while longer. Nevertheless, I still didn\u2019t get the sense that \u201creligion\u201d means anything different from \u201cphilosophy\u201d by the end of it\u2014but perhaps you\u2019ll have a different impression. In fact,\u00a0I\u2019m reminded of Sam Harris\u2019s recent attempt to argue that \u201cscience can determine human values,\u201d where by \u201cscience\u201d he apparently means \u201cmoral philosophy plus facts\u201d (as I argue\u00a0in this\u00a0forthcoming paper<\/a>).<\/p>\n

When you grab your reader’s attention\u00a0by saying “religion” (in Biggar’s case) or “science” (in Harris’s case) — and all you really mean is “moral philosophy,” your reader\u00a0could be forgiven for feeling a little bit misled.<\/p>\n

Further reading<\/strong><\/p>\n

Biggar, N. (2015). Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine.\u00a0Journal of Medical Ethics,\u00a0<\/em>41: 229-233. Available at\u00a0http:\/\/jme.bmj.com\/content\/41\/3\/229.full<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Earp, B. D. (in press). Science cannot determine human values. Think: A Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy<\/em>, in press. Available at https:\/\/www.academia.edu\/10290501\/Science_cannot_determine_human_values<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mencimer, S. (2013). Do bishops run your hospital? Mother Jones<\/em>. Available at http:\/\/www.motherjones.com\/politics\/2013\/10\/catholic-hospitals-bishops-contraception-abortion-health-care<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Quinn, B. (2012, November 13). Scandal in Ireland as woman dies in Galway ‘after being denied abortion.\u2019 The Guardian<\/em>. Available at http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2012\/nov\/14\/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

About the author:\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Brian D. Earp is a researcher in science and ethics at the University of Oxford, and an incoming Associate Editor\u00a0at the<\/em> Journal of Medical Ethics. He blogs regularly at the Practical Ethics blog<\/a> hosted by the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, and will now be contributing a monthly blog here at the JME Blog as well. Follow Brian on Twitter<\/a> at @briandavidearp.<\/em><\/p>\n

* Note that this entry is being cross-posted at the\u00a0Practical Ethics<\/em> blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Brian D. Earp The latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics is out, and in it, Professor Nigel Biggar\u2014an Oxford theologian\u2014argues that \u201creligion\u201d should have a place in secular medicine (click here for a link to the article). Some people will feel a shiver go down their spines\u2014and not only the non-religious. After […]<\/p>\n

Read More…<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2884,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7933,968,1273,1542,443,591,328,475,2022,1],"tags":[367,395,7926,7945,137,7946,400,7925,615,699,304,7921,2069],"class_list":["post-2883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brian-earps-posts","category-clinical-ethics","category-ethics-education","category-in-the-journals","category-jme","category-life-and-death","category-philosophy","category-politics","category-reproduction","category-uncategorized","tag-abortion","tag-bioethics","tag-catholic","tag-clinical-ethics","tag-ethics","tag-ethics-education","tag-hospital","tag-journal-of-medical-ethics","tag-medical-ethics","tag-political-philosophy","tag-public-health","tag-religion","tag-science"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/files\/2015\/02\/biggar300.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2883\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2884"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stg-blogs.bmj.com\/medical-ethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}