Accommodating religion and belief in healthcare: Political threats, agonistic democracy and established religion
This paper considers what concept of accommodation is necessary to identify and address discrimination, disadvantages and disparities in such a way that the plurality of religious people with their beliefs, values and practices may be justly accommodated in healthcare. It evaluates threats to the po...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2023
|
| Dans: |
Bioethics
Année: 2023, Volume: 37, Numéro: 1, Pages: 15-27 |
| RelBib Classification: | AB Philosophie de la religion AD Sociologie des religions NCH Éthique médicale |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Secularity
B public reason B Religion B Conscience B Accommodation B clinical ethics |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | This paper considers what concept of accommodation is necessary to identify and address discrimination, disadvantages and disparities in such a way that the plurality of religious people with their beliefs, values and practices may be justly accommodated in healthcare. It evaluates threats to the possibility of such accommodation pertaining by considering what beliefs and practices might increase the risk of unjust discrimination against and disadvantage for religious people, whether as individuals or as groups; and the risk of disparities between the care provided to religious people. The claim is that there is an important cluster of risks that are political in kind and emergent within philosophical bioethics. While not amounting (yet) to a trend, they are sufficiently threatening to a just civic life for patients and healthcare staff as to warrant scrutiny. After an Introductory Section 1, Section 2 evaluates a criticism of ‘accommodation’ and the apparently additional health-related requirements that those of religious faith demand, when compared with other people. It does so by comparing Lori Beaman's idea of agonism with that of a distinct and somewhat complementary approach in Jonathan Chaplin's political philosophy, before examining the role of established religion in setting the conditions for the accommodation of religion and belief in healthcare. Section 3 examines risks to such accommodation by engaging critically with three health-related instantiations of political philosophy that differ radically from both Beaman and Chaplin. A concluding Section 4 focusses on appropriate modes of communicating about religious and other beliefs in healthcare. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Référence: | Kritik in "Religious accommodation, agonism, agnosticism in healthcare: A commentary on Joshua Hordern, ‘Accommodating religion and belief in healthcare: Political threats, agonistic democracy and established religion’ (2023)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13112 |