A Naturalized Approach to Reconciling Religion and Medicine
Abram Brummett, M.A. (history and philosophy), Teaching Assistant,Saint Louis University
Religious belief is valuable to the human experience, capable of bringing hope, compassion, and purpose in times of medical crisis. However, opening the door to religion can serve to introduce any manner of bizarre and dangerous beliefs in a context where weighty moral decisions are regularly made. How then, can calls for a greater incorporation of religion with medicine provide an account for how to constrain the influence of religion that permits the benefits but prohibits the dangers? Religion in medicine becomes dangerous when parents use it to deny medically indicated treatment in pediatric care, when physicians use it to support the conscientious refusal of medical goods and services to the detriment of a patient’s health, or when it motivates attempts to influence policy in harmful ways. But what is meant by “dangerous,” “detriment,” and “harmful” must be couched within a broader context—there is no ametaphysical view of harm, especially where our controversial bioethical disagreements are concerned. I argue that the harm threshold we use to constrain the decisions of patients—including those decisions based on religious belief—should be understood within a naturalized metaphysic. A naturalized conception of harm prioritizes the tangible harms that manifest themselves in this world over the proposed supernatural harms that are claimed to manifest in a world beyond this one. Prioritizing naturalized harm is what we normally do, and should do, when navigating the relationship of religion and medicine. This is why we do not normally permit a parent to refuse a needed blood transfusion for their child. In such cases we are prioritizing the naturalized harm (death in this life) over the proposed supernatural harm (the sin of accepting blood and the threat of losing eternal salvation).
Religious belief is valuable to the human experience, capable of bringing hope, compassion, and purpose in times of medical crisis. However, opening the door to religion can serve to introduce any manner of bizarre and dangerous beliefs in a context where weighty moral decisions are regularly made. How then, can calls for a greater incorporation of religion with medicine provide an account for how to constrain the influence of religion that permits the benefits but prohibits the dangers? Religion in medicine becomes dangerous when parents use it to deny medically indicated treatment in pediatric care, when physicians use it to support the conscientious refusal of medical goods and services to the detriment of a patient’s health, or when it motivates attempts to influence policy in harmful ways. But what is meant by “dangerous,” “detriment,” and “harmful” must be couched within a broader context—there is no ametaphysical view of harm, especially where our controversial bioethical disagreements are concerned. I argue that the harm threshold we use to constrain the decisions of patients—including those decisions based on religious belief—should be understood within a naturalized metaphysic. A naturalized conception of harm prioritizes the tangible harms that manifest themselves in this world over the proposed supernatural harms that are claimed to manifest in a world beyond this one. Prioritizing naturalized harm is what we normally do, and should do, when navigating the relationship of religion and medicine. This is why we do not normally permit a parent to refuse a needed blood transfusion for their child. In such cases we are prioritizing the naturalized harm (death in this life) over the proposed supernatural harm (the sin of accepting blood and the threat of losing eternal salvation).