Abstract
In discussing bioethics and the formulation of neuroethics, the question has arisen as to whether secular humanism should be the sole philosophical guiding light, to the exclusion of any discussion (or even mention) of religious morality, in professional medical ethics. In addition, the question has arisen as to whether freedom or censorship should be part of medical (and neuroscience) journalism. Should independent medical journals abstain from discussing certain issues, or should only the major medical journals — i.e., the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) or Lancet — be heard, speaking with one “consensual,” authoritative voice? This issue is particularly important in controversial topics impacting medical politics — e.g., public health policy, socio-economics, bioethics, and the so-called redistributive justice in health care. Should all sides be heard when those controversial topics are discussed or only a consensual (monolithic) side? This historical review article discusses those issues and opts for freedom in medical and surgical practice as well as freedom in medical journalism, particularly in opinion pieces such as editorials, commentaries, or letters to the editor, as long as they relate to medicine and, in our special case, to neuroscience and neurosurgery. After answering those questions, and in response to a critical letter to the editor, this review article then expounds comprehensively on the historical and philosophical origins of ethics and religious morality. Necessarily, we discuss the Graeco-Roman legacy and the Judeo-Christian inheritance in the development of ethics and religious morality in Western civilization and their impact on moral conduct in general and on medical and neuroscience ethics in particular.
Highlights
Quick Response Code: Recently, an important letter to the editor[48] was published in Surgical Neurology International (SNI) in response to my editorial, “The road being paved to neuroethics: A path leading to bioethics or to neuroscience medical ethics?”[22] In that article, I made several statements regarding ethics, morality, and religion, that to the letter writer seemed either inappropriate or outright incorrect
This discussion is important because it may help clarify the speed and direction neurosurgery and neuroscience should take down the ethics road being paved, a road that leads either to the new secular humanism of bioethics or to continuing the traditional paradigm of medical ethics.[22]
In the critical letter’s concluding second paragraph, Dr Zrinzo sums up his objections in the manner of secular humanism[7,18] as follows: The editorial in question repeatedly suggests that morals are derived from religious principles
Summary
Religious morality (and secular humanism) in Western civilization as precursors to medical ethics: A historic perspective. Clinical Professor of Neurosurgery (ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.), Mercer University School of Medicine; President, www.haciendapub.com, Macon, Georgia, USA. This article may be cited as: Faria MA. Available FREE in open access from: http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/text.asp?2015/6/1/105/158894
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have