Respecting Rights Without Sanctioning Irrationality

Doctors are routinely discouraged from engaging in substantive religious discussions with patients, even when such discussions might help patients accept necessary treatment. Recent arguments by Dr. Lauren Notini and Prof. Justin Oakley attempt to justify this prohibition on two grounds: impracticality, and professional boundaries. I argue that while doctors are under no obligation to engage in such discussions, the blanket moral prohibition proposed by Notini and Oakley is unjustified. I offer a critique of their arguments and defend an alternative, individualistic ethical framework. This framework recognises that such discussions may be morally permissible when (1) practical, (2) mutually agreed upon, and (3) free of deception or coercion.