<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Religious Preferences and the Best Interests of the Child</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/08/16/religious-preferences-and-the-best-interests-of-the-child/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/08/16/religious-preferences-and-the-best-interests-of-the-child/</link>
	<description>Journal of Medical Ethics blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:49:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Hain</title>
		<link>http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/08/16/religious-preferences-and-the-best-interests-of-the-child/#comment-4529</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Hain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2012 04:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/?p=1933#comment-4529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brierley and Petros make some important points, but this is not mainly about religion; it is about how medical ethics can accommodate human irrationality.  Not all that is religious is irrational, and certainly not all that is irrational is religious. In the real world addressed by medical ethics, people believe all sorts of illogical things. The question is whether ethics should ignore such irrationality or find some way to accommodate it.  Brierley and Petros are plainly right that, when it poses a threat to the welfare of the child, parents&#039; irrationality cannot be accommodated. They are wrong if they suggest that religious irrationality is different in that respect from any other sort.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brierley and Petros make some important points, but this is not mainly about religion; it is about how medical ethics can accommodate human irrationality.  Not all that is religious is irrational, and certainly not all that is irrational is religious. In the real world addressed by medical ethics, people believe all sorts of illogical things. The question is whether ethics should ignore such irrationality or find some way to accommodate it.  Brierley and Petros are plainly right that, when it poses a threat to the welfare of the child, parents&#8217; irrationality cannot be accommodated. They are wrong if they suggest that religious irrationality is different in that respect from any other sort.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
