3/4 of doctors believe in God...

[Zero]

No, bust since I've never met any personally, or actually heard of any, it's simply not something I'm concerned about. Why should I be?

So... you have absolutely no problem with doctors or pharmacists who refuse to prescribe or dispense contraception because of their religious beliefs on the grounds that you've never seen or heard of them before?

That's not what I said. I'm trying to explain that since there will likely be no personal encounters between myself and someone like this in my life, I'm not worried about it. I've never even heard of it. I've never been attacked by pirates, either, and know nobody who has, so I'm not personally worried about pirates. That doesn't mean that it'd be fine with me if somebody was hijacked by pirates. Understand? There's a difference between being unworied and being unbothered. The kind of guy who lets his personal BS interfere with his ability to do his work pisses me off, but I'm not worried about meeting him myself.

[mr friendly guy]

Ah, the it "won't happen to me" line of thought, so I don't need to worry about it myself.

[Lord of the Abyss]

That's not what I said. I'm trying to explain that since there will likely be no personal encounters between myself and someone like this in my life, I'm not worried about it. I've never even heard of it. I've never been attacked by pirates, either, and know nobody who has, so I'm not personally worried about pirates. That doesn't mean that it'd be fine with me if somebody was hijacked by pirates. Understand? There's a difference between being unworied and being unbothered. The kind of guy who lets his personal BS interfere with his ability to do his work pisses me off, but I'm not worried about meeting him myself.

How can you know beforehand if a doctor is willing to violate his ethics for religion ? Do you think doctors like that come with warning labels?

Your attitude is both unethical and foolhardy.

[AniThyng]

Zero132132, we keep seeing stories where pharmasists deny women contraceptives in the name of religion; why would we believe better of doctors ?

As far as I can tell, the primary function of religion is the promotion and justification of evil and stupidity. When someone says they let religion guide their actions, I expect the results to be bad.

This is absurd. There a plenty of well meaning people who let religion guide them to be compassionate and caring individuals. Nevermind the fact that the article refers to vague "spiritualism" and vague definations of "religion" that do not necessarily means "fundie repression".

To suggest that enough of the doctors who said yes to that question must be intolerent assholes seems to be a conceit of the highest order. These people are exposed to death and suffering on a daily basis. And for a damn lot of people, religion or "spirituality" is a source of comfort, not evil and stupidity. [or maybe not, GPs probably don't see it all that often, unless the flu is "suffering"].

[Lord of the Abyss]

This is absurd. There a plenty of well meaning people who let religion guide them to be compassionate and caring individuals. Nevermind the fact that the article refers to vague "spiritualism" and vague definations of "religion" that do not necessarily means "fundie repression".

To suggest that enough of the doctors who said yes to that question must be intolerent assholes seems to be a conceit of the highest order. These people are exposed to death and suffering on a daily basis. And for a damn lot of people, religion or "spirituality" is a source of comfort, not evil and stupidity. [or maybe not, GPs probably don't see it all that often, unless the flu is "suffering"].

First, religion can't guide anyone toward compassion and caring; those are emotions, religion is a belief system. Religion may motivate people to fake compassion, but I seriously doubt that it can make a cold hearted bastard anything but a cold hearted bastard with a divine exuse for his actions.

Second, religion is irrational, so even if religiously motivated people mean well, they are more likely than others to screw up.

Third, the few studies I've heard of all show that the religious are less moral/ altruistic than atheists. After all, the religious are trying to make God happy, the rest of us don't matter.

Fourth, given the kind of power and trust they have, a single doctor can easily ruin the lives of/kill hundreds - every so often, you see a doctor or nurse do just that. Why should I be happy with an increased risk factor like religion?

Fifth, religion has a long history, continuing to the present day, of motivating people to violate any and all ethics in the name of God/Allah/Whatever.

And finally, why should I approve of something that comforts others while making it more likely they will harm me ?

[Zero]

Ah, the it "won't happen to me" line of thought, so I don't need to worry about it myself.

You act as if these kinds of doctors are common. I do see it as a problem, but my entire point is that to my knowledge, it isn't a big problem at all. All you guys are doing here is basically just spouting anti-religious nonsense, thinking that 75% of doctors believing in god means that 75% of them won't prescribe certain medications that they disagree with for religious reasons. Even if it were a bigger problem, there would still be doctors who would prescribe such medications, so the problem would be easy to get around anyways. As is, I don't see 75% of doctors refusing to do their jobs correctly, so the problem's smaller then that, even. You guys seem to fall into a big black/white thing whenever religion is concerned, always quick to point out how evil and suppressive religion is, when it simply isn't always that way, at least not as often as you guys make it out to.

How can you know beforehand if a doctor is willing to violate his ethics for religion ? Do you think doctors like that come with warning labels?

Your attitude is both unethical and foolhardy.

You won't know beforehand. Do you think murders and rapists come with warning lables either? Doesn't mean I'm afraid of every person. Am I being foolhardy by not suspecting every human being I meet of having some ill will towards me? And how is it unethical to say that if a problem is outside of your knowledge, you shouldn't worry about it? What horrific problems that you've never even heard of have you contributed to? My entire point here is that I haven't heard of doctors actively denying people medication on the basis of religion. Hell, this article is vague enough that it's almost useless as an indicator of that kind of thing. Can anybody actually post an article detailing a doctor who denied his patient medication on the basis of religion, or at least cite something?

[Duckie]

You act as if these kinds of doctors are common. I do see it as a problem, but my entire point is that to my knowledge, it isn't a big problem at all. All you guys are doing here is basically just spouting anti-religious nonsense, thinking that 75% of doctors believing in god means that 75% of them won't prescribe certain medications that they disagree with for religious reasons.

Where did he say that? It clearly states in the OP how many actually practice according to their religion.

Even if it were a bigger problem, there would still be doctors who would prescribe such medications, so the problem would be easy to get around anyways.

That's like saying "Not everyone is a murderer, so people killing eachother isn't a big problem."

As is, I don't see 75% of doctors refusing to do their jobs correctly, so the problem's smaller then that, even. You guys seem to fall into a big black/white thing whenever religion is concerned, always quick to point out how evil and suppressive religion is, when it simply isn't always that way, at least not as often as you guys make it out to.

A classic "I can't see it, so it doesn't exist." With a side of "And I'm persecuted! RAARRRR!!!"

You won't know beforehand. Do you think murders and rapists come with warning lables either? Doesn't mean I'm afraid of every person. Am I being foolhardy by not suspecting every human being I meet of having some ill will towards me?

Of course, because most murderers and rapists are people who are uniquely knowledgable cmopared to you who you put your trust in and cannot distinguish between religiously-motivated lie and medical advice. Wait, no, that was Doctors.

And how is it unethical to say that if a problem is outside of your knowledge, you shouldn't worry about it?

Britain and France: "Poland is outside our sphere of influence, therefore we cannot interfere with Germany."
Or perhaps closer to how: America: "We have no idea if terrorists will attack or when they will, so internal security doesn't matter."

What horrific problems that you've never even heard of have you contributed to? My entire point here is that I haven't heard of doctors actively denying people medication on the basis of religion.

We get it. You haven't heard of it, so it doesn't exist. Of course. And back in the real world, it's a problem for the people who don't walk around backwards blindfolded chanting "There are no bad Christians".

Hell, this article is vague enough that it's almost useless as an indicator of that kind of thing. Can anybody actually post an article detailing a doctor who denied his patient medication on the basis of religion, or at least cite something?

What is vague about practicing medicine based on Religion? That implies either withholding or recommending treatments that would not be normally emphasized for disregarded because of personal belief. It is obviously an indicator that religion influences medical practice, and thus is a problem because it deviates from the correct treatment options.

[Lord of the Abyss]

You act as if these kinds of doctors are common. I do see it as a problem, but my entire point is that to my knowledge, it isn't a big problem at all.

By the nature of the profession, a doctor is in the position to do a lot of harm; a few irresponsible doctors are too many.

Would you expect the President to be happy to learn that "only" a few of the Secret Service are traitors ? For some things, numbers don't matter much.

You won't know beforehand. Do you think murders and rapists come with warning lables either? Doesn't mean I'm afraid of every person.

"Doctor" is a privileged position, they should be held to higher standards than some random stranger. For a doctor to put faith above medical science is like an accountant refusing to believe in arithmitic - it uncuts the whole purpose of the profession.

If I knew which doctors felt that way, I would refuse to accept treatment from them unless the alternative is certain death - I'm probably more likely to get well on my own.

[AniThyng]

First, religion can't guide anyone toward compassion and caring; those are emotions, religion is a belief system. Religion may motivate people to fake compassion, but I seriously doubt that it can make a cold hearted bastard anything but a cold hearted bastard with a divine exuse for his actions.

A cold hearted bastard that doesn't want to have anything to do with religion will simply find something to justify his cold hearted bastard behavior that isn't religious. That's beside the point. It's not so much a "I am doing the right thing because God tells me so" as it is "I am doing the right thing because it is a way to live up to the noble ideals of my belief."

Second, religion is irrational, so even if religiously motivated people mean well, they are more likely than others to screw up.

It is possible to be entirely irrational without religion, or rather, be "atheist" and still be irrational. One need only look at the wealth of conspiricy theories and new age pseudo-scientific BS out there.

Third, the few studies I've heard of all show that the religious are less moral/ altruistic than atheists. After all, the religious are trying to make God happy, the rest of us don't matter.

The well meaning religious are trying to do what they feel is right by thier God and belief, and one of those tenets if very likely to be "care for your fellow human beings."

It need not be "All homosexuals must be whipped and sent to concentration camps for The Lord." A person with this kind of attitude would probably make the worst kind of atheist as well - the immoral selfish bastard with no sense of ethics other then whatever works for himself.

Fourth, given the kind of power and trust they have, a single doctor can easily ruin the lives of/kill hundreds - every so often, you see a doctor or nurse do just that. Why should I be happy with an increased risk factor like religion?

Fifth, religion has a long history, continuing to the present day, of motivating people to violate any and all ethics in the name of God/Allah/Whatever.

And finally, why should I approve of something that comforts others while making it more likely they will harm me ?

Unless I see conclusive evidence that "religion" is a risk factor for doctors' ability to practice medicine in general, I'll stick by reiterating that this dissaproval is also quite irrational.


[/quote]

[Duckie]

A cold hearted bastard that doesn't want to have anything to do with religion will simply find something to justify his cold hearted bastard behavior that isn't religious. That's beside the point. It's not so much a "I am doing the right thing because God tells me so" as it is "I am doing the right thing because it is a way to live up to the noble ideals of my belief."

It is possible to be entirely irrational without religion, or rather, be "atheist" and still be irrational. One need only look at the wealth of conspiricy theories and new age pseudo-scientific BS out there.

Red Herring. The fact that irreligious people can be irrational does not negate the fact that the religious can be harmfully irrational.

Third, the few studies I've heard of all show that the religious are less moral/ altruistic than atheists. After all, the religious are trying to make God happy, the rest of us don't matter.

And this helps when being a doctor... how?

The well meaning religious are trying to do what they feel is right by thier God and belief, and one of those tenets if very likely to be "care for your fellow human beings."

It need not be "All homosexuals must be whipped and sent to concentration camps for The Lord." A person with this kind of attitude would probably make the worst kind of atheist as well - the immoral selfish bastard with no sense of ethics other then whatever works for himself.

Let's spell it out for you:
1. Medicine is a science.
2. Scienctific medicine has established treatments and diagonosises.
3. Religion 'influences' those behaviors.
4. Something influenced is changed.
5. Thus, treatment and diagnosis is altered by their religion.
6. Altered treatments and diagnosises and prescriptions, because the most effective (and thus normally chosen) is against religious belief (if neither 'most effective' or 'against religious beliefs' is wrong, then the point is moot as it wouldn't be chosen in the first place or argued against) are thus less effective or do not work at all.
7. People, as a result, are harmed or die.

Unless I see conclusive evidence that "religion" is a risk factor for doctors' ability to practice medicine in general, I'll stick by reiterating that this dissaproval is also quite irrational.

Of course, because disapproving of potentially dangerous medical behavior is irrational. It just wouldn't be normal to want people to live the fullest life possible through ungodly things such as Birth Control, Abortions, or Blood Transfusions.

[Zero]

I have yet to see an article posted, or anything, even an anecdote, in which a doctor actually denies someone medical treatment based on his religious system. And religion affecting the way you practice doesn't mean that they try faith healings and refuse to prescribe medication. It could be something as simple as an occasional prayer for someone who isn't likely to live, or perhaps something even more mundane. I know that I've never heard of such things, and nobody here has yet demonstrated a case of a religious doctor causing harm, so the best assumption is that it's something simple and mundane, as opposed to something hugely harmfull.

I've seen it said above that the reasoning behind "If you don't see it, it isn't there" is wrong, but that's the same thing you say about God. I haven't seen doctors who fuck up medical practices because of religion, and I haven't seen God. What incentive do I have to believe in either?

[AniThyng]

What is it with this slippery slope descent into religious belief being against blood transfusion. I will concede the birth control/abortion angle.

The problem I have here is that a straight jump is being made to assuming the worst of religious doctors, and the conceit of assuming the best of non-religious doctors, which is all too obvious since we must resort to saying "religious doctors might be against the treatment of patients with BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS"

There are many areas of medicine that are not related to birth control and abortion where a religious doctor are not likely to be harmful. What about heart sugery? Diabetes? Emergency medicine? General Practitioners who must cover everything else besides birth control issues?

[Duckie]

What is it with this slippery slope descent into religious belief being against blood transfusion. I will concede the birth control/abortion angle.

The problem I have here is that a straight jump is being made to assuming the worst of religious doctors, and the conceit of assuming the best of non-religious doctors, which is all too obvious since we must resort to saying "religious doctors might be against the treatment of patients with BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS"

I was being purposefully slippery slope there. Of course doctors do not deny Blood Transfusions, but I was merely remarking that denial of Birth Control and Abortion by Evangeliacls makes as much sense as Jehovah's Witness denial of Blood Transfusion and thus illustrating its absurdity.

There are many areas of medicine that are not related to birth control and abortion where a religious doctor are not likely to be harmful. What about heart sugery? Diabetes? Emergency medicine? General Practitioners who must cover everything else besides birth control issues?

Red herring. The fact that a religious doctor cannot inflict harm in some professions does not mean he cannot inflict harm. Plus, some religious beliefs are different from just Birth Control, the most famous of which (at least in America) is the aforementioned Jehovah's Witness Blood Transfusion. Less common is the Scientological "No Psychiatry or Drugs of any sort" one.

[AniThyng]

What is it with this slippery slope descent into religious belief being against blood transfusion. I will concede the birth control/abortion angle.

The problem I have here is that a straight jump is being made to assuming the worst of religious doctors, and the conceit of assuming the best of non-religious doctors, which is all too obvious since we must resort to saying "religious doctors might be against the treatment of patients with BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS"

I was being purposefully slippery slope there. Of course doctors do not deny Blood Transfusions, but I was merely remarking that denial of Birth Control and Abortion by Evangeliacls makes as much sense as Jehovah's Witness denial of Blood Transfusion and thus illustrating its absurdity.

There are many areas of medicine that are not related to birth control and abortion where a religious doctor are not likely to be harmful. What about heart sugery? Diabetes? Emergency medicine? General Practitioners who must cover everything else besides birth control issues?

Red herring. The fact that a religious doctor cannot inflict harm in some professions does not mean he cannot inflict harm. Plus, some religious beliefs are different from just Birth Control, the most famous of which (at least in America) is the aforementioned Jehovah's Witness Blood Transfusion. Less common is the Scientological "No Psychiatry or Drugs of any sort" one.

And pray tell, how likely is it that this is the sort of religion that Joe Doctor is embracing, and not vanila moderate Christianity?

[Duckie]

And pray tell, how likely is it that this is the sort of religion that Joe Doctor is embracing, and not vanila moderate Christianity?

If it were vanilla moderate Christianity, there would be not need to change their practice to fit it.

I have yet to see an article posted, or anything, even an anecdote, in which a doctor actually denies someone medical treatment based on his religious system. And religion affecting the way you practice doesn't mean that they try faith healings and refuse to prescribe medication.

Are you dense? Do you understand what 'affect' means? If the treatment is affected by faith and changes from what is the best for the person because of religion, it is wrong.

It could be something as simple as an occasional prayer for someone who isn't likely to live, or perhaps something even more mundane. I know that I've never heard of such things, and nobody here has yet demonstrated a case of a religious doctor causing harm, so the best assumption is that it's something simple and mundane, as opposed to something hugely harmfull.

It could be, but "Religions affect my practice" does not mean "I use religion as a side dish". It means "The Core of my practice is altered by religion."

I've seen it said above that the reasoning behind "If you don't see it, it isn't there" is wrong, but that's the same thing you say about God. I haven't seen doctors who fuck up medical practices because of religion, and I haven't seen God. What incentive do I have to believe in either?

I take back the comment about being dense, since it no longer is a question and is proven. God is an unnescessary term by parsimony. Doctors who fuck up their practice are a proven fact, as they exist according to poll data. Your incentive to believe in the latter is that only a fucking retard would deny something in front of them by closing their eyes and humming against what is in the OP as a FACT. Actually, considering that, you have a a good incentive to disbelieve.

[Zero]

People have different ideas of what it means to 'affect' their practice. Find me an example of religion fucking up the practice, and you have a case. Until then, you're just speculating. And I don't agree at all that 'affects' would be taken to mean 'alters the core of my practice.' If they had worded it that way, I imagine very few people would have said that it did.

[Axis Kast]

Maybe I missed something. When I scanned it, the article was referring to the fact that many doctors claim to be religious, and admit that it, in some unspecified way, affects their practice.

But that's a nebulous statement. It does not necessarily follow that the influence is always to the effect that they refuse to dispense advice on contraception or to praise stem cell research.

Nobody else finds it remotely believable that some doctors, when admitting that religion affected them, were talking about a feeling of service and giving or something similarly benign?!

[Duckie]

People have different ideas of what it means to 'affect' their practice. Find me an example of religion fucking up the practice, and you have a case. Until then, you're just speculating. And I don't agree at all that 'affects' would be taken to mean 'alters the core of my practice.' If they had worded it that way, I imagine very few people would have said that it did.

Affect (or effect, I always confuse the two): To cause change in.

My evidence : 55% of doctors say religious affects their practice.
Thus: 55% of doctors say religious changes their diagnosis, prescription, and treatment of diseases and conditions.

You do not change a scientific process. It's like doing orbital mechanics, but making sure the Sun revolves around the Earth to avoid upsetting your religion. Or doing Geology, but setting the age of earth to 6000 because you're a YEC. It doesn't work.

[Lord of the Abyss]

When it comes to medicine science > religion.

A doctor who lets religion affect his practice is, by definition, a bad doctor.

If you want examples of how bad this is, what about the doctors who think a patient should be kept alive against his will because "life is sacred" ? What about a docter who underprescribes pain meds because he has the common religious belief that suffering is good for you ?

I'm an atheist. Why should I trust someone who quite possibly looks at me as evil? I've heard people say that it's better to kill in the name of Kali than to be an atheist, because at least the Thuggee upheld faith. I've heard religious parents say they would rather see their own children die than become atheist.

If you I am going to knowingly trust religious people with my life, then you're living in a fantasy world.

[AniThyng]

When it comes to medicine science > religion.

Secular Medical Ethics like the Hippocratic Oath, you mean, which I think most religious doctors have little issue with. Science itself is quite capable of being "unethical", as the history of inhumane medical experimentation clearly shows, since science is amoral.

[Zero]

Show an actual example of doctors following religion above common medical practices, and you have a point. Until then, shut the hell up. You're just speculating, and you're basing all of your speculations off of a quite vague question.

My evidence : 55% of doctors say religious affects their practice.
Thus: 55% of doctors say religious changes their diagnosis, prescription, and treatment of diseases and conditions.

This is bullshit. You derive all of those changes from the word 'affect.'

If 55% of doctors alter their practices based on religion, then why have you yet to provide one example of a specific harm caused by it? If the majority of doctors are this way, you'd expect SOME kind of actual evidence for what you're saying. I'm saying that the poll was vague. If I'm wrong, then provide me with what should be massive amounts of evidence that such doctors actually fuck up.

[Darth Wong]

Of course religious people will say that their religion affects their professional behaviour. The average religious person thinks his religion affects his whole character and approach to other human beings.

But in any cases where a doctor's actions have been clearly motivated by religion (eg- refusing to prescribe contraceptives), it is definitely harmful.

[Darth Raptor]

Maybe I missed something. When I scanned it, the article was referring to the fact that many doctors claim to be religious, and admit that it, in some unspecified way, affects their practice.

But that's a nebulous statement. It does not necessarily follow that the influence is always to the effect that they refuse to dispense advice on contraception or to praise stem cell research.

Nobody else finds it remotely believable that some doctors, when admitting that religion affected them, were talking about a feeling of service and giving or something similarly benign?!

*raises hand*

My thoughts exactly, pretty much.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Maybe I missed something. When I scanned it, the article was referring to the fact that many doctors claim to be religious, and admit that it, in some unspecified way, affects their practice.

But that's a nebulous statement. It does not necessarily follow that the influence is always to the effect that they refuse to dispense advice on contraception or to praise stem cell research.

Nobody else finds it remotely believable that some doctors, when admitting that religion affected them, were talking about a feeling of service and giving or something similarly benign?!

Take a look at this from the article :

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The majority of doctors believe in God and attend religious services, and more than half say their religious beliefs affect how they practice medicine, according to new survey results.

It says "how they practice medicine", not how they feel about it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Of course religious people will say that their religion affects their professional behaviour. The average religious person thinks his religion affects his whole character and approach to other human beings.

But in any cases where a doctor's actions have been clearly motivated by religion (eg- refusing to prescribe contraceptives), it is definitely harmful.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that; however some here seem to think that the article is stating that 55% of doctors are making deliberately harmful decisions due to their religious belief.