3/4 of doctors believe in God...

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2005-06-26 11:43pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: 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.

If you're talking of me, and I suspect you are, you are taking me out of context by using 55% as opposed to "a smaller and indeterminate but still existant number".

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-26 11:50pm

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.

I said that I didn't trust them, and that they would likely do harm; I also pointed out that they are likely to make "harmful decisions" due to bad judgment, not just malice.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-27 02:17am

Zero132132 wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote: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.

Applying that "logic", I shouldn't at least worry about terrorists, since I am more likely to die in a car crash than to be killed by terrorists. A problem exists regardless of its magnitude.

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.

I am sure you will be able to justify how "anti-religious" is nonsense. How about on any rational grounds? And while we are at it, you can show me where I state that 75% of doctors believing in god automatically means that 75% won't prescribe certain medications. I never made such a ridiculous assertion especially considering that religious people can also be fairly liberal.

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.

This argument is frankly moronic. By that logic, ambulances don't have to come when you call because there will be some other ambulance willing to do it. Patient's right to the prescription / treatment is dependent on clinical need, their consent and to some extent financial considerations. Not on religious beliefs of the doctor.

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.

This is just a rehash of your first sentence

Your argument boils down to
1) problem exists
2) its not widespread
3) lets not worry about it then ( even if it affects your rights)
4) use a strawman and accuse others of exaggerating the magnitude of the problem + use the standard "they are anti-religious" (as if that in itself is a bad thing).

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 02:21am

I never admitted that any such problem exist. Can you provide an example of such a problem? Besides, nobody would refuse to operate on my because they believed in God. That's just stupid. The worst that could happen, as far as I see, is a man refusing to prescribe my girlfriend with birth controll. Can you provide even 1 example of a man dying because of a doctor's religious beliefs?

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-27 02:34am

I never admitted that any such problem exist. Can you provide an example of such a problem? Besides, nobody would refuse to operate on my because they believed in God. That's just stupid. The worst that could happen, as far as I see, is a man refusing to prescribe my girlfriend with birth controll.

Well, the doc could give you penicillan against a penicillan-resisitant disease because he refuses to admit the existance of drug resistance - it's a form of evolution.

The same goes for cancer; cancer evolves resistance to chemo, a fact some Christians don't want to admit.

He could skimp on painkillers and lecture you on the virtues of suffering and despair.

If you are poor, he could be one of the 13% of the population who think wealth is a reflection of God's favor and let you die.

Finally, it doesn't bother you if he harrasses your girlfriend ? I'm glad I'm not her.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 02:37am

He isn't harrassing her by refusing to prescribe her medication. If he did anything more, such as calling her a slut, he'd have some issues to deal with very quickly.

As for the other things... give ONE example of a doctor actually doing any of these things. One example is all I ask for. You've yet to show one, and all your side has done is basically just gone with the 'religion is irrational and always evil' argument, which is bullshit.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-27 02:51am

Zero132132 wrote:I never admitted that any such problem exist.

Zero132132 wrote: 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

Zero132132 wrote:
As for the other things... give ONE example of a doctor actually doing any of these things. One example is all I ask for. You've yet to show one, and all your side has done is basically just gone with the 'religion is irrational and always evil' argument, which is bullshit.

one example coming right up

Court to weigh impact of doctors' beliefs

The case ultimately could influence what California physicians tell their patients about their religious ideology.

By Damon Adams, AMNews staff.

A California appellate court will determine if two physicians can use religious beliefs as a defense in a case involving a woman who said the ob-gyns stopped treating her because of her sexual orientation.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, will answer that question before the case can go to trial.

The matter stems from a case involving patient Guadalupe Benitez, who filed a lawsuit in 2001 alleging that doctors at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group Inc. in Vista refused to artificially inseminate her due to their religious beliefs.

Benitez said she was treated at the clinic for infertility for 11 months, then doctors refused to continue seeing her because she told one of them she was a lesbian, according to court documents. Benitez alleged that obstetrician-gynecologist Christine Brody, MD, told her she had religious-based objections to helping homosexuals conceive through artificial insemination but that other doctors at North Coast could perform the procedure.

Benitez claimed that ob-gyn Douglas Fenton, MD, also at the practice, later told her that Dr. Brody and other staff members were uncomfortable with her sexual orientation and would be unable to help her. Dr. Fenton referred Benitez to a fertility specialist and reproductive endocrinologist, according to court documents. Benitez later became pregnant.

In her lawsuit, Benitez claims that the North Coast doctors discriminated against her.

A trial court originally dismissed Benitez's case, but an appellate court reversed the decision and sent the case back.

Back in the trial court, Benitez's attorneys then asked the judge to toss out the doctors' religious defense, and the judge agreed. Now the doctors are asking the appellate court to let them use their religious beliefs as a defense.

In the end, the case could impact how California physicians practice medicine and what they tell their patients about their religious beliefs.

"Doctors have to consider religious beliefs and decide if they're going to take part in certain health care programs," said Jack Lewin, MD, chief executive officer of the California Medical Assn., which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the physicians. "If they have religious beliefs that are going to impact the way they practice medicine, they need to make that very clear to any patients."

"CMA clearly would be vehemently opposed to health care discrimination based on sexual orientation," he said.

Carlo Coppo, attorney for North Coast and Drs. Brody and Fenton, said the physicians did not discriminate. He said the practice and its doctors made it clear under what circumstances they would perform intrauterine artificial insemination.

"Our clinic never does [intrauterine artificial insemination] for unmarried couples," Coppo said. "We don't abandon the patient. We refer them to someone else."

American Medical Association policy says a physician may decline a potential patient if a specific treatment is incompatible with the doctor's personal, religious or moral beliefs. But physicians must give sufficient notice to the patient before withdrawing from care.

Albert Gross, Benitez's attorney, said the case is more about the patient's rights than a physician's religious beliefs. "The issue is whether [doctors] can discriminate against a particular kind of patient."

Gay rights advocates are supporting Benitez's case. Lambda Legal said doctors may not object to treating certain groups based on beliefs.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 03:03am

It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die. Nobody was hurt, although I'm not saying that something like this was okay. I'm still just saying that, as was stated in the article, she could have gone somewhere else, and this wasn't an example where anybody could have died. Even so, I do admit that there is a problem, but I must ask you... what would you do about it? Should we do religious tests and get rid of those that believe in God? Do you think this would actually overly cause good or bad things?

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2005-06-27 03:07am

I'm also glad I'm not your girlfriend (though that would be impossible barring major surgery) if not prescribing her medicine is not harassment to you.

As for the religious doctor example Mr. Friendly Guy posted... Wait, prediction coming here: Zero is going to handwave it away with a claim that's an isolated incident that has no meaning, or ignore it entirely. Because we all know that no doctors would ever impose their religion on others.

And cut the "They're/I'm Persecuted Because You Hate Theists" shit. Strawmanning arguing against religious bias in medicine into condemning religion to evil is laughable. Try a little harder to stealth your fallacies next time and maybe people won't notice.

And even if it were true, which it most assuredly isn't, what's the deal? Even if "we" (Who is we?) hated Christians or any religion, it doesn't change the fact that "our" (same question.) when the position is correct.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 03:14am

I didn't consider it harassment when they didn't prescribe me with sleeping pills. How is this any different? And I do agree that there is a problem with doctors forcing their religious beliefs onto others, but I don't believe the problem is as big as you would state it to be. I still don't believe that 55% of doctors would act in the same way, and the article posted wasn't an issue of life and death.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-27 03:33am

Zero132132 wrote:It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die. Nobody was hurt, although I'm not saying that something like this was okay. I'm still just saying that, as was stated in the article, she could have gone somewhere else, and this wasn't an example where anybody could have died.

You have asked for examples of "following religion above common medical practices", "fucking up the practice" as well as example where people died. Since you only asked for one example, I gave you one which fits into the first 2 criteria.

And I believe the "one can go to another doctor as already been addressed several times by different posters".

Zero132132 wrote:Even so, I do admit that there is a problem, but I must ask you... what would you do about it? Should we do religious tests and get rid of those that believe in God? Do you think this would actually overly cause good or bad things?

Nice to see that you have jumped back and forth from the its a problem but a small one, to I never admitted it was a problem to "I do admit that there is a problem".

As to what I would do about it? Prevent doctors from making decisions based on their religious values. That is decisions are made based on

1) clinical findings

2) patient's autonomy vs beneficience ie if the patient wants it and it is beneficial, doctors cannot refuse on religious grounds. Conversely if a patient refuses something on religious grounds, eg Jehova's witnesses with blood transfusions the doctor cannot force them to have one (assuming the usual things such as patient is an adult and of sound mind, at least psychiatrically sound, not necessarily rational as this board understands the word).

If they make a decision which they cannot defend on the above criteria, then there should be legal recourse. This is of course just what I came up with off the top of my head at a moments notice.

A doctor is perfectly entitled to his/her religious beliefs, but they cannot use it to interfere with their role as a doctor. If they know religious beliefs are going to get in the way of the job, frankly they should have quit medical school by the time ethics is taught (which for me was in my 3rd year in an undergrad course), or go into a specialty where they are less likely to be the case, eg epidemiology (statistics in relation to diseases).

There is no need to screen medical students for religious affliation as long as the law ensures that religious thinking does not affect clinical and ethical considerations (for the small minority which do think religious beliefs is a defense for bad practice).

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-27 03:38am

MRDOD wrote:
As for the religious doctor example Mr. Friendly Guy posted... Wait, prediction coming here: Zero is going to handwave it away with a claim that's an isolated incident that has no meaning, or ignore it entirely. Because we all know that no doctors would ever impose their religion on others.

.

It seemed you were wrong. He hand waved it away by saying "she could have gone to someone else".

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 04:16am

I admitted that there was a problem. I just also still think you're overstating the problem, and that it isn't as big as you make it seem. This isn't really goal-post shifting as it would seem, just a partial concession. I concede that there is a problem, but I also think you overstate it. However, since I'm not likely to win this debate any time soon, as those arguing against me have taken the question in the survey about religion affecting their work, answered by 55% of practicing doctors, to be literal. This isn't sensible to me, but it's been demonstrated that there is a problem, whether I consider it minor or not. I concede, if only for the sake of saving time.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-27 04:20am

And as a side note, I completely agree that they shouldn't be allowed to alter their practice on the basis of religion.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-06-27 09:36am

You have asked for examples of "following religion above common medical practices", "fucking up the practice" as well as example where people died. Since you only asked for one example, I gave you one which fits into the first 2 criteria.

Hmmm...

Benitez claimed that ob-gyn Douglas Fenton, MD, also at the practice, later told her that Dr. Brody and other staff members were uncomfortable with her sexual orientation and would be unable to help her. Dr. Fenton referred Benitez to a fertility specialist and reproductive endocrinologist, according to court documents. Benitez later became pregnant.

So let's see, you're arguing that physicians should be forced to perform elective, non-lifesaving, non-emergency procedures that violate their religious beliefs?
Drs. Brody and Fenton did everything they had to do, including referring her to a specialist that did help her become pregnant.

AMA Policy wrote:American Medical Association policy says a physician may decline a potential patient if a specific treatment is incompatible with the doctor's personal, religious or moral beliefs. But physicians must give sufficient notice to the patient before withdrawing from care.

It sounds like that's exactly what they did.
IMHO, patients don't have the right to force physicians to perform elective procedures if it violates their religious beliefs as long as the AMA policy quoted above is complied with.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-06-27 09:45am

IMHO, patients don't have the right to force physicians to perform elective procedures if it violates their religious beliefs as long as the AMA policy quoted above is complied with.

I agree. That would be like forcing a Christian architect to design a Church of Satan.

Obviously there are going to be some nutcases in the medical profession but holding up the "55% of doctors are religious" figure as a sign of a pervasive problem is utterly ridiculous, particularly when there is no sign that 55% of doctors allow their beliefs to impact their profession in a negative way.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-06-27 10:13am

For those wanting even more specific examples, and are too lazy to bother using google themselves, here's another one.

A rape victim in Denton, Texas, walked into her local Eckerd's pharmacy in March 2004 to have a prescription for the emergency contraceptive filled. Emergency contraceptive (EC) is also known as the morning-after pill and if taken within 120 hours can be effective in preventing pregnancy, either by preventing ovulation, fertilization or implantation (the technical definition of pregnancy is implantation in the uterine wall).

EC is most effective when taken within the first 24 hours and is often prescribed to rape victims to avoid pregnancy. Pharmacist Gene Herr, who claimed such an action contradicted his religious views, refused this particular rape victim service. Herr said he felt Eckerd's was asking him to participate in the taking of a human life.

In this instance the pharmacist is required to fill any prescription that a patient happens to need. If they have problems issuing some drugs because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, then they're not performing their job duties and quite frankly, need to find another line of work.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2005-06-27 11:47am

I've known many religious doctors of just about every faith. I've known very religious doctors who are also at the top of their field (or very well near the top), and they'll literally pray before surgery, or pray with their patients if they wish it. During off-times, they're the most docile and nice people around, but in the hospital some of them are like animals. Though I mean that in a good way, they'll tear through whoever they have to to get their patients the treatment they believe they deserve.

So in terms of religion being a detriment to medicine? Not at all, unless it goes against their oath of being a doctor. Pharmacists denying drugs is just bad. But there are quacks and jerk-offs everywhere regardless of religion. Look at "Dr. Death" in Australia right now.

As an aspiring physician, studying medicine definitely does have a tendancy to change your views on life, the universe and everything. Maybe it's just because right now I'm still in the scienes and not reached my clinicals yet, but our education is mostly about death, not life. The true fragility of a human being is truly mind boggling.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2005-06-27 12:22pm

Lord of the Abyss wrote: 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.

So, it means that they're willing to scarifice sleep, a social life and monetary benefit because they believe that God tells them to go help other people.

Well, the doc could give you penicillan against a penicillan-resisitant disease because he refuses to admit the existance of drug resistance - it's a form of evolution.

Then he would be neglient by law as it is, and the Hippocrates oath comes first.

He could skimp on painkillers and lecture you on the virtues of suffering and despair.

Then shoot off a letter to the AMA and ANA, because you're entitled to pain relief and get the fucker sacked.

If you are poor, he could be one of the 13% of the population who think wealth is a reflection of God's favor and let you die.

Then he violated the ethics of the profession in the first place and can be sued to smithereens and should be sacked.

There's something that should be raised here. All the dangers that everyone is so afraid of IS already covered under America laws and policies, so,they can't act against your best interest already unless he IS a bad doctor/pharamicist/whatever in the first place.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-06-27 12:26pm

Trytostaydead wrote:I've known many religious doctors of just about every faith. I've known very religious doctors who are also at the top of their field (or very well near the top), and they'll literally pray before surgery, or pray with their patients if they wish it. During off-times, they're the most docile and nice people around, but in the hospital some of them are like animals. Though I mean that in a good way, they'll tear through whoever they have to to get their patients the treatment they believe they deserve.

So in terms of religion being a detriment to medicine? Not at all, unless it goes against their oath of being a doctor. Pharmacists denying drugs is just bad. But there are quacks and jerk-offs everywhere regardless of religion. Look at "Dr. Death" in Australia right now.

As an aspiring physician, studying medicine definitely does have a tendancy to change your views on life, the universe and everything. Maybe it's just because right now I'm still in the scienes and not reached my clinicals yet, but our education is mostly about death, not life. The true fragility of a human being is truly mind boggling.

Did actually bother reading any of the thread? Nobody's complaining about a doctor who might happen to be religious. The complaint is against doctors who let their faith affect judgments regarding their job, especially to the point where it affects a patient in a harmful manner.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-27 12:33pm

There's something that should be raised here. All the dangers that everyone is so afraid of IS already covered under America laws and policies, so,they can't act against your best interest already unless he IS a bad doctor/pharamicist/whatever in the first place.

If bad medical care causes me permanent injury or death, the fact that it's illegal won't do me a hell of a lot of good.

Besides, the courts are far more tolerant of bad behavior if you slap the "God" brand name on it.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2005-06-27 12:49pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
Did actually bother reading any of the thread? Nobody's complaining about a doctor who might happen to be religious. The complaint is against doctors who let their faith affect judgments regarding their job, especially to the point where it affects a patient in a harmful manner.

As I was saying, I do agree that those who let it interfere with their job is completely wrong, but I was also pointing out that it's not just religion that creates bad doctors. I also threw in my $.02 on religion and medicine for the fun of it.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-06-27 12:53pm

Trytostaydead wrote:
Darth_Zod wrote:
Did actually bother reading any of the thread? Nobody's complaining about a doctor who might happen to be religious. The complaint is against doctors who let their faith affect judgments regarding their job, especially to the point where it affects a patient in a harmful manner.
As I was saying, I do agree that those who let it interfere with their job is completely wrong, but I was also pointing out that it's not just religion that creates bad doctors. I also threw in my $.02 on religion and medicine for the fun of it.

Please point out where anyone said it was just religion that creates bad doctors.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-27 01:01pm

As I was saying, I do agree that those who let it interfere with their job is completely wrong, but I was also pointing out that it's not just religion that creates bad doctors. I also threw in my $.02 on religion and medicine for the fun of it.

So what ? The Nazi's weren't the only source of bad doctors either; that doesn't mean I want to have Doctor Mengele performing surgery on me.

Simply put religion - especially religion strong enough to override standard medical practice - is an extra, unnecessary risk factor that I don't want anything to do with. If you want to live in a fantasy world and believe in Sky Fairies, that's your buisness; if your silliness puts my life at risk, then it's my business.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-27 01:15pm

Zero132132 wrote:It is fucked up that they discriminated against her, but she didn't die.

So in short, a doctor can hurt people all he likes, as long as he doesn't KILL them, and you will still insist on making your bullshit apologist statements?