51% of US doctors put religion before human life

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-23 02:29pm

Read it and vomit, folks.

CNN wrote:Religion can trump medical advice, docs say

By Charnicia E. Huggins
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Many US doctors believe that the religious convictions of their patients should outweigh their own professional advice when it comes to making certain medical decisions. When the patient is a child, however, a large majority of doctors say that they, and not the child's guardian, should have the final say, regardless of the guardian's religious beliefs.

These findings and others come from a survey of 794 physicians nationwide who answered various questions about religion and its effect on healthcare in the United States in an August poll.

Overall, 23 percent of physicians said that religion has a negative effect on healthcare in the United States, 30 percent said it has a negligible effect, and 47 percent said that religion has a positive effect on healthcare.

When asked how religion most affects healthcare, more than two-thirds of respondents said it's through patients' personal decisions, and a quarter of the group said it affects healthcare through political action. Only a few - seven percent -- said that religion most affected healthcare through its influence on physicians.

"Something's happening in the power relationship between physicians and patients," according to Dr. Arthur J. Kover, a management fellow at Yale University's School of Management and a consultant with HCD Research, the New Jersey-based market research company that conducted the poll.

"Until recently the power was in the hands of physicians... (but) the balance of power has been shifting," he told Reuters Health.

The reasons for this shift may be multifaceted but Kover, also a sociologist, said it is partly due to direct-to-consumer drug advertising and consumers' religious beliefs. He says both are helping to move some of the power away from doctors and into the hands of consumers.

More than half (57 percent) of the physicians surveyed said that a patient's religious reason for a medical course of action should trump a doctor's treatment advice. In contrast, the other 43 percent said it should not.

When it comes to making healthcare decisions for children, however, nearly 84 percent of doctors agreed that a physician's medical decision should not be overridden by the religious beliefs of a child's guardian.

The respondents were almost evenly divided about whether saving a person's life justifies violating their religious beliefs, with 51 percent saying that saving a person's life does not justify that religious violation.

Fifty-five percent of physicians surveyed said they were not concerned about the influence of religion on healthcare in this country, however. This may be explained by the finding that over two-thirds of doctors said a patient's religious beliefs "infrequently" or "rarely, perhaps never" interfered with his or her health, while 30 percent of doctors said that a patient's religious beliefs often or occasionally interfered.

In other findings, when asked which particular religion has the most beneficial or harmful effect on healthcare, more than 50 percent of physicians said that "no religion has a more beneficial effect than any other" and slightly more than 25 percent said "no religion has a more harmful effect than any other."

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-08-23 02:35pm

Holy fuck. That's beyond comprehension.

No-one with that kind of mentality should be a doctor. Their purpose is not religious or to comform to religious ideals, it's to do the necessary medical procedures to ensure the best result possible to a patient.

If any doctor wouldn't be willing to compromise their religious beliefs in the hospital for the integrity of their job, they can go stuff it.

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-23 02:35pm

I'm not seeing the problem. There were hundreds of court cases years ago about this very thing. Religious beliefs trump medicine every time, within reason.

As far as the second observation, that the patients are making more descisions now, what's wrong with that? I can do my own research on the subject and find out what is best for me. Taking "the doctor is always 100% right" ideology is as sure a path to bad health as denying all medical treatment whatsoever.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-08-23 02:37pm

I think we're misreading the article.

In other findings, when asked which particular religion has the most beneficial or harmful effect on healthcare, more than 50 percent of physicians said that "no religion has a more beneficial effect than any other" and slightly more than 25 percent said "no religion has a more harmful effect than any other."

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-08-23 02:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:51% of US doctors put religion before human life

Is this the bit you're referring to?

The respondents were almost evenly divided about whether saving a person's life justifies violating their religious beliefs, with 51 percent saying that saving a person's life does not justify that religious violation.

If so, why should the patient's religious beliefs be violated?
Note: I'm talking about adults who are making the conscious decision to refuse treatment, not the refusal of treatment for their children.

When it comes to kids, I agree with the majority.

When it comes to making healthcare decisions for children, however, nearly 84 percent of doctors agreed that a physician's medical decision should not be overridden by the religious beliefs of a child's guardian.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-08-23 02:40pm

I'm not seeing the problem here. It's not saying the doctors are making medical decisions based on their own personal religious beliefs, but that they'll follow a patient's wishes, even if they're counter-productive or even fatal. If a patient's religious beliefs prevent him from following undergoing a procedure or taking a drug, how is it the doctor's right or responsibility to force him to do so? If, say, a Jehova's Witness refuses a lifesaving blood transfusion, that's his business.

This article is annoying, by the way, because it doesn't specify what "certain decisions" are. Are they minor ones, like whether or not to take birth control? Or are they major ones, like end of life decisions?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-23 02:40pm

If these same 51% of doctors agree with Dr. Jack Kevorkian on a certain other political hot-button issue, I would at least concede that they're being consistent. But I seriously doubt that this is the case.

As for adult patients, why does adulthood remove the ramifications of a psychological disorder? We consider suicide bombers to be mentally disturbed; why is this any different? They're obviously not competent to make these decisions for themselves if they would willingly die because they don't believe in (for example) blood transfusions.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-08-23 02:46pm

If the person is that deluded, then I'm not sure I want him sticking around in the gene pool anyway.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-08-23 03:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:As for adult patients, why does adulthood remove the ramifications of a psychological disorder? We consider suicide bombers to be mentally disturbed; why is this any different? They're obviously not competent to make these decisions for themselves if they would willingly die because they don't believe in (for example) blood transfusions

It doesn't remove the ramifications of a psychological disorder, but you'd have one Hell

of a time convincing a judge that an adult Jehovah's Witness is psychologically disturbed and should be forced to undergo treatments that violate their beliefs.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2005-08-23 03:29pm

Glocksman wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:As for adult patients, why does adulthood remove the ramifications of a psychological disorder? We consider suicide bombers to be mentally disturbed; why is this any different? They're obviously not competent to make these decisions for themselves if they would willingly die because they don't believe in (for example) blood transfusions

It doesn't remove the ramifications of a psychological disorder, but you'd have one Hell of a time convincing a judge that an adult Jehovah's Witness is psychologically disturbed and should be forced to undergo treatments that violate their beliefs.

Well, that's the issue, isn't it? I think that the initial presumption of the physician has to be that the patient is (when of sound body) of sound mind. If there are reasons to doubt this soundness, then further determinations have to be made if the patient's wishes clash with the patient's best medical treatment. If these determinations are contested, then the courts get involved, yadda yadda yadda.

I would tend to have a problem with an incapacitated patient's next of kin (or, even worse, a general presumption based on a patient's stated religion) dictates an alternative course of treatment. If you don't have the word from the horse's mouth, as it were, then you can't rely on someone else to make that kind of life or (more than likely) death decision. Or, at least, you shouldn't. I can see occasions where the next of kin would have difficult choices to make, such as choosing between a risky procedure or near-certain death, but to allow them to simply withhold a life-saving course of treatment because they think the patient wouldn't like it is, well, asinine.

I agree, though, that letting these people hang their kids out to dry because they themselves follow a certain religion is abuse, and anyone who disagrees with me can go and fuck off.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-08-23 03:31pm

SCRawl wrote:
I agree, though, that letting these people hang their kids out to dry because they themselves follow a certain religion is abuse, and anyone who disagrees with me can go and fuck off.

At least one of the positive things in this article is that when a doctor is treating a child, the doctors felt that their professional judgments should outweigh any religious dogma the parent and/or guardian might be practicing.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-08-23 03:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:If these same 51% of doctors agree with Dr. Jack Kevorkian on a certain other political hot-button issue, I would at least concede that they're being consistent. But I seriously doubt that this is the case.

The difference with Kevorkian is that he actually administers poison in order to kill patients that would otherwise live on their own. A lot of doctors have a moral objection to actively killing ("First, do no harm"), even if it's the patient's wish.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2005-08-23 03:40pm

RedImperator wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:If these same 51% of doctors agree with Dr. Jack Kevorkian on a certain other political hot-button issue, I would at least concede that they're being consistent. But I seriously doubt that this is the case.
The difference with Kevorkian is that he actually administers poison in order to kill patients that would otherwise live on their own. A lot of doctors have a moral objection to actively killing ("First, do no harm"), even if it's the patient's wish.

Kevorkian's usual MO was to set up one of a couple of devices so that the patient had to commit an overt act (say, pushing a button) to start the process that would kill him/her. It's hard be objective and still call it murder, since it is the patient who makes not only the final decision but the final act.

Then again, whoever said the fundies were big on objectivity? (Not that fundy logic in particular is being debated here.)

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-08-23 04:13pm

We consider suicide bombers to be mentally disturbed; why is this any different?

Who considers suicide bombers to be mentally disturbed?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-08-23 06:30pm

I don't get why this is seen as a problem. Patients legally have the rights to refuse or accept medication. You can't consider a person crazy simply because his decision making process differs from your own. If a man chooses to die, then he chooses to die.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-08-23 08:18pm

RedImperator wrote:The difference with Kevorkian is that he actually administers poison in order to kill patients that would otherwise live on their own. A lot of doctors have a moral objection to actively killing ("First, do no harm"), even if it's the patient's wish.

Doesn't allowing a patient to refuse life saving treatment violate the Hippocratic Oath as well? Objectively, by allowing a patient to refuse treatment, they will be harmed. As a result, through inaction he's harming the patient.

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-23 08:47pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Doesn't allowing a patient to refuse life saving treatment violate the Hippocratic Oath as well? Objectively, by allowing a patient to refuse treatment, they will be harmed. As a result, through inaction he's harming the patient.

I think the proper word here would be "potentially." He is "potentially" harming the patient. There is a chance, however, that the patient will suffer no ill effects from his descision, or that it might even help him. There's always that chance.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-08-23 08:53pm

DrkHelmet wrote:I think the proper word here would be "potentially." He is "potentially" harming the patient. There is a chance, however, that the patient will suffer no ill effects from his descision, or that it might even help him. There's always that chance.

If a person is dying from a disease or needs a blood transfusion to survive a surgery, there is about as much "potentially" involved as a person might potentially be unharmed by the decision take a shot of Liquid Plumbr. How much sense does it make to shrug and say "Well, he might be able to beat melanoma with faith healing... you never know".

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-23 08:56pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: If a person is dying from a disease or needs a blood transfusion to survive a surgery, there is about as much "potentially" involved as a person might potentially be unharmed by the decision take a shot of Liquid Plumbr. How much sense does it make to shrug and say "Well, he might be able to beat melanoma with faith healing... you never know".

And there are potentially other options that the doctor either hasn't considered or deems to be unusable, even if other doctors in that field use this treatment regularly. In the case of blood transfusions, there are many other options.

- Cell Saver
- Blood builders (including synthetic Erythropoietin [i probably didn't spell that right])
- Hemodilution

along with other tools which can be shipped in if neccessary. Just because the doctor is sloppy and uses blood transfusions 20x a day doesn't mean that a transfusion is neccessary.

Are you saying a patient should never question his doctor?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-08-23 08:57pm

It's not the doctor's choice. It's not inaction. The right to reject medical treatment is one that should be preserved. If it isn't, then we essentially don't have the right to our own bodies. The doctor isn't being inactive by accepting that it's the patient's choice to accept or not accept medical treatment.

However, in the case of small children, I don't believe parents should have the say, because if the parent doesn't wish to go with what the doctor says, then that parent isn't acting in the best interests of the child anyways. Your own body is your own body, but children can't even have a notion that they're being wronged in some way. They can't understand their own right to refuse or accept treatment, so this right doesn't extend to them.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-08-23 09:16pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The difference with Kevorkian is that he actually administers poison in order to kill patients that would otherwise live on their own. A lot of doctors have a moral objection to actively killing ("First, do no harm"), even if it's the patient's wish.
Doesn't allowing a patient to refuse life saving treatment violate the Hippocratic Oath as well? Objectively, by allowing a patient to refuse treatment, they will be harmed. As a result, through inaction he's harming the patient.

No, because the patient has a right to refuse treatment which trumps the doctor's duty to heal. It's the patient's body, not the doctor's.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-08-23 09:31pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The difference with Kevorkian is that he actually administers poison in order to kill patients that would otherwise live on their own. A lot of doctors have a moral objection to actively killing ("First, do no harm"), even if it's the patient's wish.
Doesn't allowing a patient to refuse life saving treatment violate the Hippocratic Oath as well? Objectively, by allowing a patient to refuse treatment, they will be harmed. As a result, through inaction he's harming the patient.

Legal > Hippocratic Oath

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-08-23 09:35pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote: Legal > Hippocratic Oath

Rights to own body > hippocratic oath

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2005-08-23 09:42pm

Zero132132 wrote:
Kamakazie Sith wrote: Legal > Hippocratic Oath
Rights to own body > hippocratic oath

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Only legally do you have a right to your own body. If it weren't a law then those doctors could do whatever they wanted without fear.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-23 09:44pm

And yet the arguments against Dr. Kevorkian have always revolved around the accusation that his patients should not be entrusted with these decisions because the very fact that they want to commit suicide puts doubt on their mental stability. If anything, someone who wishes to end his life because hates his existence is making a far more rational decision than some idiot who thinks that the Sky God will punish him if he gets a blood transfusion.