51% of US doctors put religion before human life

[Gil Hamilton]

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.

No one says "It's the patient's body" if a court orders someone to take a medication and forces them to take a mental competancy accessment if they refuse (or cites a lack of need and institutionalizes them, forcing treatment on them), do they?

[SCRawl]

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.

No one says "It's the patient's body" if a court orders someone to take a medication and forces them to take a mental competancy accessment if they refuse (or cites a lack of need and institutionalizes them, forcing treatment on them), do they?

The implication here is that no competent person's rights are trumped by a doctor's preferences. If a patient isn't in his right mind, and this can be demonstrated, then why would you punish him by letting his own mental disease be the cause of his death?

[Gil Hamilton]

The implication here is that no competent person's rights are trumped by a doctor's preferences. If a patient isn't in his right mind, and this can be demonstrated, then why would you punish him by letting his own mental disease be the cause of his death?

Out of curiousity, how is a person who refuses life saving medical treatment because they honestly think their god will condemn them to torture for eternity mentally competant?

[SCRawl]

The implication here is that no competent person's rights are trumped by a doctor's preferences. If a patient isn't in his right mind, and this can be demonstrated, then why would you punish him by letting his own mental disease be the cause of his death?

Out of curiousity, how is a person who refuses life saving medical treatment because they honestly think their god will condemn them to torture for eternity mentally competant?

Competency is decided based on the state of mind of the patient, not the level of insanity of his belief system. A person can be sane and misguided at the same time.

[wolveraptor]

Indoctrination at a child hood level does not require insanity to work, as Michael Behe shows.

[Gil Hamilton]

Competency is decided based on the state of mind of the patient, not the level of insanity of his belief system. A person can be sane and misguided at the same time.

But they aren't in a sound state of mind. My evidence: any number of evangelical revivals where "faith healing" are done. Or find an interview of people who actually think it's a viable alternative to treatment. Or those wackos who let their children die because they denied them medical treatment in favor of it. Why do you think that many state laws tend to have specific exemptions for religious beliefs to prevent people who do that garbage that would normally lead to them to having child services kicking down their door?

At any rate, please explain how it is sane behavor to honestly believe that an invisible sky being forbids them from life saving procedures on threat of eternal torture and that praying really hard to said invisible sky beings will make said deadly medical problems disappear to the degree that they or their children die as a result?

[Rocker5150]

My Dad is a plastic surgeon. He is not very religious, but does believe in God. If someone told him not to remove a skin cancer because their faith healer would pray it away, he would think they were totally insane!

-Kevin

[RedImperator]

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.

No one says "It's the patient's body" if a court orders someone to take a medication and forces them to take a mental competancy accessment if they refuse (or cites a lack of need and institutionalizes them, forcing treatment on them), do they?

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

[Hillary]

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

Why not? If I said "my invisible friend will cure me instead so I don't need to accept your treatment, Doc. In fact, he says if I do accept your treatment, he'll punish me forever", I'd be classified as insane.

Please explain how substituting "my invisible friend" with "God" changes this? There is no more evidence to support one than the other.

[Zero]

Why not? If I said "my invisible friend will cure me instead so I don't need to accept your treatment, Doc. In fact, he says if I do accept your treatment, he'll punish me forever", I'd be classified as insane.

Please explain how substituting "my invisible friend" with "God" changes this? There is no more evidence to support one than the other.

Well, when you replace it with "God," it immediately becomes part of a very large indoctrination system within which the doctor may actually fall, and when you say "my invisible friend," you either never grew up, or are an ass hole on a web board making fun of that situation. It isn't as if the conclusion that the medical technique would harm them in the end was reached by their own mental processes. They aren't crazy, they've just accepted a belief system that you disagree with.

If everyone who believed in God were actually as incompetant as you'd like to make it seem, the world shouldn't be able to function properly. The majority of those in the world believe in God.

[mr friendly guy]

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

Why not? If I said "my invisible friend will cure me instead so I don't need to accept your treatment, Doc. In fact, he says if I do accept your treatment, he'll punish me forever", I'd be classified as insane.

Please explain how substituting "my invisible friend" with "God" changes this? There is no more evidence to support one than the other.

Its in the psych definition. And yes I am aware it is somewhat arbitary. And I agree with you fully.

Using your "imaginary friend" vs god as an example, a person is defined as suffering from delusion ( in the psychiatric sense) if they hold an unshakeable belief not consistent with reality which is cannot be explained by cultural factors (or something to that effect). Note that italics. So Christians while I personally consider them to be deluded (using the layman's definition of the word), but the psychiatrist cannot defined them as deluded, although people with imaginary friends can be considered deluded.

Yes it sucks, but thats just the way psychiatrist definitions are set.

[Hillary]

Why not? If I said "my invisible friend will cure me instead so I don't need to accept your treatment, Doc. In fact, he says if I do accept your treatment, he'll punish me forever", I'd be classified as insane.

Please explain how substituting "my invisible friend" with "God" changes this? There is no more evidence to support one than the other.

Well, when you replace it with "God," it immediately becomes part of a very large indoctrination system within which the doctor may actually fall, and when you say "my invisible friend," you either never grew up, or are an ass hole on a web board making fun of that situation. It isn't as if the conclusion that the medical technique would harm them in the end was reached by their own mental processes. They aren't crazy, they've just accepted a belief system that you disagree with.

If everyone who believed in God were actually as incompetant as you'd like to make it seem, the world shouldn't be able to function properly. The majority of those in the world believe in God.

Which doesn't actually refute my point. If someone honestly believes that refusing a life-saving treatment is the correct course of action because their God will punish them for all eternity, then they are irrational to the point of insanity.

Most people who believe in God do not allow their faith to steer them in directions that are obviously wrong. My example was aimed at those who would make such logic-defying decisions that would certainly kill them (or their dependents). You have expanded this to encompass all religious people, which is rather disingenuous.

[Glocksman]

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

Why not?

Legally, the first amendment prohibits it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll have to make a much stronger argument than you have so far if you want to override 200+ years of legal precedent and declare those with strong religious beliefs to be clinically insane.

Though I'm sure the old KGB's Serbsky Institute would have a few 'doctors' who agree with you.

[Hillary]

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

Why not?

Legally, the first amendment prohibits it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll have to make a much stronger argument than you have so far if you want to override 200+ years of legal precedent and declare those with strong religious beliefs to be clinically insane.

Though I'm sure the old KGB's Serbsky Institute would have a few 'doctors' who agree with you.

If my argument is so weak, why has no one been able to refute it - apart from saying "that's not how the Law/Constitution defines it"? US Law in the past defined blacks as being inferior to whites. Did that mean they were?

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

Again, I did not say all people with strong religious beliefs should be declared insane (although a nice try), only those who are so extreme as to pose physical harm to themselves or their children. Most religious people would not dream of doing so.

[Glocksman]

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

In addition to hundreds of years of legal and medical precedent, the professionals disagree with you as to strong religious beliefs (strong enough to refuse lifesaving treatment) being delusional or grounds to declare someone clinically insane.

Until the psychiatric profession redefines insanity to reflect your view, I'm afraid Red's correct.
Just because you think it's insane doesn't mean that its medically or legally so.

[Hillary]

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

In addition to hundreds of years of legal and medical precedent, the professionals disagree with you as to strong religious beliefs (strong enough to refuse lifesaving treatment) being delusional or grounds to declare someone clinically insane.

Until the psychiatric profession redefines insanity to reflect your view, I'm afraid Red's correct.
Just because you think it's insane doesn't mean that its medically or legally so.

Another appeal to authority. You haven't even tried to address WHY you think I'm wrong.

[Justforfun000]

If my argument is so weak, why has no one been able to refute it - apart from saying "that's not how the Law/Constitution defines it"? US Law in the past defined blacks as being inferior to whites. Did that mean they were?

Essentially, you ARE correct. The argument is not weak at all.

But you are fighting a sacred cow. Legally and medically they simply exempted religious belief. It's just been too long and entrenched in our culture, and they have made a big old exception to these particular delusional beliefs.

In this case I'm exempting moderate christians who modify their beliefs to fit reality and assume that the scriptures can be INSPIRED but not infallible. They are NOT delusional and in fact are being quite reasonable as to their limits of faith.

But Jehovah's? Mormons? YEC'S? Misguided & brainwashed beyond hope while still practicing.

[Glocksman]

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

In addition to hundreds of years of legal and medical precedent, the professionals disagree with you as to strong religious beliefs (strong enough to refuse lifesaving treatment) being delusional or grounds to declare someone clinically insane.

Until the psychiatric profession redefines insanity to reflect your view, I'm afraid Red's correct.
Just because you think it's insane doesn't mean that its medically or legally so.

Another appeal to authority. You haven't even tried to address WHY you think I'm wrong.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority cited is not an expert in the field or there is general disagreement among experts in the field.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

Definition:
While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to
support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to
authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert
opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or
otherwise not being serious
A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An
argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on
second or third hand sources.


Examples:
(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that
you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight
money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although
Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this
point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald
Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five
minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a
microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada
will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in
fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9
percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to
check the Citizen's sources.)

Proof:
Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the
field, or that (ii) there is general disagreement among the
experts in the field on this point.

References:
Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 95, Davis: 69

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Associaton are the experts in the field and they do not see it the way you do.

[SCRawl]

If my argument is so weak, why has no one been able to refute it - apart from saying "that's not how the Law/Constitution defines it"? US Law in the past defined blacks as being inferior to whites. Did that mean they were?

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

Again, I did not say all people with strong religious beliefs should be declared insane (although a nice try), only those who are so extreme as to pose physical harm to themselves or their children. Most religious people would not dream of doing so.

I can see your problem here. In your opinion, we can leave out the medicine and law, and treat the subject logically. Logically, of course, no one would ever put a belief in something they cannot prove (or even observe) ahead of the very real possibility of death.

The problem is that we aren't dealing with an issue of logic. Faith in a god is not at all logical, and all honest people of faith will agree with this. To try and treat this problem like an equation is, well, illogical, since the very basis of it is faith.

I don't understand this sort of faith, and I don't think that I ever will, but we can't just throw everyone with an abiding faith in a god in the boobie hatch. I realize that that's not what you're saying, but your argument does boil down to it.

If you look at it logically.

[Glocksman]

If my argument is so weak, why has no one been able to refute it - apart from saying "that's not how the Law/Constitution defines it"? US Law in the past defined blacks as being inferior to whites. Did that mean they were?

Believing in something in which there is no proof and effectively terminating your own life due to that belief is extremely deluded to say the least. At which point that delusion becomes mental illness has to be open to question.

Again, I did not say all people with strong religious beliefs should be declared insane (although a nice try), only those who are so extreme as to pose physical harm to themselves or their children. Most religious people would not dream of doing so.

I can see your problem here. In your opinion, we can leave out the medicine and law, and treat the subject logically. Logically, of course, no one would ever put a belief in something they cannot prove (or even observe) ahead of the very real possibility of death.

The problem is that we aren't dealing with an issue of logic. Faith in a god is not at all logical, and all honest people of faith will agree with this. To try and treat this problem like an equation is, well, illogical, since the very basis of it is faith.

I don't understand this sort of faith, and I don't think that I ever will, but we can't just throw everyone with an abiding faith in a god in the boobie hatch. I realize that that's not what you're saying, but your argument does boil down to it.

If you look at it logically.

Bingo.
Like they say; if you believe, no explanation is necessary. If you don't believe, no explanation is possible.

The people who have beliefs so strong that they're prepared to die for them aren't acting logically by our lights, but they are being rational within the framework of their belief system.

Delusional?
Possibly, but they'd say you're deluded for not believing the way they do.
As long as the person is acting on their own behalf and is of legal age, I do not have a problem with refusal of medical care.

However as I noted earlier, children are another story.

[Gil Hamilton]

The clinically insane are not competent to make medical decisions for themselves, and, no, you cannot redefine insane just so that it encompasses strong religious belief and thereby supports your argument.

Explain the difference between these:

"I'm refusing to take my medication because Jesus thinks it's a sin."

and

"I'm refusing to take my medication because the invisible dwarf who lives in my garage thinks it's a sin."

How is the person who says A more competant to make a medical decision for themselves than B? Or worse, make it for their children. I guarantee that Person B will lose if they said that at an Accessment, but the stated arguments are exactly identical in nature.

[Zero]

Because person A is basing his claims on a well-known historical document that many other people follow. Person B is the only man of his kind. His claim reveals apparent dillusions, whereas Person A is operating within a framework that was taught to him. If your position is that a person's religious beliefs ought not allow him to make decisions about his own body, then what the hell would you allow religion to be used for? If you make the case that each person with beliefs that strong are crazy, then there are still several million people that are, by your definition, crazy, and only because they accepted what they were told.

Besides this, if we're taking all these things logically, is there any logical reason to want to survive?

[Hillary]

<snip>

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Associaton are the experts in the field and they do not see it the way you do.

Which STILL doesn't address the point. Whether psychiatric boards in the States believe the sort of person who would allow themselves to die because God told them to, is sane or not, is rather besides the point. I am well aware of their standpoint on this issue.

The question still stands - why is it any different to refuse medical treatment because my invisible friend told me not to (under which I WOULD be classified insane, by the way) or to refuse medical treatment because God told me not to?

The answer "because that's not how they are classified in Law/by the medical profession" is not good enough. If the US pshyciatric associations have covered this question, then please cite the research and conclusions.

[SCRawl]

<snip>

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Associaton are the experts in the field and they do not see it the way you do.

Which STILL doesn't address the point. Whether psychiatric boards in the States believe the sort of person who would allow themselves to die because God told them to, is sane or not, is rather besides the point. I am well aware of their standpoint on this issue.

The question still stands - why is it any different to refuse medical treatment because my invisible friend told me not to (under which I WOULD be classified insane, by the way) or to refuse medical treatment because God told me not to?

Your point has been covered in about five different ways. If you don't want to read, that's your problem. And if you don't want to admit that there is a centuries-old culture of belief in a higher power, and that it might cause those with such a belief to act in a way which we might describe as irrational, that's also your problem.

The answer "because that's not how they are classified in Law/by the medical profession" is not good enough. If the US pshyciatric associations have covered this question, then please cite the research and conclusions.

I seriously doubt that any such studies were ever published (or, for that matter, performed). I can imagine a rather dim view from the religionists to a paper titled "Investigating the link between faith in god and mental illness". In any case, I really don't think that we need to invoke someone else's research to solve a problem which we can readily solve using our own cognitive abilities.

[mr friendly guy]

This essentially comes down to a patients right of autonomy vs the beneficience. This is not about whether the doctor's medical advice is superior to the patient's final decision (most of the time it will be).

Religion is a red herring in this case as it doesn't matter what type of irrational beliefs a patient uses in making their final decision, the point is they still have that right to make the decision (I can see an exception in cases when they make that decision which affects other who eg children, or in the case of vaccinations where the concept of herd immunity comes into play). The doctor does not have the right to force his views on the patient (which is why I got pissed off in another thread about doctor's forcing their religious views on patients).

Moreover, if someone refuses medical help based on some irrational belief, I see this as merely Darwinism at work. The only quipe I have, is that if you are going to make the decision not to have a certain level of treatment, that you do not take up the bed so that someone who needs and wants it can have it - and yes this does happen.

Logically, there is no difference in "my imaginary friend told me not to have treatment" vs "Jesus told me to". However the issue is not which decision is more rational, but whether you have the right to make such a decision.

Now here is the sticky bit. Beneficience overrides patient's autonomy when the patient is "not of sound mind". What defines not of sound mind? The psychiatric definition is somewhat arbitary when one compares a religious person vs someone with an imaginary friend, that is if we just compare the two alone.

I am going to suggest that another criteria to which we judge mental illness, is not yes or no they aren't rational, but ability to function in society. While it wasn't intrinsically obvious until I had experienced working in psychiatric wards, the aim of treating the psych patients, is not so much to cure them, but to alleviate symptoms so they can function independently in society (obvious not as well as someone without mental illness).

How does ability to function apply in this scenario? Well a Jehova's witness despite having the irrational belief to refuse beneficial blood transfusions, for all intents and purposes with all other things being equal (ie he doesn't also have a mental illness) can function adequately in society. A person with a mental illness isn't well controlled cannot.

That's my 2 cents. Let the criticism begin.