why are americans so religious & conservative compared to other western nations?

[abracadabraone]

and does it effect how medicine is practiced ?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[235788]

lol wow.


Yes, I'd think it would be a good thing,

 

[BrandonR]

I think this is a valid question and i remember reading about an interview question asking if you would perform a blood transfusion if you found a pamphlet in the pocket of a patient saying this person is a X (X aren't allowed to transfuse blood probably). Something to consider.

 

[235788]

I think this is a valid question and i remember reading about an interview question asking if you would perform a blood transfusion if you found a pamphlet in the pocket of a patient saying this person is a X (X aren't allowed to transfuse blood probably). Something to consider.

well i think thats an easy interview question that i'd love to have had.

You obviously give them the transfusion.

 

[Sephiroth]

lol wow.


Yes, I'd think it would be a good thing,

huh?

well i think thats an easy interview question that i'd love to have had.

You obviously give them the transfusion.

Yeah, I'd go with that too. seems pretty easy.

 

[dreamweaver1988]

I doubt it has any effect. Most people in the West check their faith at the door. Hence why 98% of Catholics blatantly go against the orders of the Pope.

 

[235788]

huh?



Yeah, I'd go with that too. seems pretty easy.

How would being religious ever be a bad thing in medicine? Self-less giving

And being conservative would be irrelevent. I can imagine that you would probably hold negative opinions on medicaid/self-pay populations, but you'd still treat them.

 

[StoicJosher]

America is not more conservative and religious than other western countries. We are just loud. The non-religious population is on the increase in all 50 states in the US.

 

[Charles Darwin]

America is not more conservative and religious than other western countries. We are just loud. The non-religious population is on the increase in all 50 states in the US.

Yes we are

 

[ppfizenm]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

 

[candav]

How would being religious ever be a bad thing in medicine? Self-less giving.

I don't mean to be cynical or inflammatory, but this is quite the last thing I think of when I think of organized religion, as it stands today.

 

[andrewsmack05]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

 

[SchroedingrsCat]

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

Common sense. Treat others as you would like to be treated - all there is to it.

 

[Suncrusher]

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You could probably contribute it to the cold war, we wanted to not be like those godless communists. So we decided to start emphasizing god in society and to this day the effects are felt.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

And where do you think your religion drew its rich moral code from? Obviously not common sense and other 'enlightened' preexisting belief systems....

 

[mauberley]

and does it effect how medicine is practiced ?

It might affect it, but it doesn't effect the practice of medicine.

 

[StoicJosher]

Yes we are

No we are not. We have more self reported religiousness (hence the "we are just loud" comment) but we are not more religious and conservative in our social life, policies etc. We have a huge market for religiosity (an economic market), which is the reason we think we are more conservative. Anecdotal, but the burqa ban in France would have never been passed in the US.

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

From present society. Morality has always been relative.

 

[deleted432862]

How would being religious ever be a bad thing in medicine? Self-less giving

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/singleton/
Scenario: Only doctor on call refuses to perform abortions on religious grounds. Female patient comes in, needs abortion to survive. Doctor let's patient die because of religious convictions.

This is how religion can be bad in medicine.

It almost happened this way in the following article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/singleton/

In this specific article, it is unclear whether the physician refused to perform abortions based on religious convictions or not, but the hypothetical scenario above can easily be extended from this case.

 

[MrBird]

bleh.

 

[Prairiepalmeri]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

Woah woah woah. You just stated many premisses without any evidence. Last time I checked, the church is responsible for handing out food and aiding people when the government cannot. Marriage equality? Thats an opinion. The church believes in marriage equality too! Everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, no one has "special" rights. My church never said anything about birth control! We just don't like to murder babies. And BTW, America has MANY MANY different religions, so don't jump the gun on the Bible!

 

[druggeek]

Americans call themselves member of x religion but follow like 1% of it lol.

brb losing virginity at 15 when you're strictly told to not have sex till marriage
brb having sex with 20 other people before youre married
brb cheating on husband/wife
brb knowing like 10% of your own religion's info.
brb breaking >90% of the laws of your own religion
brb being bored at church in the back of your mind
brb being muslim and getting drunk

.... list can include so many things, sounds more like a nation of hypocrites (just like any civilized country who has religious people, so not singling out USA of course.....)

The real religious people are the fundamentalists who follow everything and take everything literally because... well... that's what your religion says !
Though psychologically people take parts of a religion and follow it and basically do something to keep themselves happy and comfortable.

 

[MrBird]

My honest opinion is that having a religion can be a spiritual/mental hindrance for a practicing physician, but understanding their patients' religions can only be beneficial.

 

[thlaxer]

understanding their patients' religions can only be beneficial.

Well said

How would being religious ever be a bad thing in medicine? Self-less giving

Some of the most caring and giving people I've met are religious and they attribute a lot of it to their upbringing. At the same time though, some of the most bigoted and narrow-minded people I know are deeply religious. If these people were physicians, would they be able to put aside their own personal biases in order to help a patient (e.g. someone who is LGBT, etc.)? If they can't, then being religious is a bad thing in these cases.

 

[deleted432862]

And BTW, America has MANY MANY different religions, so don't jump the gun on the Bible!

In case this is not a troll...

I hope you realize that the user you quoted didn't even attack the bible. He just said that you don't need it to teach you morals.

 

[candav]

Woah woah woah. You just stated many premisses without any evidence. Last time I checked, the church is responsible for handing out food and aiding people when the government cannot. Marriage equality? Thats an opinion. The church believes in marriage equality too! Everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex, no one has "special" rights. My church never said anything about birth control! We just don't like to murder babies. And BTW, America has MANY MANY different religions, so don't jump the gun on the Bible!

Wait, is this real life? I feel this must be a dream, because it has singlehandedly confirmed every negative stereotype I've ever heard about the state of religion in America.

 

[MrBird]

Let's not jump on every religious poster.

 

[deleted432862]

Wait, is this real life? I feel this must be a dream, because it has singlehandedly confirmed every negative stereotype I've ever heard about the state of religion in America.

You find that kind of mentality mostly in the bible belt (south/southeast part of the U.S.) + Utah. Everywhere else, it's MOSTLY quiet, though there are pockets of fundamentalist/hyper-conservative religious followers in every state.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Considering our country's top medical providers are Catholic-based organizations, I'd say it definitely does change the way health care is provided to our citizens. Examples being Ascension Health, Catholic Healthcare West, Catholic Health Initiatives, etc.

 

[Prairiepalmeri]

In case this is not a troll...

I hope you realize that the user you quoted didn't even attack the bible. He just said that you don't need it to teach you morals.

Actually! He did. Read bullet two of his/her post! And the United States WAS founded by a group of Puritans, remember that. This country has very strong roots to religion. In fact, its one of the biggest reasons why it was ever even founded. So of course medicine and religion are going to have some ties. And Im not a troll for the love of God

 

[typicalindian]

Religion and medicine should NEVER be combined. I don't think ones own religious beliefs should dictate the quality of care that their patients receive. However, I do believe that the care provider should respect religious boundaries if the patient asks for it, unless of course the request is completely endangering the life of someone else.

 

[CALLR001]

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

 

[thlaxer]

Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. ... I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

Agree

 

[deleted432862]

Actually! He did. Read bullet two of his/her post! And the United States WAS founded by a group of Puritans, remember that. This country has very strong roots to religion. In fact, its one of the biggest reasons why it was ever even founded. So of course medicine and religion are going to have some ties. And Im not a troll for the love of God

2/10 for accurately depicting your character.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

good post

 

[MrBird]

Religion and medicine should NEVER be combined. I don't think ones own religious beliefs should dictate the quality of care that their patients receive. However, I do believe that the care provider should respect religious boundaries if the patient asks for it, unless of course the request is completely endangering the life of someone else.

You're in for a rude awakening when you realize how far patients are willing to go in terms of damaging their health/refusing treatment in order to adhere to their religious principles. In pretty much every state, the patient will be in king in almost all situations and you will have to "respect" their religious boundaries even if it means you have to let a someone die because of his/her family's beliefs.

 

[Prairiepalmeri]

2/10 for accurately depicting your character.

Whats that supposed to mean? I'm just stating an opinion thats unpopular with some people on this forum! I never said that someone must be religious in order to be a Doctor! I just said that religious Doctors may be influenced by their religion. And that is 100% okay. And how can you attack my character based upon what I said? Thats delusional.

 

[dr zaius]

You're in for a rude awakening when you realize how far patients are willing to go in terms of damaging their health/refusing treatment in order to adhere to their religious principles. In pretty much every state, the patient will be in king in almost all situations and you will have to "respect" their religious boundaries even if it means you have to let a someone die because of his/her family's beliefs.

So true. We had a ton of cases that came from in-house in our ethics class dealing with religious practices and medicine. If a Jehova's Witness doesn't want a blood transfusion you had better not give him one even if it will save his life. Paternalistic medicine is a no-no now. It's all about patient autonomy.

 

[MrBird]

Whats that supposed to mean? I'm just stating an opinion thats unpopular with some people on this forum! I never said that someone must be religious in order to be a Doctor! I just said that religious Doctors may be influenced by their religion. And that is 100% okay. And how can you attack my character based upon what I said? Thats delusional.

Actually.... you'll probably take an ethics class in your first year of med school when you learn that it isn't okay.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

Actually.... you'll probably take an ethics class in your first year of med school when you learn that it isn't okay.

I don't think they were talking about religious activism. I suspect that every kind of life experience influences a person.

 

[MrBird]

I must have misunderstood, then.

 

[SoonerFromTexas]

I must have misunderstood, then.

I might be wrong, but that is how I read it. No worries.

 

[music2doc]

I think this is a valid question and i remember reading about an interview question asking if you would perform a blood transfusion if you found a pamphlet in the pocket of a patient saying this person is a X (X aren't allowed to transfuse blood probably). Something to consider.

well i think thats an easy interview question that i'd love to have had.

You obviously give them the transfusion.

Whoah, cowboy!

I hope that was sarcasm. If not, you might want to rethink your answer. If the patient has information on him/her that strongly implies a denial of consent for a procedure -- such as this card indicating s/he is a JW (most likely value for "X" given the question) -- you should probably have someone (e.g., a tech, registration, etc.) try to contact the person's next of kin or other emergency contact or pull up a copy of the pt's living well prior to giving blood (if it is at all possible to wait; if not possible, I would suggest an alternative therapy during the intermediate period, such as a saline drip to maintain overall blood volume or other treatment available that is within the person's expected wishes). While this is a life-saving treatment and would normally be able to be given in a life-threatening emergency under implied consent laws, consent is no longer "implied" once information to the contrary has been brought forth. Ideally, you would also be aware of your state's laws specific to such situations prior to this situation arising. Giving a patient blood or performing any other procedure against the patient's expressed [and documented] desire [while in a state of mental competency] is a violation of that person's autonomy and is an offense that can open one up to lawsuits. While I do not agree with these religious views, it is crucial that we, as future healthcare leaders and providers, learn to respect them as well as be aware of them.

 

[Double Trouble]

Whoah, cowboy!

I hope that was sarcasm. If not, you might want to rethink your answer. If the patient has information on him/her that strongly implies a denial of consent for a procedure -- such as this card indicating s/he is a JW (most likely value for "X" given the question) -- you should probably have someone (e.g., a tech, registration, etc.) try to contact the person's next of kin or other emergency contact or pull up a copy of the pt's living well prior to giving blood (if it is at all possible to wait; if not possible, I would suggest an alternative therapy during the intermediate period, such as a saline drip to maintain overall blood volume or other treatment available that is within the person's expected wishes). While this is a life-saving treatment and would normally be able to be given in a life-threatening emergency under implied consent laws, consent is no longer "implied" once information to the contrary has been brought forth. Ideally, you would also be aware of your state's laws specific to such situations prior to this situation arising. Giving a patient blood or performing any other procedure against the patient's expressed [and documented] desire [while in a state of mental competency] is a violation of that person's autonomy and is an offense that can open one up to lawsuits. While I do not agree with these religious views, it is crucial that we, as future healthcare leaders and providers, learn to respect them as well as be aware of them.

Or couldn't you put the piece of paper back into the pocket and forgot that you ever saw it?

 

[MrBird]

^House

 

[typicalindian]

You're in for a rude awakening when you realize how far patients are willing to go in terms of damaging their health/refusing treatment in order to adhere to their religious principles. In pretty much every state, the patient will be in king in almost all situations and you will have to "respect" their religious boundaries even if it means you have to let a someone die because of his/her family's beliefs.

I think my post my have been wrongly worded. I totally agree with respecting other peoples religious beliefs, i just do not think the doctors own personal beliefs should never affect the patient's care. Since it is the doctors responsibility in aiding the patent in getting healthy through a method which both can agree on. When I asked an EM physician about this, he told me that the physician is the one to make a call if it is a minor and it is an emergency life threatening situation where there was no time to find out. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly which is quite possible

 

[music2doc]

Or couldn't you put the piece of paper back into the pocket and forgot that you ever saw it?

Would that be ethical? Seems deceitful to me.

Or, more pragmatically, what if someone saw you read and put it back and reported it? (Keep in mind many clipboard-carrying nurses in the hospital would turn you in in a second given the opportunity....)

 

[dr zaius]

I think my post my have been wrongly worded. I totally agree with respecting other peoples religious beliefs, i just do not think the doctors own personal beliefs should never affect the patient's care. Since it is the doctors responsibility in aiding the patent in getting healthy through a method which both can agree on. When I asked an EM physician about this, he told me that the physician is the one to make a call if it is a minor and it is an emergency life threatening situation where there was no time to find out. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly which is quite possible

Minors are a different, more difficult, story.

In the example of giving blood to someone religiously opposed, it's important to remember that you have a different desired outcome than the patient. The patient wants to go to heaven. Maybe his or her religion says that if they receive blood products they won't get in. By giving them blood products against their wishes you have, in their mind, kept them from heaven. No matter how silly you may think it is to die from something that could have been easily corrected, it's not your call to make. It's the patient's decision. People take this whole afterlife thing very seriously, and if they think you've kept them from it you very well might be sued.

 

[MrBird]

Minors are a different, more difficult, story.

In the example of giving blood to someone religiously opposed, it's important to remember that you have a different desired outcome than the patient. The patient wants to go to heaven. Maybe his or her religion says that if they receive blood products they won't get in. By giving them blood products against their wishes you have, in their mind, kept them from heaven. No matter how silly you may think it is to die from something that could have been easily corrected, it's not your call to make. It's the patient's decision. People take this whole afterlife thing very seriously, and if they think you've kept them from it you very well might be sued.

You guys bring up an interesting point. The health of a minor whose family members are Jehovah's witnesses in an emergency situation is within the physician's jurisdiction in I believe all states... I think.

 

[music2doc]

You guys bring up an interesting point. The health of a minor whose family members are Jehovah's witnesses in an emergency situation is within the physician's jurisdiction in I believe all states... I think.

Yes and no, I believe. Ordinarily, the parents would hold full rights to refuse consent; however, if it is a life threatening case, I believe a physician can act in the best interest of the child without much fear of litigation. (Of course, the parents might still sue, but the physician would be protected legally.) I would guess this sort of case is covered in depth in medical ethics courses because it could get sticky fast.