Creationists in Med School?

[heroesjourney]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

To address your point, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to ask about religious beliefs during an interview, if that's what you mean.

My point is not to weed out fundamentalists from practicing medicine. The guy who invented the MRI is a creationist. I wouldn't care if he worshipped a giant pancake, because his invention saved the lives of so many people. My point is that people should open up and not shy away from challenging other people's ideas and worldviews. There's a difference between respecting others and tip toeing around them to avoid making them uncomfortable. One of the reasons this is good is it could check ideas that lead to harmful behavior, in addition to opening people up to larger, healthier perspectives. You are pretty optimistic about these doctors abiding by these codes of ethics over their faith, and I hope you're right. This is based off of information I heard second hand, albeit from a good source, so I hope it's plain untrue. However, having lived down here for my entire life I would not be surprised in the least if it were true.

 

[mavric1298]

I feel the need to point out an easy example of one of the crux's of evolution (and I speak from having a degree in molecular, cellular, developmental biology)
- The rise of multicellularity has happened at LEAST 25 different times as seen from studying extant species, and is generally considered "easy" (multicellularity has evolved repeatedly and independently), and we can reproduce it as well in lab studies;
- Lab studies have shown that aggregate multicellularity can arise from unicellular species in as little as 4 weeks
http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/pap...ey: A possible origin of multicellularity.pdf
- we also see that we can select for life histories and generate unicellular to multicellularity -
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595
- we can even predict and discern evolutionary consequences and formulate whether it will happen (Hamiltons rule and kin selection are important here)
http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf

 

[Kaz]

My point is not to weed out fundamentalists from practicing medicine. The guy who invented the MRI is a creationist. I wouldn't care if he worshipped a giant pancake, because his invention saved the lives of so many people. My point is that people should open up and not shy away from challenging other people's ideas and worldviews. There's a difference between respecting others and tip toeing around them to avoid making them uncomfortable. One of the reasons this is good is it could check ideas that lead to harmful behavior, in addition to opening people up to larger, healthier perspectives. You are pretty optimistic about these doctors abiding by these codes of ethics over their faith, and I hope you're right. This is based off of information I heard second hand, albeit from a good source, so I hope it's plain untrue. However, having lived down here for my entire life I would not be surprised in the least if it were true.

I agree, but that would be difficult to do in practice. Most people would probably go through a lot of mental anguish trying to uproot fallacious fundamental beliefs (optimistically assuming that people are receptive). Ideally, if you wanted to do something like that, it you could help them rationalize by explaining it around their belief system. If you don't tread lightly, it has a chance of affecting the group dynamic at any stage of your career.
You'd be much better off around people who know where you come from.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your story was true either.

 

[T800'sThumb]

I am interested to hear what you take issue with. Not in a rude way but out of genuine curiosity. To me it's fairly straightforward. Especially when my very very atheist philosophy professors say if you believe in evolution, you can not believe in an absolute right vs wrong (and be philosophically consistent). No one is saying it's impossible to believe in right vs wrong and be an atheist. Just that it's not in accordance with a materialistic worldview


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I'm not sure if this has been addressed quite this way, but to say that atheists can't "believe in right vs wrong" is quite wrong.

While we don't have a moral authority dictating moral standards, we can, nonetheless arrive at moral judgments based on axioms we can agree on. These include:

1. pleasure being generally preferable to pain/suffering
2. life being generally preferable to death
3. all else being equal, it's generally preferable for people to be happy than not
4. other persons have these same basic preferences and they are valuable to them as it is to you

If we agree to these axioms, then we can arrive at answers to questions of whether something is moral-- without an authority such as a god. (Assuming that by "right vs wrong" you are referring to morality)

alternatively, taking moral standards by decree (declarations of right vs wrong) negates your own moral agency.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

This thread is super long, but to just throw my opinion in the mix, I agree with an earlier poster about not being able to trust someone who selectively disbelieves in the aspects of evolution that contradict their religious beliefs. The main reason being because these people usually claim to have actual doubts about the underlying science (like macro vs micro etc etc). They really got lucky and found the hole in the logic of that particular evolutionary theory did they? And it just happens to fit perfectly with their previous beliefs? Doubtful.

I think these people are offenders of one of the worst acts coming from a "scientist," akin to falsifying data to match what you expected. Would you want me working on your research team if I told you that I didn't believe that V = IR? If my only reasoning was because all my ancestors didn't believe it, so please just respect my beliefs and let me solder this equipment for you?

 

[deleted480308]

This thread is super long, but to just throw my opinion in the mix, I agree with an earlier poster about not being able to trust someone who selectively disbelieves in the aspects of evolution that contradict their religious beliefs. The main reason being because these people usually claim to have actual doubts about the underlying science (like macro vs micro etc etc). They really got lucky and found the hole in the logic of that particular evolutionary theory did they? And it just happens to fit perfectly with their previous beliefs? Doubtful.

I think these people are offenders of one of the worst acts coming from a "scientist," akin to falsifying data to match what you expected. Would you want me working on your research team if I told you that I didn't believe that V = IR? If my only reasoning was because all my ancestors didn't believe it, so please just respect my beliefs and let me solder this equipment for you?

you truly believe religious theory on something as immaterial as origin of man could somehow render one incapable of reading lab results and applying evidence based treatment?

 

[FBurnaby]

I'll repeat what's already been said:

Evolution has direct implications in medicine, but even if it didn't, denying (not questioning, but flat out denying e.g. Young earth creation) basic aspects of biology means either:

1. You never fully understood the facts

2. You chose to override or twist the evidence in favor of your religious bias

Either way, it cannot be assumed that a science denier has an isolated incident with evolution and will always suspend this type of reasoning while practicing medicine.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

you truly believe religious theory on something as immaterial as origin of man could somehow render one incapable of reading lab results and applying evidence based treatment?

See @FBurnaby 's answer above for a great summary of my views on this. Who knows which scienctific/moral/ethical tenents they will choose to "disagree" with next?

 

[deleted480308]

I'll repeat what's already been said:

Evolution has direct implications in medicine, but even if it didn't, denying (not questioning, but flat out denying e.g. Young earth creation) basic aspects of biology means either:

1. You never fully understood the facts

2. You chose to override or twist the evidence in favor of your religious bias

Either way, it cannot be assumed that a science denier has an isolated incident with evolution and will always suspend this type of reasoning while practicing medicine.

so none of the religious belief systems with a view on creation or the supernatural get to be physicians? You're being rather hyperbolic for someone trumpeting rational thought

See @FBurnaby 's answer above for a great summary of my views on this. Who knows which scienctific/moral/ethical tenents they will choose to "disagree" with next?

let's stick on topic, which medical diagnosis/treatment/procedure is impossible to mentally comprehend if one believes in religious creationism?

 

[T800'sThumb]

I mean.. you can be a physician-- a pretty good one (see Ben Carson). You just won't be a good scientist. You don't need to understand everything that went into the development of each system and mechanism in a car to be able to fix one to reasonably working order.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

so none of the religious belief systems with a view on creation or the supernatural get to be physicians? You're being rather hyperbolic for someone trumpeting rational thought

let's stick on topic, which medical diagnosis/treatment/procedure is impossible to mentally comprehend if one believes in religious creationism?

I didn't say any of that. However, it's not that I don't want to work with them because I see them or expect them to be unable to function properly as a physician, it's the same reason I wouldn't want to work with someone who I saw steal a $20 out of my wallet and then lie about it. How can I trust anything they tell me in the future? They lose their value as a trusted source of information, and that's not great if we are trying to be on a team.

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

double post

 

[deleted480308]

I didn't say any of that. However, it's not that I don't want to work with them because I see them or expect them to be unable to function properly as a physician, it's the same reason I wouldn't want to work with someone who I saw steal a $20 out of my wallet and then lie about it. How can I trust anything they tell me in the future? They lose their value as a trusted source of information, and that's not great if we are trying to be on a team.

You find the trust level of religious belief to be equivalent to theft? I'd encourage you to deeply evaluate that premise

 

[FBurnaby]

@sb247 I'm not sure how you came that conclusion from my post, I specifically meant those who deny and attack basic scientific concepts (Commonly seen in fundamentalist Muslims/Christians, mainly due to a literalist interpretation of their texts). did you read this thread? Youre knocking down a lot of straw men.

 

[Agent_Michael_Scarn]

How can I trust anything they tell me in the future?

You use your brain and check out the evidence. Same way you trust anything. I'm not on either side of this fence, but just to play advocate, do you realize that the same could be said about Atheists who use evolution as evidence that there is no God? Both parties are extending evidence beyond what it really says. Why can't everyone just accept that we work alongside people who are right about some things, wrong about others, and just focus on the relevant issues (fyi, believing how old the earth is a very minute factor in delivering health).

 

[deleted480308]

@sb247 I'm not sure how you came that conclusion from my post, I specifically meant those who deny and attack basic scientific concepts (Commonly seen in fundamentalist Muslims/Christians, mainly due to a literalist interpretation of their texts). did you read this thread? Youre knocking down a lot of straw men.

You just said specifically that a young earth creationist shouldn't be trusted to be logical in medicine. It is irrelevant to any actual practical application in medicine and while I get that it's trendy in recent times to crap on the religious folks but you're simply wrong on this.

 

[FBurnaby]

You just said specifically that a young earth creationist shouldn't be trusted to be logical in medicine. It is irrelevant to any actual practical application in medicine and while I get that it's trendy in recent times to crap on the religious folks but you're simply wrong on this.

I would feel much less confident being under the care of or working with a YEC, yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread. Not seeing the practical applications in medicine (also discussed in this thread) is whats irrelevant, because it is overall critical thinking and judgement that is suspect. It's all benign when the applications and concepts are abstract, but what will these doctors do when medicine is more directly in the way of their personal beliefs (if say their particular spiritual leaders began to preach against, for example, v̶a̶c̶c̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ c̶o̶n̶d̶o̶m̶s̶ b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶f̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ antibiotics, would they still be able to recommend antibiotic treatments?). As for trying to say that refuting pseudoscience and religious dogma is "trendy in recent times" I don't know where to begin.

 

[deleted480308]

I would feel much less confident being under the care of or working with a YEC, yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread. Not seeing the practical applications in medicine (also discussed in this thread) is whats irrelevant, because it is overall critical thinking and judgement that is suspect. It's all benign when the applications and concepts are abstract, but what will these doctors do when medicine is more directly in the way of their personal beliefs (if say their particular spiritual leaders began to preach against, for example, v̶a̶c̶c̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ c̶o̶n̶d̶o̶m̶s̶ b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶f̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ antibiotics, would they still be able to recommend antibiotic treatments?). As for trying to say that refuting pseudoscience and religious dogma is "trendy in recent times" I don't know where to begin.

Don't be intellectually dishonest. I didn't say you were refuting their opinion, I said you were crapping on them as people...because you are. You are saying that because they hold a religious belief that you find contrary to evidence that they somehow can't be trusted to function like an honest professional. You are openly saying that you believe religious physicians are less capable and trustworthy. It's an opinion just as unfounded in fact as you proclaim their religion to be....

 

[deleted407021]

I get that it's trendy in recent times to crap on the religious folks

I can't recall. Have any people ITT pulled the "poor downtrodden persecuted extremely expnomically and politically powerful 80%+ of the population" card yet? Well, they have now.

 

[deleted407021]

I would feel much less confident being under the care of or working with a YEC, yes, for reasons already discussed in this thread. Not seeing the practical applications in medicine (also discussed in this thread) is whats irrelevant, because it is overall critical thinking and judgement that is suspect. It's all benign when the applications and concepts are abstract, but what will these doctors do when medicine is more directly in the way of their personal beliefs (if say their particular spiritual leaders began to preach against, for example, v̶a̶c̶c̶i̶n̶e̶s̶ c̶o̶n̶d̶o̶m̶s̶ b̶l̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶f̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ antibiotics, would they still be able to recommend antibiotic treatments?). As for trying to say that refuting pseudoscience and religious dogma is "trendy in recent times" I don't know where to begin.

Let us not forget the huge numbers of Catholic owned hospitals where certain types of care are routinely withheld from patients on dogmatic grounds.

 

[deleted480308]

I can't recall. Have any people ITT pulled the "poor downtrodden persecuted extremely expnomically and politically powerful 80%+ of the population" card yet? Well, they have now.

ITT?

 

[deleted480308]

Let us not forget the huge numbers of Catholic owned hospitals where certain types of care are routinely withheld from patients on dogmatic grounds.

Do they lie about their status in regards to to certain procedures? Am I to assume I can't trust food from a bakery if they don't do lobster bisque?

 

[deleted407021]

ITT?

ITT = in this thread

While I agree with you (and have mentioned as much ITT 😉 ) that YECs and their ilk can be competent physicians, because it would honestly be silly to believe otherwise, I have to push back against this supposed crapping up that religious people (Christians, we're talking about Christians) are supposedly experiencing. It's silly and is eager at this point impossible for such a thing to happen. This addition to the milieu is simply a reaction on their part to having their authority and positions contended with.

 

[deleted480308]

ITT = in this thread

While I agree with you (and have mentioned as much ITT 😉 ) that YECs and their ilk can be competent physicians, because it would honestly be silly to believe otherwise, I have to push back against this supposed crapping up that religious people (Christians, we're talking about Christians) are supposedly experiencing. It's silly and is eager at this point impossible for such a thing to happen. This addition to the milieu is simply a reaction on their part to having their authority and positions contended with.

In a thread literally started to claim that christians are stupid where I spent the last day arguing with 2 people who think christians are less qualified to to be physicians because they can't be trusted due to the insanity of their beliefs......you don't really get to me that christians aren't being crapped on at all. 😉

but yes, I thank you for agreeing that I can actually function as a professional somoeday

 

[deleted407021]

Do they lie about their status in regards to to certain procedures? Am I to assume I can't trust food from a bakery if they don't do lobster bisque?

Perhaps not directly, but when a pregnant woman goes into the ER at a Trinity affiliated hospital system, she expects treatment. However, they claim the right to refuse emergency abortive care on religious grounds.

 

[deleted480308]

Perhaps not directly, but when a pregnant woman goes into the ER at a Trinity affiliated hospital system, she expects treatment. However, they claim the right to refuse emergency abortive care on religious grounds.

I'm not familiar with the terms of the case but no person or business should be forced to provide any service they don't want to as long as they are up front about it. If this hospital sucks so much, build a better one across the street and steal their patients with better service/prices

 

[deleted407021]

I'm not familiar with the terms of the case but no person or business should be forced to provide any service they don't want to as long as they are up front about it. If this hospital sucks so much, build a better one across the street and steal their patients with better service/prices

And here we meet the solid brick wall with a giant Ron Swanson face spray painted on it.

 

[mavric1298]

I'm not familiar with the terms of the case but no person or business should be forced to provide any service they don't want to as long as they are up front about it. If this hospital sucks so much, build a better one across the street and steal their patients with better service/prices

This is so wrong on so many levels. So if the only doctor in town doesn't believe in saving the life of a mother by performing an abortion, your saying she should die, but at least the doc was up front about it...because that is what you are saying

Or - that you should be able to refuse service to black people because you are racist. Your right to refuse service is exactly what happened in the past, if you care to remember.

Part of becoming a doctor is setting aside your personal beliefs to treat your patients the best way possible. Do you think a Jehovah's Witness doc should be allowed to refuse to give people transfusions? If so, why on earth would you let them become a surgeon for example.....

 

[deleted480308]

And here we meet the solid brick wall with a giant Ron Swanson face spray painted on it.

yep....

but I did some quick googling. The hospital says the council of bishops does allow for treatments to the mother for illness/risk of life even if they could harm the child. What they don't allow for is the active killing of a child that still has the potential to reach viability. Out of curiosity, do you have an instance of an emergent, that hour, type of situation in which Trinity didn't provide services and someone died? (admitting I still don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, just testing the reality of the premise)

This is so wrong on so many levels. So if the only doctor in town doesn't believe in saving the life of a mother by performing an abortion, your saying she should die, but at least the doc was up front about it...because that is what you are saying

Or - that you should be able to refuse service to black people because you are racist. Your right to refuse service is exactly what happened in the past, if you care to remember.

I don't think the govt should ever be able to force you to do anything against your conscience no matter how stupid your conscience may be to anyone else. If you are so concerned about the only doctor within hours of a town being a christian that doesn't do abortions, then move across the street from that doctor and open up. And yes, if you want to open a store and and only serve left handed laotians and only hire tall norwegians.....it's a dumb business model and will likely fail but it should be legal.

 

[deleted407021]

yep....

but I did some quick googling. The hospital says the council of bishops does allow for treatments to the mother for illness/risk of life even if they could harm the child. What they don't allow for is the active killing of a child that still has the potential to reach viability. Out of curiosity, do you have an instance of an emergent, that hour, type of situation in which Trinity didn't provide services and someone died? (admitting I still don't think anyone should be forced to do anything, just testing the reality of the premise)




I don't think the govt should ever be able to force you to do anything against your conscience no matter how stupid your conscience may be to anyone else. If you are so concerned about the only doctor within hours of a town being a christian that doesn't do abortions, then move across the street from that doctor and open up. And yes, if you want to open a store and and only serve left handed laotians and only hire tall norwegians.....it's a dumb business model and will likely fail but it should be legal.

Do you think it appropriate that bishops determine type of care if they aren't physicians?

Anyway, the ACLU.

 

[deleted480308]

Do you think it appropriate that bishops determine type of care if they aren't physicians?

Anyway, the ACLU.

Bishops acting as the representatives of the owners of the hospital and therefore the employer? yep...they set the parameters in their building

and the opposing thought process. https://adflegal.org/detailspages/b...-right-abortion-is-rarely-medically-necessary and the churches related opinion in a cited case.... http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/upload/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

 

[FBurnaby]

@sb247 your straw man has drifted into an abortion debate. Nobody wants that. I'll end with reminding that criticizing evolution deniers =/= "crapping" on people who have religious views. YEC =/= Christendom.

 

[mavric1298]

yep....
I don't think the govt should ever be able to force you to do anything against your conscience no matter how stupid your conscience may be to anyone else. .

Do you happen to remember this? Or how about it was the government who had to step in and make these things called anti-discrimination laws? Glad you want to go back to the 50/60's

 

[deleted480308]

Do you happen to remember this? Or how about it was the government who had to step in and make these things called anti-discrimination laws? Glad you want to go back to the 50/60's

it was local municipalities that were actually requiring segregation...govt was perpetuating the problem and not allowing the free market to move on and erode segregation

 

[mavric1298]

Alright, Ron....I have no response - the very idea that the free market would have solved racism in the south and ended segregation - just - 🤣

 

[deleted407021]

Bishops acting as the representatives of the owners of the hospital and therefore the employer? yep...they set the parameters in their building

and the opposing thought process. https://adflegal.org/detailspages/b...-right-abortion-is-rarely-medically-necessary and the churches related opinion in a cited case.... http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/publications/upload/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

The "opposing thought process" is couched in the abortion debate, which I'm not getting into aside from indicating how annoying and dishonest it is for fetuses to consistently be conflated with babies -- biologically distinct entities.

That emergencies indicating abortion are rare if the article from the ADF (a conservative, Christian, anti-abortion group) is to be believed has no bearing on whether the services ought to be rendered to the few[sic] who suffer from the rare[sic] circumstances. Progeria is also rare...

That second article is dogmatic bulls***. Their fundamentalism laid bare is enlightening, nevertheless.

 

[deleted480308]

I have no response - the very idea that the free market would have solved racism in the south and ended segregation - just - 🤣

The free market was eroding segregation, that's why the last vestiges of racists tried to use local govts to enforce it.

 

[deleted480308]

The "opposing thought process" is couched in the abortion debate, which I'm not getting into aside from indicating how annoying and dishonest it is for fetuses to consistently be conflated with babies -- biologically distinct entities.

That emergencies indicating abortion are rare if the article from the ADF (a conservative, Christian, anti-abortion group) is to be believed has no bearing on whether the services ought to be rendered to the few[sic] who suffer from the rare[sic] circumstances. Progeria is also rare...

That second article is dogmatic bulls***. Their fundamentalism laid bare is enlightening, nevertheless.

I get it, it's one of those issues with no middle ground really. It's why I say that anyone finding the catholic hospitals to be abhorent and dangerous should open a hospital across the street

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

You find the trust level of religious belief to be equivalent to theft? I'd encourage you to deeply evaluate that premise

I didn't make any comment on general religious beliefs either, I am talking about people who twist scientific facts to match their other preheld beliefs (religious or not). YEC doesn't get a special pass from me just because it falls under some endlessly re-definable umbrella of "religious belief." Evolution deniers are the ones who bring the argument into the scientific realm, and I am not bashing their religion, I am bashing on their selective denial of evidence. If you find a creationist who can brave the cognitive dissonance and believe in both YEC and evolution, then I don't think I would see a problem there.

And to answer your specific question: in the scientific community, I would say that falsifying/misconstruing data to match the hypothesis you want it too (which is what I am effectively accusing creationists of being guilty of) is seen as a more grievous crime than theft (which often played a role in many historic discoveries).

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

You use your brain and check out the evidence. Same way you trust anything. I'm not on either side of this fence, but just to play advocate, do you realize that the same could be said about Atheists who use evolution as evidence that there is no God? Both parties are extending evidence beyond what it really says. Why can't everyone just accept that we work alongside people who are right about some things, wrong about others, and just focus on the relevant issues (fyi, believing how old the earth is a very minute factor in delivering health).

I don't want to work with people who are wrong about important things. It has nothing to do with them being religious.

 

[Agent_Michael_Scarn]

I don't want to work with people who are wrong about important things. It has nothing to do with them being religious.

Welcome to the real world, Accepted Medical Student. People work with people they don't want to every day. Vaccines, government ideologies, ideas about professionalism, we all have to deal with people who are wrong about a lot of things. But as long as they do their job, I'm ok with putting aside differences and working with them. And if you're serious about being a good doctor you should to (especially since the vast majority of your patients are wrong about things to).

 

[CaliforniaDreamer]

Welcome to the real world, Accepted Medical Student.

Ouch, thanks for putting me in my place.

People work with people they don't want to every day. Vaccines, government ideologies, ideas about professionalism, we all have to deal with people who are wrong about a lot of things. But as long as they do their job, I'm ok with putting aside differences and working with them. And if you're serious about being a good doctor you should to (especially since the vast majority of your patients are wrong about things to).

If I don't have a choice in the matter, it is fine. It is not going to be a deal breaker, but not trusting someone to the fullest extent just means more work for me in checking their outputs more thoroughly. If I had the choice, just from an economic standpoint, I wouldn't choose the person I trusted less/who I saw as less competent to be on my team, not sure why this particular point is contentious. Are you arguing against wanting to work with more competent/trusted teammates, or are you arguing against YEC affecting someone's competency?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Perhaps not directly, but when a pregnant woman goes into the ER at a Trinity affiliated hospital system, she expects treatment. However, they claim the right to refuse emergency abortive care on religious grounds.

This is incorrect. The guidelines for catholic healthcare practitioners specifically exempts termination when the mother's life is threatened. Good try though.

 

[deleted407021]

This is incorrect. The guidelines for catholic healthcare practitioners specifically exempts termination when the mother's life is threatened. Good try though.

"Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers."

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Healthcare Services, Fifth Edition, Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life, Directive 45.

"In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Healthcare Services, Fifth Edition, Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life, Directive 48.



Directive 47 seems to suggest that the termination of a non-viable pregnancy as the result of a procedure or treatment necessary for the preservation of the life of a pregnant woman is permitted. However, the point around which a lot of these directives revolves is viability and whether or not an abortion is direct or indirect. Despite this, I see room for an institution to claim that it may deny care to the degree referenced in the ACLU link.

 

[Agent_Michael_Scarn]

If I don't have a choice in the matter, it is fine. It is not going to be a deal breaker, but not trusting someone to the fullest extent just means more work for me in checking their outputs more thoroughly. If I had the choice, just from an economic standpoint, I wouldn't choose the person I trusted less/who I saw as less competent to be on my team, not sure why this particular point is contentious. Are you arguing against wanting to work with more competent/trusted teammates, or are you arguing against YEC affecting someone's competency?

I don't think YECs are incapable of comprehending the data, they just find more value in their faith and culture than they do accepting proven data that does next to nothing to make them happier. Plenty of patients do the same. You'll find that many patients won't make the reasonable decision based on data and evidence, they will make decisions that provide the most value to them (eg: denying treatment to keep their dignity as they pass). The same is usually true with these doctors. When the data actually changes things, they know how to interpret and apply the data. If they couldn't, they wouldn't survive medical training. So I would trust colleagues for that reason, rather than finding small, likely meaningless reasons to second-guess them.

 

[Mr Roboto]

The free market was eroding segregation, that's why the last vestiges of racists tried to use local govts to enforce it.

Yep, that's why segregation is totally gone today. Because we have had a free market for years and years!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html?_r=0

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

"Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers."

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Healthcare Services, Fifth Edition, Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life, Directive 45.

"In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion."

Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Healthcare Services, Fifth Edition, Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life, Directive 48.



Directive 47 seems to suggest that the termination of a non-viable pregnancy as the result of a procedure or treatment necessary for the preservation of the life of a pregnant woman is permitted. However, the point around which a lot of these directives revolves is viability and whether or not an abortion is direct or indirect. Despite this, I see room for an institution to claim that it may deny care to the degree referenced in the ACLU link.

Your last paragraph hits it. If there was a way to save both women and fetus in, say, an ectopic pregnancy then the Catholics would be bound to take that approach. Since there isn't, they're in the clear to either operate or use methotrexate.

And I can use lots of rules to do things many would find objectionable (have you ever actually read the full AMA Ethics stuff?). I mean the Hippocratic oath, which I understand some schools stuff use in its original form, prohibits many things which we do on a regular basis.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yep, that's why segregation is totally gone today. Because we have had a free market for years and years!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html?_r=0

I don't think that link says what you think it does

 

[deleted480308]

Yep, that's why segregation is totally gone today. Because we have had a free market for years and years!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html?_r=0

School zones (if they are properly designed by geographic proximity to the school) that just happen to have high concentrations of certain races aren't a problem. The problem that existed in racial segragetion (brown v education) was that race was used to deny access to certain schools. If all races are allowed legally to buy/rent in a zone then the eventual racial percentages do not matter. There is no virtue in trying to ensure a particular racial balance in a particular building, and it's dishonest of anyone to imply that people of one race living disproportionately in a neighborhood is in any way similar to 1950sish banning of races from schools.

 

[Promethean]

Yep, that's why segregation is totally gone today. Because we have had a free market for years and years!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/cleveland-mississippi-school-district-desegregate.html?_r=0

It is a relief not to have to post things myself, but just to wander down to the end of the thread and find them there.

The "local governments" that were enforcing segregation are not some externally imposed force in those communities. Local governments are, even more so than larger state and national governments, generally comprised of the wealthiest, most empowered members of their communities, and they derive their authority from the support of the community at large. They ARE the shop owners and those who spend the most money in those shops. It is thus absurd to suggest that the government is a different entity than the market in those communities, and to believe that government would impose an agenda at odds with the aims of the market forces in that community.

To the extent that segregation was enforced by municipalities, that was done at the behest of the empowered white populations of those municipalities. I grew up in a town that still had de facto segregation, in spite of decades of attempts by the national government to protect the rights of all citizens. Market forces didn't make segregation go away there, because the majority of the locals still wanted it, and the minority didn't have the resources to fight back.

The market doesn't have morals. Letting the market sort things out is only fair if everyone gets the same shot at participating in it, if all things are equal. But all things are decidedly not equal, and the amoral market, allowed to serve as the final arbiter of human affairs, has no problem with creating outcomes that diminish human dignity and potential.

I find it so hard to understand, @sb247 , how a moral man such as yourself... a man who considers himself a follower of Christ, can have fallen in with the money changers, to trust in their capacity to dispense economic and political justice.