Disturbing news?

[Nomar5]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello all,

I have not posted in some time, but have visiting this board since I was a pre-med (now in fellowship). I wanted to get some feedback to an article I read the other night. I recently received my "D.O." magazine (November issue) in the mail and read a brief blurb on a new osteopathic school that was searching for a dean. I beleive the school is in Mississippi. Upon closer inspection the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and will be a christian medical school.

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Is this good for osteopathic medicine or for that matter medicine in general?

I am interested in your thoughts.
Matt

 

[jp104]

Hello all,

I have not posted in some time, but have visiting this board since I was a pre-med (now in fellowship). I wanted to get some feedback to an article I read the other night. I recently received my "D.O." magazine (November issue) in the mail and read a brief blurb on a new osteopathic school that was searching for a dean. I beleive the school is in Mississippi. Upon closer inspection the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and will be a christian medical school.

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Is this good for osteopathic medicine or for that matter medicine in general?

I am interested in your thoughts.
Matt

All of the Touros are religiously affiliated. On the Allo side, Loma Linda is a christian affiliated school.

PS: This thread should be in Osteopathic and not the class threads forum 😛

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I wouldn't worry about that. And yes, there are plenty of medical schools with a religious "tag" who do just fine. In fact, there are plenty of outstanding doctors who are very religious. Their curriculum will not deviate from standard medical curriculum, if that's what you're worried about. Even if they wanted it to, it couldn't.

 

[cyclohexanol]

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Loma Linda
St Louis University
Loyola University Chicago
Touro(s) (as mentioned before)
Georgetown
Creighton
Albert Einstein @ Yeshiva

This is not disturbing news.
Nothing to see here folks, please move along.

 

[Toohotinvegas33]

Hello all,

I have not posted in some time, but have visiting this board since I was a pre-med (now in fellowship). I wanted to get some feedback to an article I read the other night. I recently received my "D.O." magazine (November issue) in the mail and read a brief blurb on a new osteopathic school that was searching for a dean. I beleive the school is in Mississippi. Upon closer inspection the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and will be a christian medical school.

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Is this good for osteopathic medicine or for that matter medicine in general?

I am interested in your thoughts.
Matt

And what exactly is disturbing? A solid set or morals? conservative values? I hope this will be a great school and it seems to have some solid backing.

 

[Shinken]

This is not disturbing news.
Nothing to see here folks, please move along.

Well...since the Rocky Vista thread seems to have lost momentum, this could perhaps replace the lack of drama on the osteo forum.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Hello all,

I have not posted in some time, but have visiting this board since I was a pre-med (now in fellowship). I wanted to get some feedback to an article I read the other night. I recently received my "D.O." magazine (November issue) in the mail and read a brief blurb on a new osteopathic school that was searching for a dean. I beleive the school is in Mississippi. Upon closer inspection the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and will be a christian medical school.

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Is this good for osteopathic medicine or for that matter medicine in general?

I am interested in your thoughts.
Matt

They are religious? You don't say? [Heart beat stops momentarily] Really? Gosh...

Well, I have another question - do you guys think that this school will actually call their Holiday Trees....."Christmas" Trees? 😱

 

[EastWestN2grt]

And what exactly is disturbing? A solid set or morals? conservative values? I hope this will be a great school and it seems to have some solid backing.

As long as the medical school remains autonomous from the religious affiliation, and that the religious affiliation keeps political/social agenda out of the med school then I have no problems with this school.

A physician needs to be open to differences (including the possibility that what one may consider a "solid set of morals" or "conservative values" another may consider closemindedness, impractical, or ridiculous), as well being culturally competent. Thus the school needs to allow freedom of thought and expression of ideas by its future medical students--just to clarify, these statements are specifically abt the med school. An undergrad going to a religious school more than likely is there because of the religion, and so the religion can impose its values on these students--but NOT to the med students.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

How, exactly, could a medical school put a religious slant on its curriculum? If you think about what is taught in medical school, there really isn't anything that you could possibly teach that would be different from any other school.

 

[cyclohexanol]

How, exactly, could a medical school put a religious slant on its curriculum? If you think about what is taught in medical school, there really isn't anything that you could possibly teach that would be different from any other school.

Godase is responsible for the conversion of pre-God I to God protein. Deficiency of either leads to hypoGodemia.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Ah... Biochemistry 6:16. One of my favorite passages.

 

[Yourmother]

Hello all,

I have not posted in some time, but have visiting this board since I was a pre-med (now in fellowship). I wanted to get some feedback to an article I read the other night. I recently received my "D.O." magazine (November issue) in the mail and read a brief blurb on a new osteopathic school that was searching for a dean. I beleive the school is in Mississippi. Upon closer inspection the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and will be a christian medical school.

Are there other medical schools in the U.S. affiliated with religous organization? How will this effect the students education? How will the subjects of stem cell research, abortion, birth control, HIV, etc be addressed at this new insitution?

Is this good for osteopathic medicine or for that matter medicine in general?

I am interested in your thoughts.
Matt

My wife attended a Catholic nursing school. Her education was no different that the public school her friends attended.

 

[Yourmother]

How, exactly, could a medical school put a religious slant on its curriculum?

Well actually, if you played the Powerpoint lectures backwards, you can hear the professors say Biblical quotes.

 

[DragonWell]

How, exactly, could a medical school put a religious slant on its curriculum? If you think about what is taught in medical school, there really isn't anything that you could possibly teach that would be different from any other school.

Actually, I can think of many issues in reproductive technology, family planning and health care for homosexual and transgendered patients that could potentially be influenced by religious concerns.

 

[It'sElectric]

How, exactly, could a medical school put a religious slant on its curriculum? If you think about what is taught in medical school, there really isn't anything that you could possibly teach that would be different from any other school.

You're kidding, right?? Kind of like how on earth can a hospital put a religious slant on how it operates? - Physicians at Catholic hospitals are not only prohibited from prescribing birth control, they're even prevented from learning about forms of contraception (i.e. IUDs) other than natural family planning.

That being said, I'm less concerned that this new school is religiously affiliated and far, far more concerned that there is a new school altogether. Let's just keep sucking on the ACGME teat, while we ignore improvements in osteopathic graduate medical education, yet continue to open new osteopathic schools.

 

[CatsandCradles]

As long as the medical school remains autonomous from the religious affiliation, and that the religious affiliation keeps political/social agenda out of the med school then I have no problems with this school.

A physician needs to be open to differences (including the possibility that what one may consider a "solid set of morals" or "conservative values" another may consider closemindedness, impractical, or ridiculous), as well being culturally competent. Thus the school needs to allow freedom of thought and expression of ideas by its future medical students--just to clarify, these statements are specifically abt the med school. An undergrad going to a religious school more than likely is there because of the religion, and so the religion can impose its values on these students--but NOT to the med students.

You obviously were very careful with your statement, and I thank you for being diplomatic. If I may ask: do you feel that a religious medical school has no right to be a religous school? Is this correct?

If a medical school used the word "Christmas Tree" would this be an example of discrimination? I ask this, because at a public school - we have been told repeatedly to say "Holiday Tree"

You wrote "religious affiliation keeps political/social agenda out of the med school then I have no problems with this school" Do you propose that we extend secularism into religious institutions as well? A public school is not allowed to sponsor or affilate itself with any one particular religious body - thus I find it interesting, that you feel that we should enforce secularism on a religious school.

My question is where do we draw the line? You stated: An undergrad going to a religious school more than likely is there because of the religion, and so the religion can impose its values on these students--but NOT to the med students

Well, I tried to get into Loma Linda - got rejected by them. I'm not strongly religious, but I was sick and tired of the drinking, drugs, and poor behavior I saw at my undergrad. I had friends (if they can be called friends) who went out on Monday nights to get drunk - and then trashed an old lady's flower garden. The next day when I questioned him - he said "Who cares? she just an old geezer anyway."

That was the behavior I saw take place at my undergrad.

Thus, are you trying to suggest, that a religious school like Loma Linda can impose its values on their undergrad students - but the medical students don't have to obey the same rules and regulations because that would be a form of discrimination cause they have to be open minded? If you are talking about birth control and all the other issues conservatives and liberals like to complain and whine about, then it is my opinion that I agree with you.

But again, I ask : Where do we draw the line? If the school has a school prayer - is that discrimination? Do religious schools have the right to practice their religion in their schools?

This is an important topic for many people, this:http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=459970

It's a very thought provoking link, I encourage everyone to read it.

 

[CatsandCradles]

I am very sorry, it appears the link is not functioning. The thread is in the mentor forum.

 

[medhacker]

Let's just keep sucking on the ACGME teat,

It's not a teat...

It's an ACGME tit, boob, tata, kazanga, teta, milkbag, melon, tits, hooters, juGGs, knockers, cans, casabas, pups, gigunguns, rack, pillows, fun bags, love handles, wangers, jebs, breasts, baps, bazoongas, firmees...


But never, EVER, a teat, nope! 😀

 

[Jack Daniel]

It's not a teat...

It's an ACGME tit, boob, tata, kazanga, teta, milkbag, melon, tits, hooters, juGGs, knockers, cans, casabas, pups, gigunguns, rack, pillows, fun bags, love handles, wangers, jebs, breasts, baps, bazoongas, firmees...


But never, EVER, a teat, nope! 😀

Love handles?

 

[Old_Mil]

A physician needs to be open to differences (including the possibility that what one may consider a "solid set of morals" or "conservative values" another may consider closemindedness, impractical, or ridiculous), as well being culturally competent.

...because? Sweeping statements like this are one of the things about medical education that seriously piss me off. They begin with a deeply held liberal bias about multiculturalism and other politicially correct stupidities.

Here's a thought: the job of a physician is to save the ass of an ill person to the best of his ability based on the latest scientific evidence available to him...regardless of whether or not the ill person in question happens to think that a witch doctor can provide an equally valid intervention.

 

[DadAndPreDOinMO]

Statement retracted

 

[EastWestN2grt]

...because? Sweeping statements like this are one of the things about medical education that seriously piss me off. They begin with a deeply held liberal bias about multiculturalism and other politicially correct stupidities.

Here's a thought: the job of a physician is to save the ass of an ill person to the best of his ability based on the latest scientific evidence available to him...regardless of whether or not the ill person in question happens to think that a witch doctor can provide an equally valid intervention.

If only medicine was this black and white! So what, are every single one of your patients going to be WASP, and every single one fit a certain statistical algorithm, for every single medical condition. Give me a break!! Your ignorant statement pisses me off!!

Cultural competence is not a new phenomenon in medicine. And its not based on PC stupidities, its based on an understanding that people are fundamentally different, and patient care is an essential part of medicine, thus understanding these differences (cultural, sociooeconomic, gender, etc, etc) and how they may affect patient health, disease, and overall care is essential. Do you think the large push in hospitals and clinics to have multicultural, and cultural competence training is for medical personnel to 'feel good about themselves or PC sympathys"? Its simply a better way to practice medicine--and that is evidence based.

 

[DO Anes]

William Carey is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and this is central to its mission and identity. If one is uncomfortable with that, there are plenty of other medical schools in the world. No one is forcing anyone to apply there.

 

[scpod]

I don't think that a physician should ever worry about what a patients religion is as long as it won't put anyone in danger.

But things like religion and ethnicity do matter a lot in medicine, especially in treatment options. That's why they make us take those classes in med school. When you treat a patient you are treating his or her whole family, and you need to look into things like that. You need to know about their income-- not necessarily from the aspect of their ability to pay you, but from the likelihood of whether or not they can afford the treatment. Patient compliance is based on all of these things-- and they are all important. Don't you remember that treat the patient, not the disease thing?

 

[EastWestN2grt]

You obviously were very careful with your statement, and I thank you for being diplomatic. If I may ask: do you feel that a religious medical school has no right to be a religous school? Is this correct?

You wrote "religious affiliation keeps political/social agenda out of the med school then I have no problems with this school" Do you propose that we extend secularism into religious institutions as well? A public school is not allowed to sponsor or affilate itself with any one particular religious body - thus I find it interesting, that you feel that we should enforce secularism on a religious school.


Well, I tried to get into Loma Linda - got rejected by them. I'm not strongly religious, but I was sick and tired of the drinking, drugs, and poor behavior I saw at my undergrad. I had friends (if they can be called friends) who went out on Monday nights to get drunk - and then trashed an old lady's flower garden. The next day when I questioned him - he said "Who cares? she just an old geezer anyway."

That was the behavior I saw take place at my undergrad.

But again, I ask : Where do we draw the line? If the school has a school prayer - is that discrimination? Do religious schools have the right to practice their religion in their schools?

This is an important topic for many people, this:http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=459970

It's a very thought provoking link, I encourage everyone to read it.

My only issue with a religious school opening up a medical school has to do with my impression of what a physician is to the community. I believe a physician plays an important social role in the community in which they practice. Medicine is still considered the most 'respected profession' by the general public (I saw this recently in an article somewhere), which indicates our profession continues to enjoy a high level of trust by the public. Now the general public includes a huge variance in culture, socioeconomic status, gender, religious/spiritual beliefs, etc. etc.) I believe a good physician has to be competent when it comes to understanding the values, beliefs, culture of their patients because it has been shown that cultural competence increases the quality of patient care.

Teaching universal values are fine in medicine, but what frequently happens is that social and political agendas get included anytime the word 'values' is used. The examples I am thinking of have been mentioned -reproductive issues, transgender issues, research-stem cell- issues, etc. Physicians 'influenced' in one religious based value system may be limited or even biased in their interactions with patients not of the same value system. This potentially could worsen quality and access of care for these patients.

Medicine and religion need to be kept seperated, IMO.

BTW, your experience in undergrad is more a reflection of the people who acted as such, the undergrad experience in general and the general immaturity in these environments. It has less to do with secularism vs religion.

 

[Nomar5]

Hello all,

Excellent discussion on a very interesting topic. I beleive a DO school that is affilitated with the Southern Baptist Convention will produce competent osteopathic physicians. I agree with one poster that in the end it comes down to an individual patient doctor relationship.

I was wondering if anyone out there knows how topics such as abortion (partial birth or otherwise), homosexual health issues, physician assisted suicide, birth control etc are taught/discussed in affiliated medical schools?

During my training I often came across providers who felt uncomfortable with certain aspects of their medical traning.... providing birth control to patients was difficult for one of my catholic classmate for instances. Physicians have the right to not provide services they feel go against their moral values (i.e. birth control), but must provide the patient with information and a referral to another provider if necessary. So in the end it comes down to individual physicians and not institutions.

Any thoughts?
Matt

 

[gasapple]

This is an unsavory situation that will surely erode the credibility of DOs everywhere and will muddy the waters of osteopathic medicine. In addition, residency directors will recognize and acknowledge that this school is affiliated with a small, religious-type university solely so they can achieve Title V rights. Pay no mind to board scores, residency directors will also realize that this is not one of the older, elite (lmao) osteopathic schools in existence and will likely display prejudice against applicants of said school!

 

[DragonWell]

Pardon the ignorance, what does "Title V rights" mean?

 

[DragonWell]

A couple quotes from the article:

"...the university would seek to instill in their medical students an awareness of Christian principles and a strong interest in ethical practice."

"...because we are a Christian institution, [graduates] will enter the workplace with an understanding of spiritual concepts related to the practice of medicine"

- WCU President, Tommy King, PhD

The DO, Nov. 2007

Who knows if this school will even happen. To my ears, these statements do seem to hint that there would be some religiously influenced elements of the curriculum.

 

[bth7]

Well...since the Rocky Vista thread seems to have lost momentum, this could perhaps replace the lack of drama on the osteo forum.

Less Talk! More drama!

 

[gasapple]

Less Talk! More drama!

HAHAHAHA! I second the motion, it's what SDN is all about (well, mostly)!

BTW - I was being facetious in my post above in light of the RVU drama.

Now get going with this drama!

Less Talk! More drama!
Less Talk! More drama!
Less Talk! More drama!

 

[bth7]

HAHAHAHA! I second the motion, it's what SDN is all about (well, mostly)!

BTW - I was being facetious in my post above in light of the RVU drama.

Now get going with this drama!

Less Talk! More drama!
Less Talk! More drama!
Less Talk! More drama!

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Could you guys imagine a for-profit, Christian-based DO school? Holy crap.

Now to see if this post crashes SDN as soon as I hit submit...

 

[scotchtapetest]

As long as the graduates of this school will be required to take COMLEX to be licensed and are not granted medical licenses from a higher power and the school is not subsidized by the state (i.e. is not a "state/public school") I can care less if the school is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, Northern Baptist convention, Canadian Baptist convention or even Vatican Baptist Convention (LOL). It is their constitutional right!

People who end up attending this school are either very religious or non-religious. For the religious students, discussion of the "controversial" subjects makes no difference as they have already formed their opinion regarding such subjects through 20+ years of education they received from their respective medical authority Rev. xxxx and no amount of discussion will change that. The exact opposite argument goes for the non-religious folks.

By the way since when Christmas tree became a religious term? The official holiday name, according to the Federal Government, is "Christmas Day" so if the word "Christmas" is a religious term the government should've been sued long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, the word "Christmas" refers to a federal holiday recognized and celebrated in this country. People can celebrate it by attending church/synagogue/mosque/bar/etc based on their religious & non-religious affiliation(s). Having said that how you advertise Christmas is the determining factor in my opinion. For instance, if you want to display the nativity scene under the tree then I would agree that it implies a religious affiliation and should not be allowed in state/public schools. Regardless, private schools are exempt from such scrutiny and are allowed to display whatever they please.

For people who don't know, I'm very liberal and very concerned and protective about the separation of church and state, but unfortunately I just don't see a conflict here and I usually look for conflicts!

 

[TexasTriathlete]

Graduates of this school will not take the COMLEX. There are already plans in the works for a new licensing exam. It will be like the COMLEX and USMLE, but there will also be Bible questions.

 

[CatsandCradles]

My only issue with a religious school opening up a medical school has to do with my impression of what a physician is to the community. I believe a physician plays an important social role in the community in which they practice. Medicine is still considered the most 'respected profession' by the general public (I saw this recently in an article somewhere), which indicates our profession continues to enjoy a high level of trust by the public. Now the general public includes a huge variance in culture, socioeconomic status, gender, religious/spiritual beliefs, etc. etc.) I believe a good physician has to be competent when it comes to understanding the values, beliefs, culture of their patients because it has been shown that cultural competence increases the quality of patient care.

Teaching universal values are fine in medicine, but what frequently happens is that social and political agendas get included anytime the word 'values' is used. The examples I am thinking of have been mentioned -reproductive issues, transgender issues, research-stem cell- issues, etc. Physicians 'influenced' in one religious based value system may be limited or even biased in their interactions with patients not of the same value system. This potentially could worsen quality and access of care for these patients.

Medicine and religion need to be kept seperated, IMO.

BTW, your experience in undergrad is more a reflection of the people who acted as such, the undergrad experience in general and the general immaturity in these environments. It has less to do with secularism vs religion.

Excellent response. You are looking at it from the political side of things. Thank you for responding. Please forgive me if any of this makes you feel uncomfortable, but I do feel that it is important to discuss such matters.

It is not just at the undergraduate level. At my school, one of the second year students went to the local bar, got trashed, and subsquently made a huge distubance in the community. When someone tried to call the police - this individual then assaulted the person trying to call the police.


Needless to say, he is still in school! - he's failing, but he's still here. Would you feel comfortable as a patient knowing what this doctor's history is? Personaly, I do feel he should have been kicked out such a criminal record.

On the other side of the table, I have a family member who was an IMG who went to Loma Linda for a FLEX program. He was a smoker - and he was sternly warned not to smoke or they would kick him out of the program. Needless to say - he smoked and was kicked out. I did not make this up, it really did happen. Is this a form of discrimination? Can we say that it was discrimination due to "religious morals?" Well, naturally my family member was really upset over it. He didn't share their religious tradition so he told me it was discrimination.

...I suppose Loma Linda kicking out my relative for smoking on school grounds is pretty darn extreme. My relative was a smoker - millions of people smoke...so maybe we could call it religious discrimination. This being said, it is of my personal opinion on the matter, that not too many of Loma Linda's graduates have a spotty criminal record.

I know a lot of Southern Baptist follow a very strict conservative line, so it will be interesting to see how this new school turns out. Most likely the medical school will follow a very conservative position - something liberals will be up in arms over. Now whether or not the position the school adopts represent discriminatory we will have to wait and see. If they kick people out of thier medical program for being a smoker like Loma Linda did to my relative..that might constitute as discrimination.


Note: I am not trying to support smoking in anyway or form. Just saying that maybe it is too extreme to kick somone out for being a smoker.

 

[BusterDO]

Excellent response. You are looking at it from the political side of things. Thank you for responding. Please forgive me if any of this makes you feel uncomfortable, but I do feel that it is important to discuss such matters.

It is not just at the undergraduate level. At my school, one of the second year students went to the local bar, got trashed, and subsquently made a huge distubance in the community. When someone tried to call the police - this individual then assaulted the person trying to call the police.


Needless to say, he is still in school! - he's failing, but he's still here. Would you feel comfortable as a patient knowing what this doctor's history is? Personaly, I do feel he should have been kicked out such a criminal record.

On the other side of the table, I have a family member who was an IMG who went to Loma Linda for a FLEX program. He was a smoker - and he was sternly warned not to smoke or they would kick him out of the program. Needless to say - he smoked and was kicked out. I did not make this up, it really did happen. Is this a form of discrimination? Can we say that it was discrimination due to "religious morals?" Well, naturally my family member was really upset over it. He didn't share their religious tradition so he told me it was discrimination.

...I suppose Loma Linda kicking out my relative for smoking on school grounds is pretty darn extreme. My relative was a smoker - millions of people smoke...so maybe we could call it religious discrimination. This being said, it is of my personal opinion on the matter, that not too many of Loma Linda's graduates have a spotty criminal record.

I know a lot of Southern Baptist follow a very strict conservative line, so it will be interesting to see how this new school turns out. Most likely the medical school will follow a very conservative position - something liberals will be up in arms over. Now whether or not the position the school adopts represent discriminatory we will have to wait and see. If they kick people out of thier medical program for being a smoker like Loma Linda did to my relative..that might constitute as discrimination.


Note: I am not trying to support smoking in anyway or form. Just saying that maybe it is too extreme to kick somone out for being a smoker.

I would imagine that the school will have a student handbook that lays out their rules and regulations. These will more than likely contain statements that they hold to be true religiously, and who can blame/stop them, it's their right. If a student matriculates at the institution, they are under their regulations and are expected to maintain them; if they don't, will probably be asked to leave. For example, I imagine (not positive) that Loma Linda has regulations on smoking, which are expected to be followed. My school has a dress code that we have to abide by. If a private institution lays out their rules and regulations, you will be expected to follow them...bottom line. If you don't agree, don't go there, don't even apply. I don't see how the discrimination card could be played if the individual was aware of the rules.

 

[scpod]

Note: I am not trying to support smoking in anyway or form. Just saying that maybe it is too extreme to kick somone out for being a smoker.

Not for being a smoker....but for smoking on school grounds. You can't look at smoking as religius descrimination because entire cities have banned smoking in public places. Airplanes have banned it. My school bans it on school grounds, so the few that do it (including two pharmacology professors, two security guards, the dean's assistant and a handful of students) stand out on the edge of the property next to the YMCA to do it. It's banned right down the street at the technical college too. You can watch the nursing students in their bright, fresh scrubs, standing across the street from the school every morning and puffing away. You know the rules going into it, and if you break them, then you get what's coming.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I'd rather be around people preaching at me all the time than people smoking around me.

 

[nlax30]

Graduates of this school will not take the COMLEX. There are already plans in the works for a new licensing exam. It will be like the COMLEX and USMLE, but there will also be Bible questions.

Haha....I think these comments are a major reason why I continue to wade through pages and pages of posts on here.....well done. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a new comic-post bot programmed by SDN.

 

[Gold 5]

You're kidding, right?? Kind of like how on earth can a hospital put a religious slant on how it operates? - Physicians at Catholic hospitals are not only prohibited from prescribing birth control, they're even prevented from learning about forms of contraception (i.e. IUDs) other than natural family planning.

That being said, I'm less concerned that this new school is religiously affiliated and far, far more concerned that there is a new school altogether. Let's just keep sucking on the ACGME teat, while we ignore improvements in osteopathic graduate medical education, yet continue to open new osteopathic schools.

Ok, this seems a bit fishy. How can a hospital ban a physician from writing a script for contraceptives? I can see the pharmacy from not carrying some types of contraceptives but how could they ban an attending from writing a script? Please can you give me a concrete example of this happening?

 

[t-funk]

Ok, this seems a bit fishy. How can a hospital ban a physician from writing a script for contraceptives? I can see the pharmacy from not carrying some types of contraceptives but how could they ban an attending from writing a script? Please can you give me a concrete example of this happening?

I had both of my babies at a Catholic hospital that refuses to perform any sort of vasectomies or procedures to 'fix' the mom. Both times, however, the OBGYN offered to prescribe me birth control in the hospital room after delivery. When people want the other procedures done, they just go to the other hospital in town. No big deal.

 

[chris03333]

Physicians at Catholic hospitals are not only prohibited from prescribing birth control, they're even prevented from learning about forms of contraception (i.e. IUDs) other than natural family planning.

😱Really?

 

[It'sElectric]

Ok, this seems a bit fishy. How can a hospital ban a physician from writing a script for contraceptives? I can see the pharmacy from not carrying some types of contraceptives but how could they ban an attending from writing a script? Please can you give me a concrete example of this happening?

I can't provide you a "link" or anything like that, but my wife's previous gynecologist worked for a catholic hospital. She was unable to write scripts for birth control on the hospital's uniform script pads. Thankfully, she was a reasonable person and got around it by using a blank script pad that she had for just such instances.

So Yes, the hospital does not allow their physicians to prescribe birth control, but there are ways around it if you don't mind going around the administration's back essentially.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Which Catholic hospital was this? Honestly, I don't believe a word of the "Catholic hospitals can't learned about contrception and can't give it" unless someone shows me some actual hospital statement saying they will or will not do something. And if they weren't allowed, then why does another poster say she was offered a prescription? I agree, seems very fishy.

 

[It'sElectric]

Which Catholic hospital was this? Honestly, I don't believe a word of the "Catholic hospitals can't learned about contrception and can't give it" unless someone shows me some actual hospital statement saying they will or will not do something. And if they weren't allowed, then why does another poster say she was offered a prescription? I agree, seems very fishy.

That's cool if you just outright refuse to believe me, but don't try to contend what I'm saying is "fishy". I have no reason to lie - honestly, what would I gain. I'm simply telling you anecdotal, personal facts. I've personally spoken with a physician that was unable to learn about IUDs while training at her catholic hospital, and my wife (and 2 other friends of hers) were technically not supposed to receive prescriptions for contraception written on the catholic hospital's script pads. Now could that physician gone out of her way and found a way to educate herself on the proper use of IUDs outside of her own hospital...sure. I'm simply saying that she, unlike every other physician at a non-Catholic institution, was not properly trained in their use.

Nothing is fishy about this.

 

[TexasTriathlete]

I wish the church of scientology would start a medical school. That way, you wouldn't have to take behavioral science.

 

[bth7]

Nothing is fishy about this.

I have to agree with It'sElectric. While I completely sympathize with those that find these kinds of policies completely outrageous, its actually quite common. Those of us idealistic types enter medicine imagining that physicians would never let politics or religion influence their medical decision-making, and are then shocked to learn that many within medicine may have an all together different conception of the patient's best interest. Some would say that religiously sponsored health care institutions have the right to refuse to offer any procedure or treatment they believe is unethical. I think that statement requires some qualification, and there have been several noteworthy court cases attempting to define those boundaries. But it remains an open question.

bth

 

[look4wisdom]

I have to agree with It'sElectric. While I completely sympathize with those that find these kinds of policies completely outrageous, its actually quite common. Those of us idealistic types enter medicine imagining that physicians would never let politics or religion influence their medical decision-making, and are then shocked to learn that many within medicine may have an all together different conception of the patient's best interest. Some would say that religiously sponsored health care institutions have the right to refuse to offer any procedure or treatment they believe is unethical. I think that statement requires some qualification, and there have been several noteworthy court cases attempting to define those boundaries. But it remains an open question.

bth

Wow. Liberals constantly amaze me. Idealistic types? Are you implying that religous people aren't idealists? Every human being I've ever met, quite a few at this point, base their actions on some type of worldview. While it appears you dislike the conservative or religious worldview that does not make that particular worldview invalid. I personally don't care much for liberalism.
I agree that a physician should put his patients best interest first. I have no doubt that your definition of whats best for a patient in a given context would be markedly different from mine. That difference would be based directly on our difference in worldview. That's what's great about America, if you dont like my plan you are free to consult someone else. I will even refer you to someone else, gladly.
In a free society what gives anyone the right to force me to violate my conscience? The answer is that right does not exist. I will not now or in the future prescribe a course of treatment that goes against my own ethical boundries. If a patient happens to dislike my decision, or analysis of a medical situation, they are free to consult another.
Why shouldn't a physician base there medical decisions on a worldview that is religious? Im quite certain your going to make medical decisions based on yours...

 

[scotchtapetest]

Wow. Liberals constantly amaze me. Idealistic types? Are you implying that religous people aren't idealists? Every human being I've ever met, quite a few at this point, base their actions on some type of worldview. While it appears you dislike the conservative or religious worldview that does not make that particular worldview invalid. I personally don't care much for liberalism.
I agree that a physician should put his patients best interest first. I have no doubt that your definition of whats best for a patient in a given context would be markedly different from mine. That difference would be based directly on our difference in worldview. That's what's great about America, if you dont like my plan you are free to consult someone else. I will even refer you to someone else, gladly.
In a free society what gives anyone the right to force me to violate my conscience? The answer is that right does not exist. I will not now or in the future prescribe a course of treatment that goes against my own ethical boundries. If a patient happens to dislike my decision, or analysis of a medical situation, they are free to consult another.
Why shouldn't a physician base there medical decisions on a worldview that is religious? Im quite certain your going to make medical decisions based on yours...

I'm glad that contrary to popular belief we do serve a purpose in society ---> look4wisdom's amazement… lol

But on a more serious note, your religious, social and other views are completely irrelevant when it comes to practicing medicine. A physician is licensed by the licensure board of the state and they must follow the rules/regulations/protocols of the board and if for whatever reason one does not approve, he/she should stop practicing medicine until that specific rule/regulation/protocol is changed through appropriate legal channels. So one's ethical boundaries only apply when it does not violate the ethical boundaries as outlined by the licensure board (I'll be more than glad to give an example if necessary). So as a physician you cannot withhold treatment if such treatment is required by your state board even if it goes against your own ethical boundaries!

This is not a response to the catholic hospital situation but a general response to look4wisdom.