How do your religious beliefs impact your views on medicine if at all?

[goldenwest]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As for me personally, I'd probably say something to the effect of, "you do realize that by refusing this blood transfusion, you greatly increase your chances of dying. Taking this blood transfusion could save your life." But if they then refused treatment, I wouldn't bring it up again.

I would do the same. I wouldn't add additional pressure after I know that they understand the situation and its consequences.

 

[Caesar]

Good question. I would tell them the risks of refusal if they still declined then I don't know. If it was a child I think many states have a protocol for that where you can get a court to allow the transfusion. I might feel guilty about that too though. I am really not sure.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Good question. I would tell them the risks of refusal if they still declined then I don't know. If it was a child I think many states have a protocol for that where you can get a court to allow the transfusion. I might feel guilty about that too though. I am really not sure.

Great question. I'm not sure what you do if it's a child and their parents insist on refusing the transfusion.

 

[aebvd97]

My question for Christians dealt specifically with Jesus whom Deists do not necessarily believe in. Many Deists with belief in a God that created the world but is either relatively or completely absent aren't sure how that view plays out in death. Is there or is there not an afterlife etc. Since my Deist/Agnosticism question dealt specifically with that question I grouped them together.

Fair enough, though I don't think it's very clear that you were talking about the afterlife at all. It is true that we Deists do not necessarily believe in Christ, we tend to shy away from doctrine, and believe that truth can be found through reason (and science, nature, etc.! yay!). Deists beliefs on the afterlife are varied...many believe that if you believe in heaven and led a good life, you'll go to heaven. They also believe that if you believe in nothing after life, then that's what you get! Others do believe in reincarnation. For me, I don't think seeing many deaths is really going to affect my outlook. I do believe in some form of afterlife, I'm not sure what though. For me medicine is irreligious. I know it may not be so for many, but I believe in religion as an individual experience (though society generally does not).

 

[goldenwest]

Thank you for your comment. I rephrased the question in an attempt to make it more clear.

 

[aebvd97]

Thank you for your comment. I rephrased the question in an attempt to make it more clear.

No problem, good discussion starter, props. 👍👍

 

[datdood]

sikhism too.... its world's 5th largest religion

 

[disorder]

sikhism too.... its world's 5th largest religion

But, we are also talking about allopathic medical schools in the United States.

Sikhism may very well be the 5th largest religion in the world, but I guarantee you that it's not concentrated in the US. Thus, I think it's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[zenlike]

I suppose being agnostic allows me to believe that human sentience is an entirely neurological phenomenon, making abortion a non-issue.

 

[LGMAlpha]

My religious views do not affect my view of medicine. The way I see it, medicine has little use for religion.

 

[Caesar]

My religious views do not affect my view of medicine. The way I see it, medicine has little use for religion.

The problem with with mentality is that Patients DO have a use for religion. And in medicine you treat patients.

 

[DrMattOglesby]

does anyone have a convincing argument for the view that even science can be construed as religion?
At least a handful of my classes dedicated 1-4 weeks on this topic alone (the science v. religion topic) so just wondering if you guys have heard of it as well.

 

[goldenwest]

does anyone have a convincing argument for the view that even science can be construed as religion?
At least a handful of my classes dedicated 1-4 weeks on this topic alone (the science v. religion topic) so just wondering if you guys have heard of it as well.

I believe it requires some faith to believe that the universe came from nothing and that life spontaneously assimilated against unimaginable odds. I hope that didn't come out as derogatory; I'm simply stating that I feel it takes faith to believe in such a thing. You might feel the same if I said it requires some faith to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being that cares for every human on this planet. For that reason I feel that atheism requires at its core some faith, but I'm not sure whether or not I would use the word "religion" to define it.

 

[DrYoda]

does anyone have a convincing argument for the view that even science can be construed as religion?
At least a handful of my classes dedicated 1-4 weeks on this topic alone (the science v. religion topic) so just wondering if you guys have heard of it as well.

Is see some similarities in that both attempt to describe where life/the universe originated and why things happen. These two things are of course the crux of the matter because when taken as far as they can, as pointed out above there is no clear answer and some sort of faith must be put forth to belive what you belive.

I hope that made sense, I'm not much of a philosopher.

 

[Bacchus]

Question for everyone (though I encourage Agnostics/Atheists to keep answering the last question I posed as well): How do you go about trying to convince a Jehovah's Witness to accept a blood transfusion? DO you try to change their minds and compromise their religious beliefs for the sake of keeping them alive?

I'd explain to the best of my ability why the person should get the transfusion. I would not force my opinions on the patient. If the patient was a minor and the parent was refusing, I'd file a court order for temporary custody of the child.

 

[GoSpursGo]

does anyone have a convincing argument for the view that even science can be construed as religion?
At least a handful of my classes dedicated 1-4 weeks on this topic alone (the science v. religion topic) so just wondering if you guys have heard of it as well.

It depends how you define religion. I've run into two (main) definitions of religion that people ascribe to:

1) A system that attempts to describe life after death. Often, this system will attempt to discern the will of an unseen god/universal power and uncover the requirements that the god/universal power has in order to receive a favorable afterlife. Granted, this is an EXTREMELY crude definition, but I think it more or less describes a number of dual-destiny religions such as Christianity and Islam, and even some eastern religions including Hinduism and some strands of Buddhism where the ultimate goal (paraphrasing) of the religion is to escape the chain of reincarnation.

2) A means to ultimate transformation. This does not necessarily simply mean a transformation that occurs after death, but it can also mean a large philosophical shift in thinking and in one's understanding of how the world works. It is under this such definition that I have seen some argue that systems like Confucianism and Daoism are religions when neither religion really has much inherently to say about the afterlife.

In my opinion, it seems like science COULD fit the second definition if one were to take the philosophical stance that everything should be viewed and decided upon based on the scientific method. However, it's a difficult argument to make, and I'm not sure that I'd buy it.

My apologies if I butchered any of the religions I spoke about here; please correct me if I said anything that's incorrect.

 

[Maxwell Edison]

I had no idea there were so many atheists on SDN. I figured I was one of three or something. Strange.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I had no idea there were so many atheists on SDN. I figured I was one of three or something. Strange.

I don't have a link to a report, but there are more atheists (percentage-wise) at the top of the education ladder than those at the bottom. An overwhelming number of physicists are atheist/agnostic, for example. It doesn't surprise me that a large number of pre-meds are atheist/agnostic, and I suspect the numbers are similar for doctors in general.

 

[JA Prufrock]

I had no idea there were so many atheists on SDN. I figured I was one of three or something. Strange.

nah, the internet is full of us hell-bound folk

 

[goldenwest]

I think it's pretty easily deduced that a majority of scientists believe in the scientific worldview. I have to disagree with the above statement about physicists. The majority of physicists are agnostic or at some level religious - at least that's what I was told by someone with a phd in physics and chemistry.

 

[utjsm08]

I believe God can give us wisdom and help up make good decisions but I do not believe we are pre-destined to live a certain amount of time or it is "God's will" for one person to suffer and one person to be perfectly healthy. Therefore, I think that my religion will affect my decisions as a doctor to the extent of the wisdom I receive from God. However, I do not feel that God is controlling us like a video game and that we have no autonomy to make decisions that will help someone live longer.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I think it's pretty easily deduced that a majority of scientists believe in the scientific worldview. I have to disagree with the above statement about physicists. The majority of physicists are agnostic or at some level religious - at least that's what I was told by someone with a phd in physics and chemistry.

Hence, atheist/agnostic 🙂

 

[DrMattOglesby]

... and some strands of Buddhism where the ultimate goal (paraphrasing) of the religion is to escape the chain of reincarnation.

well put. just to add though (and i know you knew you were paraphrasing so dont take this as a correction); not all Buddhists interpret reincarnation as literal and with this understanding they can see reincarnation as more of a ever-impermanent moment that comes into and out of existence in each passing moment.
I think it says something about Buddhism when even the Dalai Lama doesn't know what will happen when he dies. All he is sure of is that he will die. These comments are his own and not my interpretation.

I really liked your second point about transformation. very well stated. 👍

EDIT: One more point--not all Buddhists strive to attain the point of exiting the cycle of reincarnation. Certainly that may the case in the Theravada tradition but in the Mahayana sect it is not unheard of for those who have attained enlightenment to continually return out of their compassion to bring relief of suffering to others. In fact, the Dalai Lama is one such enlightened being that is doing just that...or so the story goes anyhow.

nah, the internet is full of us hell-bound folk

have you heard the joke, Thermodynamics in Hell ?

 

[goldenwest]

have you heard the joke, Thermodynamics in Hell ?

What a ridiculous question for a professor to ask. It's interesting to me that hell is such a polarizing issue when discussing religion even though so little is known about it. Is it literal/figurative/who goes/etc.? I take the stance that judgment is not mine to determine, so I don't presume to say whether any man or woman is going to heaven or hell regardless of their observed actions.

There's only three things I claim to know about hell:
1) I don't want to be there.
2) We don't get to decide who goes there.
3) God is perfectly just, so if you raise a hypothetical question about "but what about this person" my answer will be that I don't know but God is perfectly just.

 

[DrMattOglesby]

Posted on January 26, 2004 at 10:25 PM
scientific splurge

science is based on belief just like any other system of obtaining "knowledge."
it is just disguised much more cleverly.
if youve read zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance you already know what im talking about.
if not, then the brief rundown goes like this:

scientific facts are just as much ghosts as the paranormal spector. the laws and theories of science are themselves not something that science can test. they are in the land of ideas and concepts. and whats more, science works on the method of creating first a hypothesis that identifies a specific. any discipline that claims its aim is to arrive at a final conclusion on reality should not be so bold as to start off with the hypothetical initiative. for every hypothesis generates more hypothesis and you end up with more questions than you started with. which actually leads one further away from any type of singularities regarded as truths. the expansion is therefore a lateral one and not upward. lateral means the branch is just shooting out more branches and upward refers to the direct goal towards a simplified truth.
i know i gave this argument much injustice but if youre at all interested find a copy of zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and read it first hand, hopefully youll remember more than i did 😉
and im not too sure but perhaps scientology is not based on "belief" as it is commonly referred to. and as a matter of fact, any advanced student of buddhism would know that holding onto any beliefs is to miss the point entirely.
thas all from me ... for now anyways.
matt


Posted on January 26, 2004 at 5:12 PM
random excerpts

Nobody believes in God like an atheist.
to understand this, think of the coincidence of opposites: you can only know existence when compared with non-existence; tall with short; bright with dark; and so forth. So the atheist actually needs God in order to affirm their negation of Him.

You only need faith when you have a doubt about something. for instance you dont see anyone runing around shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. People already KNOW this.

"Nagarjuna's teaching is like a laxative." -B. Chung



February 8, 2004
The "ghosts" that science promulgates

i know this topic will always be an analytical meat grinder to go through; but im going to submit myself to yet another round...
earlier i stated that the law of gravity was merely a human conception. some people didnt like this. more people didnt even understand this. so im here to clear up the air for the sake of both perspectives.
first off, i think the age old intellectual hang up of subjectivity-objectivity dualistic thought has been applied erroneously. science claims that any entity not composed of mass-energy is unreal and unimportant. i think this a mistake to many people who have so much "faith" in science, and they can be classified as scientific materialists.
the reductio ad absurdum argument style can take the premise of "anything not composed of mass-energy is not real" and bring it to absurdity.
take for example the number zero. Originally a Hindu number, brought to the west by the arabs, to the ancient greeks and romans. how could the number zero go unnoticed by millions of people for so long? did nature hide it? isn't it right out there for everyone to see? try to derive "zero" from any form of mass-energy...you can't. so now does this make the number zero unscientific and thus unreal and not important? if subjectivity is eliminated as unimportant, then the entire body of science must be eliminated along with it.
now that is why i claimed these laws of phsyics, logic...the number system, algebraic substitution are all "ghosts."
back to the law of gravity example i used: it seems natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before isaac newton. it would sound silly to assume there was no gravity before the 17th century. so the question is, "when did this law start? has it always existed?"
if yes then that means before the beginning of earth, before all the planets and stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed...just sitting there, having no mass nor energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space, not anywhere.
~and apparently this law of gravity still existed?
so it seems that the law of gravity passed every test of non-existence there is. you cant think of a single attribute of non-existence (by scientific standards) the law of gravity didnt have, or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. and yet it is still common sense to believe it existed.
so this would imply that the law of gravity did not exist before isaac newton, no other conclusion makes sense.
and what that means is that law of gravity exists nowhere but in people's heads, like ghosts.
matt...



Posted on February 8, 2004 at 3:58 PM
ensuing debate

*What are these "scientific attributes of existence"?

me: to the scientific materialist, these scientific attributes of existence consist mainly of whether something consists in the form of mass-energy. by virtue of it having mass-energy, we can then detect it with our current technologies, and thus giving it "existence."
or more easily understood, that which can be sensated, ie empirical reality (the five sense organs as recognized by western society. those being vision, tactile, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory).
does that make "sense"(no pun)?
what were you thinking of?

*Interesting... So, before those Hindus got to the Greeks and Romans.. a question may be given like: "if you have one apple, and I take the apple and eat it.. how many apples do you have left?" The answer would be.. ummm... I don't know.

Could it be that they just did not have a "number" for zero, or a word..? Although they did know of the concept..

Your question is good.. "how could the number zero go unnoticed by millions of people for so long?" Seems a bit strange, does it not?

me: The number zero as i was referring to, was the digit, not the concept.
the digit as applied in modern mathematics.
and if this zero turns out to be unreal, then does that also mean that our digital computers (which function exclusively in terms of ones and zeros) should be limited to ones for scientific work?
and therein lies the absurdity.

*"if this zero turns out to be unreal, then does that also mean.."

Once it has been built on, we (or they) MAKE it real. It no longer matters if it's true or false, it's been made real and it's the foundation of a way.

Much of science is like this.. it's built on something, and that something it's built on can not be challenged or changed. To suggest it is not a truth is to be called a fool or a madman.. or both.

me: i recall us building on the "reality" of the earth being flat. . .
but keep in mind, that the defintion of "real" for scientific materialists (which is what most people are who presume to understand science) is that which consists of mass-energy. so in no way, can the digit zero ever be derived from empirical reality, hence it is unreal according to their own theory.
and this is the problem with science. it can analyze everything but itself. we need to analyze the analyzation process. and this is like biting your own teeth...pointing at your own finger with that very finger...looking at your own eye...etcetera.
surely it does become the foundation of a mode of thought. but that does not mean that this thought is in accordance with this elusive (and illusive) term of "reality."

to be continued...
matt!


EDIT: all these statements are welcome to criticisms but i can't guarantee a response on my behalf. These statements came from 4 years ago and a lot has happened since that time. so--i might actually AGREE with any negations to my propositions! 🙂 All i wanted to do was share some perspectives i had earlier on in my life...as they might be shared by some others around here.

 

[kami333]

I don't have a link to a report, but there are more atheists (percentage-wise) at the top of the education ladder than those at the bottom. An overwhelming number of physicists are atheist/agnostic, for example. It doesn't surprise me that a large number of pre-meds are atheist/agnostic, and I suspect the numbers are similar for doctors in general.

link

Although I think making the generalization that education = less religion is hard to make sometimes since there are so many interpretations of religion. I know a lot of doctors who go to church with their children but choose to go to non-denominational ones for various reasons.

And looking at the LDS community, the data there makes sense if you look at is as a result of their commitment to family and community, even though Utah has one of the lowest education spending per student it ranks fairly well compared to other states.

 

[goldenwest]

link

Although I think making the generalization that education = less religion is hard to make sometimes since there are so many interpretations of religion. I know a lot of doctors who go to church with their children but choose to go to non-denominational ones for various reasons.

And looking at the LDS community, the data there makes sense if you look at is as a result of their commitment to family and community, even though Utah has one of the lowest education spending per student it ranks fairly well compared to other states.

You can take this argument more than one way. If we can agree that the scientific worldview is a way of explaining the universe and that most scientists or students are taught by professors who believe this worldview, then we can probably conclude that most of these students will believe it as well. If someone hears an idea more frequently and from people they respect more then they will likely hold that idea as well.

 

[Chemdude]

I am glad that you put this up.

Islam says that "for every disease/ailment Allah (god) has created a cure." If you ever study the Quran, you will notice that there are many references related to medicine. Personally, I was fascinated when I read verses related to embryology; the references were very descriptive. It's not surprising when you find out that hundreds of world renowned doctors have converted to Islam after reading the Quran.

Islam also says that healing is not only a physical process; it is also spiritual. "A healthy body coexists with a healthy mind".

I am also very proud to be a Muslim because of the great contributions Islam has made to medicine. Many people are surprised to know that modern medicine is based on the works of Muslim doctors. Ibn Sina is the father of modern medicine. Al-kindi is the father of pharmacology. Al-Zahrawi is the father of modern surgery. Ibn Al-nafis was a pioneer in circulatory physiology. Muslims were the first to set up hospitals. There are a bunch of other examples. Muslims were performing complex procedures(like removing cataracts) in Baghdad when the Europeans were still amputating limbs to relieve pain.

 

[RySerr21]

I am glad that you put this up.

Islam says that “for every disease/ailment Allah (god) has created a cure.” If you ever study the Quran, you will notice that there are many references related to medicine. Personally, I was fascinated when I read verses related to embryology; the references were very descriptive. It’s not surprising when you find out that hundreds of world renowned doctors have converted to Islam after reading the Quran.

Islam also says that healing is not only a physical process; it is also spiritual. “A healthy body coexists with a healthy mind”.

I am also very proud to be a Muslim because of the great contributions Islam has made to medicine. Many people are surprised to know that modern medicine is based on the works of Muslim doctors. Ibn Sina is the father of modern medicine. Al-kindi is the father of pharmacology. Al-Zahrawi is the father of modern surgery. Ibn Al-nafis was a pioneer in circulatory physiology. Muslims were the first to set up hospitals. There are a bunch of other examples. Muslims were performing complex procedures(like removing cataracts) in Baghdad when the Europeans were still amputating limbs to relieve pain.

I agree that a healthy body coexists with a healthy mind (there are scientific papers that show the mechanism of how this works)......but a "healthy mind" does not necesssarily refer to spirituality.

 

[Chemdude]

I agree that a healthy body coexists with a healthy mind (there are scientific papers that show the mechanism of how this works)......but a "healthy mind" does not necesssarily refer to spirituality.

Honestly, I'm not really a religious person. I do a lot of things which are forbidden in my religion(something which I am not proud of and I hope to change). Although this is true, I am VERY spiritual. There is a difference between being "religiously spiritual" and "religious". IMO, being spiritual is essential to being happy. To me, there is more to life than the physical world. Sometimes, when I get really materialistic, I feel sick inside. I don't know how to describe it; I just feel empty. Sometimes, I like to sit down and think about how infinitely small I am in this vast universe.

(I know, total hippy)

 

[RySerr21]

Honestly, I'm not really a religious person. I do a lot of things which are forbidden in my religion(something which I am not proud of and I hope to change). Although this is true, I am VERY spiritual. There is a difference between being "religiously spiritual" and "religious". IMO, being spiritual is essential to being happy. To me, there is more to life than the physical world. Sometimes, when I get really materialistic, I feel sick inside. I don't know how to describe it; I just feel empty. Sometimes, I like to sit down and think about how infinitely small I am in this vast universe.

(I know, total hippy)

I agree that for some people, like yourself, being spiritual can play a role in happineses/healthy mind, but my point was that you can have a healthy mind and not be spiritual (i can use my self as an example of that). I took a course on Health Psychology in which the basis of the course was that a healthy mind and healthy body coexist with each other. We looked at a variety of papers and studies and textbooks and compiled the evidence supporting this statement, and a very small chunk of it had do to with being spiritual. I was just trying to expand the definition of "healthy mind" cuz the way it was stated it seemd like it was equivalent solely to spirituality.

i kinda just rambled, but hopefullly that made sense.

 

[LGMAlpha]

The problem with with mentality is that Patients DO have a use for religion. And in medicine you treat patients.

That is true, but isn't it the aim of a doctor to diagnose and treat an illness in an unbiased manner, based on fact? Options and concepts cannot be interfered with due to the teachings of various incarnations of mysticism.

The posts by those who have stated their unwillingness to perform abortions except in extreme cases have left left me discouraged. I was under the impression that as professionals, our goal is to tend to our patients in the best manner possible, according to their wishes and their health, not decide what is best for them. Though, in the end, it is entirely your own decision, and frankly, none of my own concern.

 

[GoSpursGo]

That is true, but isn't it the aim of a doctor to diagnose and treat an illness in an unbiased manner, based on fact? Options and concepts cannot be interfered with due to the teachings of various incarnations of mysticism.

The posts by those who have stated their unwillingness to perform abortions except in extreme cases have left left me discouraged. I was under the impression that as professionals, our goal is to tend to our patients in the best manner possible, according to their wishes and their health, not decide what is best for them. Though, in the end, it is entirely your own decision, and frankly, none of my own concern.

For my part, I wouldn't "decide what's best for them," I just won't put myself in a position where I'll have to do that procedure. I have no resentment towards doctors who do perform abortions, because they are simply doing what is required of them by law.

As far as "treating in an unbiased manner, based on fact," for many people, myself included, we believe that the facts support the interpretation that life begins at conception, and therefore the child deserves the doctor's consideration in treatment just as much as the mother. You're welcome to disagree with me on this point, but I personally feel that any line that humans try to draw and say "this is the point where life starts" is completely arbitrary, so I personally believe that we should respect the dignity of human life all the way to the point of conception, simply because we can't KNOW at which point that embryo becomes a human.

Of course, there are facts out there that will support the case that human life doesn't begin until birth, or the end of the first trimester, or whatever, and if you happen to ascribe to that belief, that's fine, it's a completely understandable and reasonable position that I don't happen to share. Since I know I don't agree with what the law states should be done for cases of abortion, I won't put myself in a position where I will have to choose between my morals and the will of the patient.

 

[RySerr21]

That is true, but isn't it the aim of a doctor to diagnose and treat an illness in an unbiased manner, based on fact? Options and concepts cannot be interfered with due to the teachings of various incarnations of mysticism.

The aim of the doctor is to provide quality health care. This includes BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO making a proper diagnosis and treamtment plan. Thats where you go wrong, and thats where a lot of doctors have gone wrong recently. With the new technological advancements and medication regimens available, a lot of physicians have become overwhelmingly concerned with the diagnosis/treatment part of medicine and ignore the other aspects that contribute to being a good doctor. These other aspects are ones in which religion or belief in God may be helpful from the patients point of view. So, on a case to case basis, religion may play an incrdibly important role in the well being of your patient and to make the blanket statement that religion has no place in medicine shows a lack of understanding of what it means to provide quality health care.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

I am a Christian. I do believe that God is ultimately in control of how long an individual will live, however, I believe that He uses means to accomplish His purposes and one of His means is most definitely doctors/medicine. So I do believe that my choices and my work as a doctor will help to extend people's lives and give people a better quality of life.

 

[foster033]

I believe it requires some faith to believe that the universe came from nothing and that life spontaneously assimilated against unimaginable odds. I hope that didn't come out as derogatory; I'm simply stating that I feel it takes faith to believe in such a thing. You might feel the same if I said it requires some faith to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing being that cares for every human on this planet. For that reason I feel that atheism requires at its core some faith, but I'm not sure whether or not I would use the word "religion" to define it.

There are still things we don't know about the creation of the universe but adding religion into the mix only seems to complicate things for me. If god created the universe then who created god. religion can't answer that question...if god has always been there then why is it impossible that the universe has always been here. it seems no less possible and eliminates an extra step....Occam's razor -- all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best
I don't think science is a religion, at least not for me. To me religion requires a belief in the supernatural and some sort of traditions to follow. I don't believe there was some supernatural start to the universe...I think more likely it infinitely expands and collapses upon itself. While we might not know how this occurs or what started it now, that doesn't mean we never will. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

 

[Nomdeplume]

My religious beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with how I'll practice medicine.

I am of the same opinion, and salute your approach.

I don't mean to start an argument here, but as far as I'm concerned, I think that my religious beliefs should come second to doing what is in the best interest of the patient (a reconciliation of what the patient or their family wants, what's safe and necessary, and what's legal -- my religious beliefs aside).

Ethics are of paramount importance, but religion need not be.

 

[DrMattOglesby]

I honestly don't think that the persons posting in this thread are blindly bound to ethics as derived directly from their respective religion. Rather--and readdressing the point of this thread--they are using their religion as a framework to decide what to do in ethical situations when the right action to take isn't always so clean cut.

and I wanted to address that concern about the faith needed to believe in a spontaneously born universe; not all religious groups believe there was a beginning to the universe. many hold it as an eternal entity (including many scientists--refer back to the comment about the ever expanding/collapsing universe). not surprisingly, this fits the description of God in many ways too.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I honestly don't think that the persons posting in this thread are blindly bound to ethics as derived directly from their respective religion. Rather--and readdressing the point of this thread--they are using their religion as a framework to decide what to do in ethical situations when the right action to take isn't always so clean cut.

Very, very well put.👍👍👍

 

[ar2388]

My religious beliefs will not play a part in my role as a physician. My personal morals and ethics do not come religion, nor do I think there is much of a place for religion in the practice of medicine. It is a discipline based in science not in theology. I think our medical decisions should be based upon scientific grounding.

im glad you said it.

i am somewhere on the border between agnostic and atheistic but that is for my personal issues. however, I would have no problem providing abortions to anyone (yes, i mean anyone. i cannot think of any situation where iw oudl refuse to provide an abortion).

 

[Chemdude]

im glad you said it.

i am somewhere on the border between agnostic and atheistic but that is for my personal issues. however, I would have no problem providing abortions to anyone (yes, i mean anyone. i cannot think of any situation where iw oudl refuse to provide an abortion).[/quote]

I never understood how someone can actually allow an abortion. IMO, abortions should only be allowed in two circumstances: rape(the abortion should be done ASAP) and if birth may physically harm the woman. Other than that, I don't see why it should be allowable. If you're having sex, you should always consider the probability of getting pregnant. IMO, if you are pregnant it's your responsibility to have a baby. It's not a choice. I don't see the difference between killing a fetus that at 36 weeks vs. killing a baby one day after its birth. You're still taking away a life, and that's not your decision.

So you're telling me you'de permit an abortion of a fetus 36 weeks after fertilization?

 

[DrMattOglesby]

lets try to keep things civil here and allow people to respectfully state their positions without fear of personal attacks. I know you weren't intending any such confrontation...but i really like this thread and Id hate to see it die because of violation of the the SDN Terms of Service.

and that is not directed at any personal in particular at this point...but i do see that from this point out, it can easily become a little personal for some members.

 

[Steeler7588]

You're still taking away a life, and that's not your decision.

This remains the case with women who have been raped, though. You can bring up the right to live in cases where contraception has failed, but that right doesn't disappear just because one's been conceived in rape, does it? (And for the record, I'm pro-choice. I too believe it's necessary in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is at risk, but I also believe because of the allowances, it just kinda "follows" to be in other cases. Unfortunate in most cases, even irresponsible in some, but I feel that it just extends from protecting these other cases. I don't want to get into an abortion debate since this seems like a pretty well-mannered thread right now, but I basically agree with Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist paper).

Agnostics believe it is impossible to know the truth in terms of God, religion, etc.

Can someone explain this to me, because it's been something I've wondered for a while. Aren't most people agnostic? For me, growing up the connotation for the word was more of a non-believer (which is true for some agnostics), but most people who claim that they "believed" in the doctrine of their religion, not that they "know". Isn't that the point of faith? That it can't be proven true?

I understand there are exceptions, but for those of you who are religious: Do any Christians believe that it can be proved true that Jesus is the son of God? Any Hindus believe that reincarnation can be proven? So on, so forth. If so, would you object to being called an agnostic theist?

Maybe I'm not understanding the definition.

 

[DrYoda]

Can someone explain this to me, because it's been something I've wondered for a while. Aren't most people agnostic? For me, growing up the connotation for the word was more of a non-believer (which is true for some agnostics), but most people who claim that they "believed" in the doctrine of their religion, not that they "know". Isn't that the point of faith? That it can't be proven true?

I understand there are exceptions, but for those of you who are religious: Do any Christians believe that it can be proved true that Jesus is the son of God? Any Hindus believe that reincarnation can be proven? So on, so forth. If so, would you object to being called an agnostic theist?

Maybe I'm not understanding the definition.

Religious followers may accept that their religion does not have any hard proof to back it up (although some would refute this), but they for sure belive god(s) exits.

Agnostics on the other hand belive don't necessarily belive in god(s), but acknowledge that it is possible god exists. A agnostic could also think god(s)exist which would place them in the group you are inquiring about. The core belif is that it is impossible to actually know if god(s) exists, outside of that there is alot of variation in what individual agnostics believe.

So yes, one could be agnostic and think that X god exists. Agnostic is a somewhat broad belief, and is not a stand alone religion (or lack of). It is merely the belief that some things regarding religion are uncertain.

Edit: Sorry if this isn't very clear, it's not a very cut and dried belief (but then again what is?).

Edit 2: It's probably best to think of agnosticism(?) as being a philosophical belief more than a religious system.

 

[ar2388]

chemdude,
i believe that people make mistakes or sometimes their method of contraception fails and the woman gets pregnant. i do not believe that she should have to go through the process of having a baby because something happened and altho she was on the pill, she got pregnant.
i should have been more clear about up to when i would be ok with it... i feel like once you have gone through like 6 months of being pregnant, might as well go through the last few months too.. while i am not 100% sure what the limits of abortion are now in various states, i think 1st and 2nd trimester abortions are totally a-ok in my book...
i also have to mention that i am not a kid person, do not get all mushy upon the thought of babies or killing babies and seeing photos of aborted fetuses does not do anything for me beyond "ooo! thats cool!" call me cold or whatever, but i do not like children and i think one has to be really really prepared for the kid. If a person is not completely prepared to raise the child, why in the world would you want to make them? we have enough babies without proper families already.

 

[Doc Henry]

As an atheist, I plan to walk into rooms, and simultaneously pull out the breathing tubes of recovering patients, all the while performing abortions on pregnant teenagers. When all that is said and done, I will remind the family of the recently deceased that there is no God and they'll never see their loved one again, while perhaps devouring the fetus for nutritional value.

Wow we should hang out! This is so totally how I plan on practicing medicine!!!!!

 

[HeatherMD]

I'm an atheist. I think it has an impact on how I practice medicine, in the sense that I will try to always be objective.

Having grown up very religious, I can sympathize with a Jehova's Witness that does not want to receive a blood transfusion. I would provide them with all the scientific/medical information of why it's beneficial, but you have to understand where they're coming from, and receiving blood is not a good thing in their books (it depends on the person though, some are okay with "blood products", others are not okay with anything). I will not force it on them, and I definitely would not make the decision for their children such as forcing temporary custody. A parent has a right to their child -- and in this instance they truly believe they are doing what is best for them.

As for the abortion issue, I don't have any qualms with that either. My ideal job would be an ob-gyn, so if I achieve that, I imagine I would learn how to perform the procedure -- and I would. Like most physicians, I'd be opposed to elective abortions past ~21 weeks (when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb with current medical technologies), but I don't care for anyone's reasons before that point, only that they understand the risks, are sure of their decision, and hopefully are planning on some counseling afterwards because post-abortion depression is prevalent.

My job is not to be judgmental and withhold care from patients because I disagree with their actions or would not choose the same for myself.
My job is to help them.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I want to preemptively say that I completely respect your opinion and understand that it's certainly possible to come to your position while being completely reasonable and rational. I want to make it clear that I am not attacking you personally. That said, I disagree with your position.

chemdude,
i believe that people make mistakes or sometimes their method of contraception fails and the woman gets pregnant. i do not believe that she should have to go through the process of having a baby because something happened and altho she was on the pill, she got pregnant.

In my opinion, and I assume in chemdude's opinion, having sex is always taking the chance that you could have a baby. That's the whole biological purpose behind having sex, and if you're going to have sex, then you need to be prepared to have a baby, because going in, you KNOW that there's always a chance that contraception could fail. Don't blame the contraception, blame the couple who took the risk but wasn't ready for the consequences. As in all other aspects of life, mistakes have consequences, and in this case the consequence is carrying the baby to term. The baby should not be killed because the couple made a mistake.

i also have to mention that i am not a kid person, do not get all mushy upon the thought of babies or killing babies and seeing photos of aborted fetuses does not do anything for me beyond "ooo! thats cool!" call me cold or whatever, but i do not like children and i think one has to be really really prepared for the kid. If a person is not completely prepared to raise the child, why in the world would you want to make them? we have enough babies without proper families already.

After birth, if the couple really isn't ready to be parents, then by all means let them put the baby up for adoption. I understand that the kid's life isn't going to be all rainbows and sunshine if they grow up in foster care, but I personally ascribe to the belief that they should have the opportunity to life.

Of course, this entire argument hinges on the belief that a first or second-term trimester fetus constitutes human life. As far as I'm concerned, the first- and second-trimester lines are completely arbitrary; we can't know with certainty when a fetus constitutes human life. Because of that, I always would err on the side of caution and grant the full protection due the dignity of human life from the moment of conception.

Once again, I know that's not what the law states, and so I could never go into a specialty where I'd have to perform an abortion. That doesn't mean I despise those who do perform the abortions, as I know they're doing what they think is right, I just couldn't do it myself.

 

[Steeler7588]

It is merely the belief that some things regarding religion are uncertain.

Alright, that pretty much is what I was thinking it was. It's just some friends I talked to about this (about how I thought most people are agnostic) seemed to think that I was questioning their faith. But in the very definition of it, agnosticism deals with truth and fact, and leaves faith alone.

 

[ar2388]

gospursgo, no worries, no offense was taken. i realize that people have different views and hey, thats what makes this world so diverse eh? i think my overriding philosophy is in line with heatherMD's... i am not here to judge people or to subject my personal opinions on them. i am here to help them. 🙂

and also, im really enjoying this discussion and seeing all the different opinions everyone has to offer

edit: sex is awesome! haha sorry i hope that was not inappropriate but i think it would be a shame for a couple to give up something as good as sex just because they are not ready for a baby