- Joined
- Apr 10, 2001
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 0
Can and should a physician incorporate religion in his or her practice of medicine?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
I think there is a more fundamental question, namely, can a physician NOT incorporate their religion or philosophy into their practice?
Whether a person is a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, something in between or not mentioned--whatever--it is impossible for one to neatly remove their religion and/or philospohy, at least in significant measure, from the thing they do all day with their life.•
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by focker:
Gumbydammit-
It seems that what this article shows is that it may be appropriate for physicians to incorporate their patients' religious beliefs into their practice of medicine, not their own.
From the article:
'Despite patients' hunger for such discussions, Pulchalski and Sulmasy at
New York University recognize that some doctors could potentially take advantage of their position of influence to evangelize about their own beliefs.
"That would be absolutely wrong, a serious affront to patients," Sulmasy says.'
A patient's religion may have some place in their health care, a doctor's should not.
•
Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
I hold two diploma's in Christian theology and have never heard anyone seriously postulate that the Christian who commits suicide--very rarely does one do this--is damned.
In Christian theology, the only sin which is unparadonable is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said, "Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (Matthew 12:31).
The sin is when one perpetually rejects Christ and His work as applicable to their fallen, sin-ridden condition, and dies having done this. When one dies having rejected *the only* remedy for their condition, that, in Christ's words, is the unforgiveable sin.
In common venacular, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is "dying in your sins," having rejected in life the sole remedy for them, namely, Christ and following Him. The ability to do this comes by the Holy Spirit, so to reject Him is to reject who He brings, Christ, and His atoning work on the cross, and justifying work in the resurrection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well this raises questions of how one actually defines "spirit." Also, the [once-saved, always-saved?] question comes up... If you want to really get out there, Frank Tipler wrote a book called "The Physics of Immortality" where he tried to use the Einstein Feild Equations to show that a Christain-like (or even Buddhist-like) God must exist but doesn't have much power in the world yet and will eventually have concern for how it was for us back at the beginning of the universe (very simplifed of course.)
Steven, you seem like such an intersting guy from your posts here (well, in the international forum mostly.) Just curious--and no offence intended if you don't--do you have a CV or resume posted somewhere?...
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
I hold two diploma's in Christian theology and have never heard anyone seriously postulate that the Christian who commits suicide--very rarely does one do this--is damned.
In Christian theology, the only sin which is unparadonable is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said, "Any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (Matthew 12:31).
The sin is when one perpetually rejects Christ and His work as applicable to their fallen, sin-ridden condition, and dies having done this. When one dies having rejected *the only* remedy for their condition, that, in Christ's words, is the unforgiveable sin.
In common venacular, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is "dying in your sins," having rejected in life the sole remedy for them, namely, Christ and following Him. The ability to do this comes by the Holy Spirit, so to reject Him is to reject who He brings, Christ, and His atoning work on the cross, and justifying work in the resurrection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
•
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by focker:
A patient's religion may have some place in their health care, a doctor's should not.
•
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Firebird:
I will agree that pushing your beliefs on someone and making them really uncomfortable would be unethical, not to mention irrelevant. I mean, if you are pushy, they wouldn't listen anyway.•
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by ringo643:
There's a huge power imbalance going on there, and any time you're really forcing your personal beliefs on someone in those circumstances, I consider it a breach of ethics. •
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by mj:
PS "cruising for chicks"...you need to get out more Steve•
Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•
1. 15 y/o female into heavy petting with her boyfreind, wants a depo shot so she can go all the way with him on his birthday which is coming up. How would you respond, why and on what basis?
2. Single 47 y/o male, some history of STDs, is used to being able to cruise the clubs for chicks. Having a bit of problem continuing with this now, and wants Viagra. How would you respond, why and on what basis?
3. Couple wants advise on the best philosophy of care and feeding of their newborn. How would you respond, why and on what basis?
4. 19 y/o Pt became a quadroplegic in a diving accident. Asks you, "How am I going to live the rest of my life?" How would you respond, why and on what basis?
I'll stop there.•
Originally posted by focker:
•In all of these cases I would discuss options with the patient and provide whatever services they felt were best, without making moral judgements about their behavior. Discussing options would include discussing the consequences of these actions, but my personal beliefs really should play as small a part as possible. You seem to have chosen cases with the intent of baiting me into telling patients what is right or wrong behavior instead of doing what a doctor ought to do: provide information and services with regard to patients' health.•
Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•Whatever happened to the notion that some actions are simply NOT in the best interest of patients? And perhaps more importantly, I think what this shows is a SUPREMELY false dichotmy, namely, that of seperating behavior and health.
Take it out of the controversial realm a moment for illustration purposes. You have a Pt that smokes ciggarettes and drinks alcohol addictively, and eats like a deep fat fryer. There is a question of his marital fidelity in the wife's mind, and who knows what else he is doing. All totalled, he is destroying not only himself but his increasingly dysfunctional and codependent family, also in your care, with his behaviors.
Shall we nuetrally discuss with this patient the option of continuing with all this as though it were a set of behaviors that have no moral implications, and that whatever his decision is is just fine, and his decision to continue in them is just as respect worthy as a decision toward making a change?
Or shall we tell such a one that he is day-by-day killing himself, and that his behavior is concurrently damaging his family--wife, two sons, and two daughters--and that he is living irresponsibly, damaging everyone involved, and that this is thus wrong?
Of course, things should be communicated appropriately, sensitively, at the right time, and with wisdom, and in an empowering way without condemnatory attitudes. But anything less than telling the truth in such things is deriliction of duty, in my opinion.
•
Originally posted by focker:
•I would certainly counsel a patient against these behaviors, but not becasue they are immoral. They are unhealthy.Doctors recieve very specialized training so that they can provide healthcare. •
Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•Ring0, your 100th post was very well said.•
Originally posted by ringo643:
•Thank you, Stephen.
In the spirit of what mj's last post said, religion and 'right' become much more significant when we take psychosocial factors into the broad scope of health. Psychological well-being can very well be tied up in matters of faith and belief. Healthy social interaction can be affected by the same. So, especially if you're in psych (notwithstanding the disturbing trend in psych just to medicate everything) it seems that your patients' health could be affected by matters relating to religion and belief.
That said, however, we are not magicians. We are trained to treat patients. While that covers an enormous amount of ground beyond the realm of physio, path, and pharm, we cannot be expected to be everything to our patients. If you were an FP, you would be grossly negligent to make advanced cardiologic diagnoses without consultation. Why is it better to offer yourself as a cleric than as a cardiologist? There are professionals who handle these situations, and if you're in over your head, you refer out, just as in any other area of medicine. Sorry for the lengthy post.•
Originally posted by Stephen Ewen:
•Functioning wholistically within all of these areas, I freely confess!, stems straight from my religious beliefs, which includes following the example of Jesus, who cared for people on their every level, and St. Luke, the beloved physician, who did the same. Here is a short article I wrote for some people on St. Luke http://www.lukeproject.org/luke.html
Best wishes to you.•