Religious scripture citations in a personal statement....?

[Sente]

Hello everyone,

I am working on my personal statement and I was wondering if it would be innapropriate to lightly cite religious scripture in it?

Just a bit as to why... I am a very religious person, and my religion is a very big part of who i am. Also, many of the scriptures tied to charity, my church activities, and the like have really pushed me throughout my life to want to help others. I want to be genuine on why I am service minded and why I want to become a doctor... I just don't know if it will come off the wrong way if the admissions person reading it is not religious...

It would be really hard to NOT put in there as well... Because, for example, I spent almost 2 years on a service mission for my church in a foreign country. How do you just not add that?

Any ideas?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[allantois]

To cherry pick the holy book or not to cherry pick.

 

[Monkitty]

Does it have to be a verbatim quote? Can you not paraphrase? I mean are you planning to stick the book, chapter, verse in as well? From a purely practical standpoint, that seems like a waste of precious characters.

I see no harm in saying something like, "I went on a 2 year mission as a part of my church, it was formative [...]" or what have you, but LIGHTLY would be the key. It seems the consensus is to stay away from controversial topics, and religion can definitely be that.

No reason you can't talk about it if it was formative, but maybe approach it as if you knew the readers were atheists and didn't want to feel lecture

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

Do not use quotes from anywhere in your PS. This is your writing here. Although many important writings - spiritual or not - have likely influenced who you are, the PS is a place for what you think and say, not what others think and say. Some of the cheesiest (aka worst) personal statements that I have read have quotes in them.

I say all of this also as a pretty religious person. Find a way to say what you are trying to get across, without quoting anything or anyone else. It is great to carry certain verses and such on your heart and in all of your actions. But like I said, I have yet to come across a PS where it is done well and/or where I can confidently believe that it will come across well to admission committees. Even ending or starting with a single quote just doesnt go well most of the time.

Maybe it would be ok to introduce certain important quotes within your secondary essays at some schools? I can imagine schools such as LUCOM, KYCOM, MUCOM, CUSOM, and Loma respecting religious quotes.

 

[abolt18]

Do not use quotes from anywhere in your PS. This is your writing here. Although many important writings - spiritual or not - have likely influenced who you are, the PS is a place for what you think and say, not what others think and say. Some of the cheesiest (aka worst) personal statements that I have read have quotes in them.

I say all of this also as a pretty religious person. Find a way to say what you are trying to get across, without quoting anything or anyone else. It is great to carry certain verses and such on your heart and in all of your actions. But like I said, I have yet to come across a PS where it is done well and/or where I can confidently believe that it will come across well to admission committees. Even ending or starting with a single quote just doesnt go well most of the time.

Maybe it would be ok to introduce certain important quotes within your secondary essays at some schools? I can imagine schools such as LUCOM, KYCOM, MUCOM, CUSOM, and Loma respecting religious quotes.

I had a very short quote from a book I loved in my personal statement. It didn't keep me from any interviews. (Though I didn't cite it or anything, just referred to the author stating "xyz")

 

[Awesome Sauceome]

I had a very short quote from a book I loved in my personal statement. It didn't keep me from any interviews. (Though I didn't cite it or anything, just referred to the author stating "xyz")

Well hey, I mean it worked for you, I am by no means an expert on this stuff. But just from reading a ton of personal statements, many some of those with quotes are just the cheesiest of the cheese man... And its like, thats great, you are quoting Ghandi, so you must be all wise and introspective and stuff, but how am I not to know that in reality you can quote this phrase but then go out and buy a $2,000 paper weight haha? It just has always come off as a little shallow to me, thats all. And as gonnif stated (in a much more brief way), it just seems like there are so many better uses of that space when you are crunched down to just 4500 characters.

 

[trev5150]

It's best to keep your religion to yourself unless you're sure the other party wants to hear it.

Heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the weakest among us, and always pray in private.

 

[AlteredScale]

My PS was essentially the book of Revelation....and I got 5 interviews.

In all seriousness however, I would err on the side of not using quotes, especially when it's from a religious text and you have no clue who the readers are. I'm reviewers from CUSOM and MUCOM might appreciate it but I still wouldn't risk it.

 

[cetrav]

A relative of mine who is an adcom member and the most religious person I know, explicitly told me to take the word "God" out of my PS.

 

[DavetheMD]

It might help you if you're seeking admission to LUCOM

 

[cactusinmyhead]

No! Using quotes is not a good idea and religion can certainly put people off.

 

[Sente]

Thanks everyone for the comments. There are a lot of good insights in what everyone has said, and I think I have a better idea on how I what to write my PS now. I appreciate all of the help!

 

[Goro]

Oh, this will go over well at Einstein and the Touros, or Cornell-Qatar.

Seriously, I think this would make people nervous. Not many people are comfortable with over displays of religiosity, except maybe at LUCOM or Loma Linda.

Religious missions don't add anything for ECs either, unless you were digging wells or vaccinating people.

Primarily religious missions are to be included in your app to explain what you were doing during the time you were serving. This service does not hurt your application. If you are able to describe how these experiences developed your self-understanding or a deeper respect for the value of others' beliefs, these experiences (not the "mission") can give you a more interesting application.

Missions whose primary purpose is the conversion of others to your belief system fall somewhat flat as a resume builder, even though you have a constitutional right to pursue this activity.

Hello everyone,

I am working on my personal statement and I was wondering if it would be innapropriate to lightly cite religious scripture in it?

Just a bit as to why... I am a very religious person, and my religion is a very big part of who i am. Also, many of the scriptures tied to charity, my church activities, and the like have really pushed me throughout my life to want to help others. I want to be genuine on why I am service minded and why I want to become a doctor... I just don't know if it will come off the wrong way if the admissions person reading it is not religious...

It would be really hard to NOT put in there as well... Because, for example, I spent almost 2 years on a service mission for my church in a foreign country. How do you just not add that?

Any ideas?

 

[Sente]

I like that. As much as my mission had major "conversion of others" aspect to it, I did, funny enough, actually dig wells as well as help construct houses for those in need among many other things that had no ties to spiritual conversion. Maybe mentioning those types of experiences individually, as you have said, would be the most beneficial.

Oh, this will go over well at Einstein and the Touros, or Cornell-Qatar.

Seriously, I think this would make people nervous. Not many people are comfortable with over displays of religiosity, except maybe at LUCOM or Loma Linda.

Religious missions don't add anything for ECs either, unless you were digging wells or vaccinating people.

Primarily religious missions are to be included in your app to explain what you were doing during the time you were serving. This service does not hurt your application. If you are able to describe how these experiences developed your self-understanding or a deeper respect for the value of others' beliefs, these experiences (not the "mission") can give you a more interesting application.

Missions whose primary purpose is the conversion of others to your belief system fall somewhat flat as a resume builder, even though you have a constitutional right to pursue this activity.

 

[allantois]

I like that. As much as my mission had major "conversion of others" aspect to it, I did, funny enough, actually dig wells as well as help construct houses for those in need among many other things that had no ties to spiritual conversion. Maybe mentioning those types of experiences individually, as you have said, would be the most beneficial.

That's quite a disturbing thing to write about.

 

[Sente]

I don't think it is very disturbing, but I do not think that the conversion aspect in itself would not be appropriate to write about. What I did was not trying to force anything on anyone, but I was trying to give them a chance at a better life. But, some people feel as if they don't benefit from that. So, in their case, we stopped trying to teach them spiritually but still helped them temporally instead. I still have great friends and helped amazing people where I went that wanted nothing to do with the message I taught, or any other spiritual message for that matter. What I wanted to touch on was my desire to help others, before it was spiritually during my mission as well as helping the needy with other non-spiritual things, now it is changed into wanting to be a doctor and help those undeserved.

 

[jl lin]

Look, I don't think it should offend anymore than any other well chosen, relevant, literary quote. But you have to accept the ridiculously HUGE amount of bias in this Post-Modern world. Too many will not openly accept it, even from a creative, literary perspective.

Also, to me, I'd keep quotes in general to a minimum or perhaps out of it altogether. Yea, it's like seasoning. Now where I like a lot of flavor and hefty seasoning, not everyone does--and some people pretty much prefer merely bland--relative and comparative to me, for a example-- a little savory with some salt and light, fresh pepper. You can add some other dimension of color and flavor, just keep it light and don't over do--balanced passion.

It's like you are the chef for cooking and plating your own nouvelle cuisine. It' s light, fresh, small, and not overdone.

 

[allantois]

now it is changed into wanting to be a doctor and help those undeserved.

By having conversations with them on how they can achieve a better life through jesus?
I sense that a part of your religion system involves conversion of as many people as possible and that will always be a goal behind every interaction with others 😵

 

[Sente]

Look, I don't think it should offend anymore than any other well chosen, relevant, literary quote. But you have to accept the ridiculously HUGE amount of bias in this Post-Modern world. Too many will not openly accept it, even from a creative, literary perspective.

Also, to me, I'd keep quotes in general to a minimum or perhaps out of it altogether. Yea, it's like seasoning. Now where I like a lot of flavor and hefty seasoning, not everyone does--and some people pretty much prefer merely bland, a little savory with some salt.

It's like you are the chef for plating your own nouvelle cuisine. It' s light, fresh, small, and not overdone.

Thank you for the insight. I am still new to all of this and learning as I go, so I am glad I have this resource to help. I have thought of many different ways to get across what I was trying to figure out how to say in the beginning without using quotes or a scripture reference.

 

[jl lin]

I don't think it is very disturbing, but I do not think that the conversion aspect in itself would not be appropriate to write about. What I did was not trying to force anything on anyone, but I was trying to give them a chance at a better life. But, some people feel as if they don't benefit from that. So, in their case, we stopped trying to teach them spiritually but still helped them temporally instead. I still have great friends and helped amazing people where I went that wanted nothing to do with the message I taught, or any other spiritual message for that matter. What I wanted to touch on was my desire to help others, before it was spiritually during my mission as well as helping the needy with other non-spiritual things, now it is changed into wanting to be a doctor and help those undeserved.

For the latter part, show it rather than tell it, and leave it at that.

 

[ERK123]

I just hope that you were not giving out free blankets to people who chose not to have a "better life".

 

[NurWollen]

I'm also religious and I also served a mission in a foreign country for my church. I talked about it in my personal statement because it helped give me an appreciation for foreign cultures that I want to continue to serve as a physician. I was asked about it at one interview, at the school I attend now. I think it went over well. It wasn't central to my PS though.

As far as quoting scripture in your personal statement though, I think it's risky. If your interviewers aren't religious they might not understand (or worse, might misunderstand it.) There is likely a way to convey the same thoughts in a more subtle way. People who would have appreciated the scripture will likely still appreciate the the same sentiments expressed more subtly, and people who aren't religious won't care.

Overall, I think that a good rule of thumb as far as religious service goes when applying to medical school is thus: it's a good thing and enhances your application, as long as it's not the only (or majority of) EC experience you have. You want it to be one part of a broader set of experiences.

 

[samac]

Please don't make your personal statement all about serving God. I'm all for spirituality but be sure you express yourself as an individual person, not just a member of a church group. There are many careers where you serve people but why particularly medicine?
Also. Don't mention the conversion thing. Just don't go there.

 

[Sente]

Also. Don't mention the conversion thing. Just don't go there.

I was not planning on it... I think some people got the wrong idea of why I wanted to do this. I just have some scripture verses that have really driven me, just as some people have great quotes that have driven them. Nothing more than that. I will not add them in my PS though, due to what has been said. It is a good point that it is just a waste of characters that should rather be used for what I myself say, and not what others have said.

Thanks again everyone for the responses!

 

[FrkyBgStok]

As a student who has interviewed many and read many personal statements, if i saw your application filled with religious activities and a personal statement that talks about you and steers very clear of religion, I would say, "ok, this person is religious, that's important to them, whatever, let's interview." If i saw the activities in addition to bible quotes in your personal statement i would immediately think, "oh man, this person is a little too religious and may try to coerce patients into things, which is bad for everyone." I would be very hesitant.

In fact, one question I ask when i see people with religious activities or with answers that bring up religion is, "how would you handle a patient asking for a treatment that you are personally against?" everyone is different and I am fine with religious people as physicians, but i have a problem with people so religious it can indirectly harm patients.

 

[trev5150]

I think the OP gets it at this point and is trying to kill his own thread....

 

[Desired Member]

In fact, one question I ask when i see people with religious activities or with answers that bring up religion is, "how would you handle a patient asking for a treatment that you are personally against?" everyone is different and I am fine with religious people as physicians, but i have a problem with people so religious it can indirectly harm patients.

I have to say that this makes me very angry.

Physicians are not obliged to provide treatments that go against their own religious beliefs. This is America.

"I am fine with religious people as physicians" so kind of you...

 

[NurWollen]

As a student who has interviewed many and read many personal statements, if i saw your application filled with religious activities and a personal statement that talks about you and steers very clear of religion, I would say, "ok, this person is religious, that's important to them, whatever, let's interview." If i saw the activities in addition to bible quotes in your personal statement i would immediately think, "oh man, this person is a little too religious and may try to coerce patients into things, which is bad for everyone." I would be very hesitant.

In fact, one question I ask when i see people with religious activities or with answers that bring up religion is, "how would you handle a patient asking for a treatment that you are personally against?" everyone is different and I am fine with religious people as physicians, but i have a problem with people so religious it can indirectly harm patients.

Refer them to another physician. Why is this an issue for people?

There seems to be a growing sentiment that religious people are ok, they can have freedom of religion, they can go to church on their day off and pray inside their home, as long as their religion doesn't actually influence the decisions they make, and the things they will and won't do. That, my friend, is not freedom of religion.

 

[ERK123]

Refer them to another physician. Why is this an issue for people?

There seems to be a growing sentiment that religious people are ok, they can have freedom of religion, they can go to church on their day off and pray inside their home, as long as their religion doesn't actually influence the decisions they make, and the things they will and won't do. That, my friend, is not freedom of religion.

It is indeed freedom of religion. While the first amendment provides the right for people to practice their own religion, it also gives rights to others to disagree with how people practice their religion. I see no reason why a medical school does not have the freedom to exclude admissions to somebody because they feel that they have qualities that will impede upon them providing proper health care to patients. Religious people are not being prosecuted or legally punished in anyway. The first amendment protects your legal rights, but says nothing about private privilege. The bible is not the law of the land.

Physicians are not obliged to provide treatments that go against their own religious beliefs. This is America.

Medical school are allowed to determine which qualities they want in a student, and which qualities will make the best doctors. This is America.

 

[NurWollen]

It is indeed freedom of religion. While the first amendment provides the right for people to practice their own religion, it also gives rights to others to disagree with how people practice their religion. I see no reason why a medical school does not have the freedom to exclude admissions to somebody because they feel that they have qualities that will impede upon them providing proper health care to patients. Religious people are not being prosecuted or legally punished in anyway. The first amendment protects your legal rights, but says nothing about private privilege. The bible is not the law of the land.



Medical school are allowed to determine which qualities they want in a student, and which qualities will make the best doctors. This is America.

Medical schools absolutely have the right decided which qualities they think make good physicians. Many of them think religious people make exceptional physicians.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about this idea that religious people shouldn't let their personal beliefs influence their professional decisions. To expect religious people to hide an important part of who they are away from society on the chance that it might offend someone, that isn't freedom of religion.

 

[ERK123]

Medical schools absolutely have the right decided which qualities they think make good physicians. Many of them think religious people make exceptional physicians.

I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about this idea that religious people shouldn't let their personal beliefs influence their professional decisions. To expect religious people to hide an important part of who they are away from society on the chance that it might offend someone, that isn't freedom of religion.

I fail to understand how that is not freedom of religion. If people are choosing to not do business with people who use religion in the workplace then that is simply people exercising their own right of expression. The freedom of religion does not provide the right to practice religion without scrutiny. The first amendment "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion," so I see no legal reason why people need to be respectful of others religious beliefs or practices.

 

[peyerpatch]

Some people have recommended a possible inclusion for religious schools (ie-LUCOM), but if the scriptures you want to quote come out of the Book of Mormon - steer clear.

I think it was mentioned in another thread - "mainstream Christianity" does not consider Mormons as a part of it.

 

[Roxas]

Some people have recommended a possible inclusion for religious schools (ie-LUCOM), but if the scriptures you want to quote come out of the Book of Mormon - steer clear.

I think it was mentioned in another thread - "mainstream Christianity" does not consider Mormons as a part of it.

A) Dude, OP gets it. You're just piling on unnecessarily at this point.

B) The quote you're referring to said that some people at LUCOM's parent organization may not see it that way. This fraction in no way represents the entirety of mainstream Christianity. Suffice it to say those who choose not to consider Mormons as Christians are sorely misinformed.

 

[hallowmann]

I have to say that this makes me very angry.

Physicians are not obliged to provide treatments that go against their own religious beliefs. This is America.

"I am fine with religious people as physicians" so kind of you...

Its funny, you read what he said one way and got angry, I read it another way and felt very comfortable with how I would answer that question.

Physicians are required to provide standard of care, and that incorporates the freedom to refer a patient elsewhere for that care (while not ideal its certainly better than forcing a physician to do something they inherently don't want to do for whatever reason). Just as a patient can choose not to have something done to them, a physician has the capability of deciding what they do or do not want to do, provided of course that it doesn't exit the realm of standard of care.

Even physicians that don't like vaccinations can choose not to provide vaccinations in their clinics, regardless of how ridiculous that viewpoint is.

Refer them to another physician. Why is this an issue for people?

This is exactly why I didn't have a problem with his statement. As physicians we shouldn't actively use our role to push some opinion, but we certainly can provide our patients with resources if we're not comfortable with a certain treatment plan.

I think the problem comes in because some people are actually willing to use their authority/position as physicians to lecture or convince patients of their specific viewpoint. That is the point where it would be a problem.

 

[Roxas]

Just as a patient can choose not to have something done to them, a physician has the capability of deciding what they do or do not want to do, provided of course that it doesn't exit the realm of standard of care.

Unless of course you are that pediatrician from Michigan, cause then people will try and ruin your career/life for lulz.

 

[hallowmann]

Unless of course you are that pediatrician from Michigan, cause then people will try and ruin your career/life for lulz.

Sadly for her, she is suffering primarily due to the unprofessional manner with which she handled the situation.

That said, it's a risk anyone takes if they believe in anything that's not considered "universal". If someone's a Democrat, Republican, [insert any non-universal group here], etc. and that is known, they run the risk of losing business from people from an opposing group. That's life. Personally, I'd rather be who I am and poor than not have any beliefs and be the richest doc in town.

What would you say to the Jewish doc that wears a yamaka or the Muslim female doc that wears a hijab? Take them off and you'll make more money. My guess is that they wouldn't care for it either.

 

[allantois]

Its funny, you read what he said one way and got angry, I read it another way and felt very comfortable with how I would answer that question.

Physicians are required to provide standard of care, and that incorporates the freedom to refer a patient elsewhere for that care (while not ideal its certainly better than forcing a physician to do something they inherently don't want to do for whatever reason). Just as a patient can choose not to have something done to them, a physician has the capability of deciding what they do or do not want to do, provided of course that it doesn't exit the realm of standard of care.

Even physicians that don't like vaccinations can choose not to provide vaccinations in their clinics, regardless of how ridiculous that viewpoint is.



This is exactly why I didn't have a problem with his statement. As physicians we shouldn't actively use our role to push some opinion, but we certainly can provide our patients with resources if we're not comfortable with a certain treatment plan.

I think the problem comes in because some people are actually willing to use their authority/position as physicians to lecture or convince patients of their specific viewpoint. That is the point where it would be a problem.

There's no principle in medical ethics that talks about physicians having that autonomy, in fact I can think of instances (depending on how far a practitioner wants to take her beliefs) where such beliefs would violate medical ethics as the patient may be getting misinformed and/ or not adequately treated.

 

[Roxas]

Sadly for her, she is suffering primarily due to the unprofessional manner with which she handled the situation.

That said, it's a risk anyone takes if they believe in anything that's not considered "universal". If someone's a Democrat, Republican, [insert any non-universal group here], etc. and that is known, they run the risk of losing business from people from an opposing group. That's life. Personally, I'd rather be who I am and poor than not have any beliefs and be the richest doc in town.

What would you say to the Jewish doc that wears a yamaka or the Muslim female doc that wears a hijab? Take them off and you'll make more money. My guess is that they wouldn't care for it either.

You're correct. She could have handled it better and her choice isn't one I personally endorse. My reason for bringing it up, is very rarely is it as simple as you stated that "a physician has the capability to decide what they do or do not want to do." So often the religious are held under a microscope, and any breach in quality care is attributed to their religion rather than them perhaps making a mistake or being a less competent physician.

 

[hallowmann]

There's no principle in medical ethics that talks about physicians having that autonomy, in fact I can think of instances (depending on how far a practitioner wants to take her beliefs) where such beliefs would violate medical ethics as the patient may be getting misinformed and/ or not adequately treated.

Did you miss the part where I repeatedly said, provided that it doesn't exit the realm of "standard of care".

Quite frankly physicians absolutely have such autonomy and I'm surprised you're making the argument that they don't. It's all around us. If a physician doesn't want to follow a specific treatment plan that a patient wants, they refer them to someone who will and are not obligated to follow that treatment plan.

For reference, it's pretty clearly described here: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2013/03/msoc1-1303.html

You're correct. She could have handled it better and her choice isn't one I personally endorse. My reason for bringing it up, is very rarely is it as simple as you stated that "a physician has the capability to decide what they do or do not want to do." So often the religious are held under a microscope, and any breach in quality care is attributed to their religion rather than them perhaps making a mistake or being a less competent physician.

That is probably true about anyone classified as an "other" though, not just the religious. And while it is wrong that as a group we tend blame a large population for the undesirable actions of a small number of its members/adherents, it is certainly not something new, and absolutely not something new to religious groups (pretty sure it's been happening since the beginning of time).

 

[allantois]

Did you miss the part where I repeatedly said, provided that it doesn't exit the realm of "standard of care".

Quite frankly physicians absolutely have such autonomy and I'm surprised you're making the argument that they don't. It's all around us. If a physician doesn't want to follow a specific treatment plan that a patient wants, they refer them to someone who will and are not obligated to follow that treatment plan.

For reference, it's pretty clearly described here: http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2013/03/msoc1-1303.html



That is probably true about anyone classified as an "other" though, not just the religious. And while it is wrong that as a group we tend blame a large population for the undesirable actions of a small number of its members/adherents, it is certainly not something new, and absolutely not something new to religious groups (pretty sure it's been happening since the beginning of time).

It may be legal for someone in private practice to refuse services one does not believe it. But just because it is legal to do so, does not make it moral or medically ethical. The concept of conscience the article talks about comes straight from the legal studies. Now, if the physician is not in private practice, and instead works for a hospital, they may not have the luxury to refer patients out for services they consider unacceptable. And once again, it all depends on how far the physician wants to take his beliefs: if someone in private practice wants to refuse services to an entire group of people, then they will surely face backlash for it.

 

[NurWollen]

It may be legal for someone in private practice to refuse services one does not believe it. But just because it is legal to do so, does not make it moral or medically ethical. The concept of conscience the article talks about comes straight from the legal studies. Now, if the physician is not in private practice, and instead works for a hospital, they may not have the luxury to refer patients out for services they consider unacceptable. And once again, it all depends on how far the physician wants to take his beliefs: if someone in private practice wants to refuse services to an entire group of people, then they will surely face backlash for it.

I think when religious and non-religious people talk about physicians having the freedom to not perform certain procedures and services, I suspect we're not all on the same page. Some people imagine religious physicians calling chasing LGBT people out of their offices, telling pregnant teens they're going to hell, etc. For the vast majority of christians, religion is a motivator to heal, serve, and comfort the sick, with Christ as a role model. That pediatrician in Michigan is an outlier, because regardless of her beliefs about the morality of same-sex marriage, I really have a hard time seeing why she wouldn't be willing to provide medical care to their daughter.

What many are afraid of, is more along the lines being obligated to participate in providing an elective abortion, or on places where it is legal, provide physican-assisred suicide services, etc. Not that doctors are being forced to do those things right now, but many can see things going that way and therefore feel obliged to stand their ground.

 

[peyerpatch]

A) Dude, OP gets it. You're just piling on unnecessarily at this point.

B) The quote you're referring to said that some people at LUCOM's parent organization may not see it that way. This fraction in no way represents the entirety of mainstream Christianity. Suffice it to say those who choose not to consider Mormons as Christians are sorely misinformed.

A) fair enough

B) You either know nothing about Mormons, nothing about mainstream Christianity, or nothing about either. I would argue that the grand majority of Christian clergy would consider mormon dogma outside of what is considered "mainstream Christianity". Now the Christian layman, on the other hand, may not know any better.

No doubt - people who consider Mormons as outside of Christianity are the more informed ones.

 

[hallowmann]

It may be legal for someone in private practice to refuse services one does not believe it. But just because it is legal to do so, does not make it moral or medically ethical. The concept of conscience the article talks about comes straight from the legal studies. Now, if the physician is not in private practice, and instead works for a hospital, they may not have the luxury to refer patients out for services they consider unacceptable. And once again, it all depends on how far the physician wants to take his beliefs: if someone in private practice wants to refuse services to an entire group of people, then they will surely face backlash for it.

Did you not read the article? It actually explicitly talked about the moral and ethical concerns of it, and explicitly discussed the precedent from a moral/ethical, historical, and professional standpoint. No one can inherently say what is "medically ethical" outside of that, except maybe what they believe to be "medically ethical".

As far as "private practice" vs. "hospital" I will tell you very clearly that for (1) obviously anyone who takes part in a private entity, like a hospital, does so with an understanding that they will adhere to any rules of the hospital, and (2) most hospitals that eliminate physician autonomy aren't really very popular places to work (not even sure if such a place exists in the US). Hospitals may place limits on physician autonomy, but again, that's something the physician will either agree to ahead of time, in other words it falls under the ethical and legal requirement of adhering to a contract, or they will choose to go elsewhere.

You're bringing up of refusing to treat an entire group is not clear, so I will clarify it: physicians cannot legally or ethically refuse the service of individuals based on specific protected and some not-legally protected groups (this incorporates race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). On the other hand, a physician is fully within his/her right to refuse any patient for any (other) reason, however, they are ethically required to make sure there is continuity of care.

You are trying to make this about what you define as "right". Life isn't like that. You can't force people to adhere to what you define to be right (unless you're a politician). I'm trying to clarify the apparent misconception pre-meds seem to have about the rights of a physician. Physicians have rights just as patients do.

There are also practical reasons for this. I sure as heck wouldn't want a physician doing a procedure on me that they don't want to do.

 

[allantois]

Did you not read the article? It actually explicitly talked about the moral and ethical concerns of it, and explicitly discussed the precedent from a moral/ethical, historical, and professional standpoint. No one can inherently say what is "medically ethical" outside of that, except maybe what they believe to be "medically ethical".

As far as "private practice" vs. "hospital" I will tell you very clearly that for (1) obviously anyone who takes part in a private entity, like a hospital, does so with an understanding that they will adhere to any rules of the hospital, and (2) most hospitals that eliminate physician autonomy aren't really very popular places to work (not even sure if such a place exists in the US). Hospitals may place limits on physician autonomy, but again, that's something the physician will either agree to ahead of time, in other words it falls under the ethical and legal requirement of adhering to a contract, or they will choose to go elsewhere.

You're bringing up of refusing to treat an entire group is not clear, so I will clarify it: physicians cannot legally or ethically refuse the service of individuals based on specific protected and some not-legally protected groups (this incorporates race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). On the other hand, a physician is fully within his/her right to refuse any patient for any (other) reason, however, they are ethically required to make sure there is continuity of care.

You are trying to make this about what you define as "right". Life isn't like that. You can't force people to adhere to what you define to be right (unless you're a politician). I'm trying to clarify the apparent misconception pre-meds seem to have about the rights of a physician. Physicians have rights just as patients do.

There are also practical reasons for this. I sure as heck wouldn't want a physician doing a procedure on me that they don't want to do.

I did not read the article, whose author working for 3 different religious universities has his agenda to advance. Moreover, individual opinion pieces do not represent what by most books is considered tenants of medical ethics. I'll leave it at that.

 

[NurWollen]

A) fair enough

B) You either know nothing about Mormons, nothing about mainstream Christianity, or nothing about either. I would argue that the grand majority of Christian clergy would consider mormon dogma outside of what is considered "mainstream Christianity". Now the Christian layman, on the other hand, may not know any better.

No doubt - people who consider Mormons as outside of Christianity are the more informed ones.

I'm willing to bet @O Grady knows a little bit about Mormons. 😉

 

[j4pac]

I didn't read in the OP that he was considering citing the Bible.

Perhaps the quote was "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun."

 

[hallowmann]

I did not read the article, whose author working for 3 different religious universities has his agenda to advance. Moreover, individual opinion pieces do not represent what by most books is considered tenants of medical ethics. I'll leave it at that.

You can claim all you want that the well established, ethically and legally, concept of physician autonomy doesn't exist in all texts you choose to read. I too have studied medical ethics, read numerous books, taken many courses on the subject, and (as if it even matters) have a certificate in it (couldn't major in it at the schools I went to). I have yet to find a single reasonable text that doesn't discuss physician autonomy, but I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Roxas]

A) fair enough

B) You either know nothing about Mormons, nothing about mainstream Christianity, or nothing about either. I would argue that the grand majority of Christian clergy would consider mormon dogma outside of what is considered "mainstream Christianity". Now the Christian layman, on the other hand, may not know any better.

No doubt - people who consider Mormons as outside of Christianity are the more informed ones.

I can assure you, I know enough.

Mass ignorance does not make it any less ignorant 😉

 

[peyerpatch]

I can assure you, I know enough.

Mass ignorance does not make it any less ignorant 😉

Ah, so it's Christian theology where you knowledge is lacking 😉

 

[Desired Member]

Its funny, you read what he said one way and got angry, I read it another way and felt very comfortable with how I would answer that question.

Physicians are required to provide standard of care, and that incorporates the freedom to refer a patient elsewhere for that care (while not ideal its certainly better than forcing a physician to do something they inherently don't want to do for whatever reason). Just as a patient can choose not to have something done to them, a physician has the capability of deciding what they do or do not want to do, provided of course that it doesn't exit the realm of standard of care.

Even physicians that don't like vaccinations can choose not to provide vaccinations in their clinics, regardless of how ridiculous that viewpoint is.



This is exactly why I didn't have a problem with his statement. As physicians we shouldn't actively use our role to push some opinion, but we certainly can provide our patients with resources if we're not comfortable with a certain treatment plan.

I think the problem comes in because some people are actually willing to use their authority/position as physicians to lecture or convince patients of their specific viewpoint. That is the point where it would be a problem.

Hey I think we agree. I interpreted the original statement as meaning, "physicians must provide treatment that will/might benefit the patient, even if they are opposed to it for religious reasons." No one is implying that lecturing or coercing patients is appropriate.