why are americans so religious & conservative compared to other western nations?

[drizzt3117]

Yes and no, I believe. Ordinarily, the parents would hold full rights to refuse consent; however, if it is a life threatening case, I believe a physician can act in the best interest of the child without much fear of litigation. (Of course, the parents might still sue, but the physician would be protected legally.) I would guess this sort of case is covered in depth in medical ethics courses because it could get sticky fast.

You need a court order in that case, or consent of one parent.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kpcrew]

because of our puritan roots.

 

[mjk2011]

Here's an interesting case, although there were no doctors involved.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29556929.html

I wonder what would have happened if the parents had taken her to a doctor.

 

[theseeker4]

Whoah, cowboy!

I hope that was sarcasm. If not, you might want to rethink your answer. If the patient has information on him/her that strongly implies a denial of consent for a procedure -- such as this card indicating s/he is a JW (most likely value for "X" given the question) -- you should probably have someone (e.g., a tech, registration, etc.) try to contact the person's next of kin or other emergency contact or pull up a copy of the pt's living well prior to giving blood (if it is at all possible to wait; if not possible, I would suggest an alternative therapy during the intermediate period, such as a saline drip to maintain overall blood volume or other treatment available that is within the person's expected wishes). While this is a life-saving treatment and would normally be able to be given in a life-threatening emergency under implied consent laws, consent is no longer "implied" once information to the contrary has been brought forth. Ideally, you would also be aware of your state's laws specific to such situations prior to this situation arising. Giving a patient blood or performing any other procedure against the patient's expressed [and documented] desire [while in a state of mental competency] is a violation of that person's autonomy and is an offense that can open one up to lawsuits. While I do not agree with these religious views, it is crucial that we, as future healthcare leaders and providers, learn to respect them as well as be aware of them.

How do you determine a patient is actually opposed to the treatment? If there is simply a pamphlet in the person's pocket, I doubt a jury would look kindly on a doctor withholding treatment on the assumption that the patient wouldn't want it. Obviously a living will, "medical alert" type bracelet or card in the wallet directly saying "do not transfuse" would be different, but simply a piece of literature that associates a person with a certain religion? Where is the line drawn when there is no clear, direct statement of some sort? Would an article of clothing associated with a particular religion be sufficient "evidence" that certain treatments should be withheld? What if the paramedic dropping the patient off mentioned as he walked out "by the way, I think he is a JW." Does that provide sufficient evidence to withhold treatment?

I am sure it varies from state to state, but I was under the impression that doctors are supposed to default to saving the patient's life unless there is explicit indication of the patient's wishes. I would bet a jury hearing the case of a widow suing you for letting her husband die wouldn't take kindly to the "well he had this pamphlet, so I assumed he wouldn't want a transfusion..." argument.

In cases where the patient's wishes are clearly spelled out, obviously you need to respect them whether you agree with them or not, even if it means the patient dies.

 

[Sephiroth]

Whoah, cowboy!

I hope that was sarcasm. If not, you might want to rethink your answer. If the patient has information on him/her that strongly implies a denial of consent for a procedure -- such as this card indicating s/he is a JW (most likely value for "X" given the question) -- you should probably have someone (e.g., a tech, registration, etc.) try to contact the person's next of kin or other emergency contact or pull up a copy of the pt's living well prior to giving blood (if it is at all possible to wait; if not possible, I would suggest an alternative therapy during the intermediate period, such as a saline drip to maintain overall blood volume or other treatment available that is within the person's expected wishes). While this is a life-saving treatment and would normally be able to be given in a life-threatening emergency under implied consent laws, consent is no longer "implied" once information to the contrary has been brought forth. Ideally, you would also be aware of your state's laws specific to such situations prior to this situation arising. Giving a patient blood or performing any other procedure against the patient's expressed [and documented] desire [while in a state of mental competency] is a violation of that person's autonomy and is an offense that can open one up to lawsuits. While I do not agree with these religious views, it is crucial that we, as future healthcare leaders and providers, learn to respect them as well as be aware of them.

I read it as there being a JW pamphlet in their coat, but not something to strongly enough ensure me that they were definitely opposed to a blood transfusion - (as opposed to a medical bracelet or formal DNR form or something). In that case, without the patient or spouse being able to make clear their wishes, the safest thing to do is to save them.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

The United States is disproportionately more socially conservative and religious than other Western nations, whether that is good or bad will depend on your own views. In general, the outspoken religiosity of a segment of the population doesn't impact most medical care. The notable exceptions are a number of areas of women's health care (contraception and abortion clearly, but also general health care provided by groups like Planned Parenthood that face defunding due to offering the former), future treatments predicated on continuing stem cell research, and the whole "bloodless medicine" thing.

Doctors are allowed to not offer certain procedures or service, but if you are prepared to say you don't do something common within the scope of your specialty, you better be ready and willing to send them to a colleague who does do it.

How do you determine a patient is actually opposed to the treatment? If there is simply a pamphlet in the person's pocket, I doubt a jury would look kindly on a doctor withholding treatment on the assumption that the patient wouldn't want it. Obviously a living will, "medical alert" type bracelet or card in the wallet directly saying "do not transfuse" would be different, but simply a piece of literature that associates a person with a certain religion? Where is the line drawn when there is no clear, direct statement of some sort? Would an article of clothing associated with a particular religion be sufficient "evidence" that certain treatments should be withheld? What if the paramedic dropping the patient off mentioned as he walked out "by the way, I think he is a JW." Does that provide sufficient evidence to withhold treatment?

I am sure it varies from state to state, but I was under the impression that doctors are supposed to default to saving the patient's life unless there is explicit indication of the patient's wishes. I would bet a jury hearing the case of a widow suing you for letting her husband die wouldn't take kindly to the "well he had this pamphlet, so I assumed he wouldn't want a transfusion..." argument.

In cases where the patient's wishes are clearly spelled out, obviously you need to respect them whether you agree with them or not, even if it means the patient dies.

agreed with this. a pamphlet might mean nothing more than someone hadn't thrown away literature someone handed them, and it is hardly worth withholding a transfusion over. Even someone marking down that they are a christian scientist under "religion" on a form isn't enough. They might be super bad at being a Christian Scientist, sort of like how I am one of the least observant Catholics you could meet but still erroneously call myself one due to having been raised in the culture.

A person has to explicitly refuse life-saving intervention in advance (advance directive, medical bracelet, tattoo, neon sign on back, whatever), personally (signing a form or somesuch), or through a proxy who can legally make such a decision. In many states, a parent can't deny immediate life-saving therapy for their tiny child on religious grounds, but an older child, typically an adolescent, who clearly holds the beliefs themself and is competent can at times refuse on their own.

 

[Sephiroth]

Yes and no, I believe. Ordinarily, the parents would hold full rights to refuse consent; however, if it is a life threatening case, I believe a physician can act in the best interest of the child without much fear of litigation. (Of course, the parents might still sue, but the physician would be protected legally.) I would guess this sort of case is covered in depth in medical ethics courses because it could get sticky fast.

You need a court order in that case, or consent of one parent.

I'd have to double check various state laws, but I'm fairly sure that in emergent situations, you treat the minor. The thought process is that 1) in an emergent situation there isn't time to get a court order, and 2) while adults have the right to be martyrs for their faith, children are not considered to have this decision making capacity and their parents do not have the right to make martyrs of them.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I'd have to double check various state laws, but I'm fairly sure that in emergent situations, you treat the minor. The thought process is that 1) in an emergent situation there isn't time to get a court order, and 2) while adults have the right to be martyrs for their faith, children are not considered to have this decision making capacity and their parents do not have the right to make martyrs of them.

this is correct

check well in advance of ever seeing this sort of thing to see if your specific state has a legislature desperately fighting over the single brain cell they share, but if that isn't the case, a parent generally doesn't have the right to kill their child by compelling health care professionals not to act.

the child is not a rational, competent actor allowed to martyr themselves or be martyred on another's behalf. act to save them right away, and your hospital's lawyers will deal with the fallout. whatever happens after a successful treatment, a child is alive and some d-bag parents are incensed.

win-win

in non-emergent conditions, that's where you need parental consent or a court order

 

[theseeker4]

this is correct

check well in advance of ever seeing this sort of thing to see if your specific state has a legislature desperately fighting over the single brain cell they share, but if that isn't the case, a parent generally doesn't have the right to kill their child by compelling health care professionals not to act.

the child is not a rational, competent actor allowed to martyr themselves or be martyred on another's behalf. act to save them right away, and your hospital's lawyers will deal with the fallout. whatever happens after a successful treatment, a child is alive and some d-bag parents are incensed.

win-win

in non-emergent conditions, that's where you need parental consent or a court order

Interesting. So, if a grade school-aged child was brought in after say a car vs bike accident, and the child's parents are both present and both say they are devout JW's and absolutely refuse a blood transfusion, the doctors can (have to?) ignore those statements by the parents and treat the child against their wishes? I would have assumed the parents' wishes would have to be followed if there was no conflict between the parents, etc.

 

[drizzt3117]

I'd have to double check various state laws, but I'm fairly sure that in emergent situations, you treat the minor. The thought process is that 1) in an emergent situation there isn't time to get a court order, and 2) while adults have the right to be martyrs for their faith, children are not considered to have this decision making capacity and their parents do not have the right to make martyrs of them.

The standard protocol for JW children here is stabilize + get court order. It's a pretty established system and happens pretty fast.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

there might be variations by state, but in general in an emergent situation most places don't let their parents murder their children because jesus.

at least, that's how i paraphrase it in my head. in reality it is because while the law and the profession respects the autonomy of patients whether or not decisions are based in faith/religious belief, in an emergency the caretakers aren't allowed to act contrary to the best interests of a child's physical wellbeing like that.

there's just not enough time to sort through the bullcrap.

 

[drizzt3117]

there might be variations by state, but in general in an emergent situation most places don't let their parents murder their children because jesus.

at least, that's how i paraphrase it in my head. in reality it is because while the law and the profession respects the autonomy of patients whether or not decisions are based in faith/religious belief, in an emergency the caretakers aren't allowed to act contrary to the best interests of a child's physical wellbeing like that.

there's just not enough time to sort through the bullcrap.

Generally you'll get a call from dispatch telling you when pts are coming in when it's an ambulance; you'll hear about it and the ED clerk will contact a legal person if it's a JW to start the whole process. It was pretty smooth the time I saw it happen. The Amish/vaccinations thing makes me a lot more upset.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I don't know what upsets me more. A systematic refusal of vaccines from a group of people based on shared beliefs, or the patients I've seen that refuse vaccines because "lol i herd they r bad".

Probably the latter. It is way more arbitrary.

 

[235788]

Scenario: Only doctor on call refuses to perform abortions on religious grounds. Female patient comes in, needs abortion to survive. Doctor let's patient die because of religious convictions.

This is how religion can be bad in medicine.

It almost happened this way in the following article:

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/singleton/

In this specific article, it is unclear whether the physician refused to perform abortions based on religious convictions or not, but the hypothetical scenario above can easily be extended from this case.

Perhaps it was outside of his "scope" of medicine.

I'm not sure if all ob/gyn's are trained to do one...

 

[Sephiroth]

The standard protocol for JW children here is stabilize + get court order. It's a pretty established system and happens pretty fast.

I was assuming that the blood transfusion was a necessary part of stabilizing the child. In that case, I believe it is standard to go ahead and do it and worry about the court order afterward.

Generally you'll get a call from dispatch telling you when pts are coming in when it's an ambulance; you'll hear about it and the ED clerk will contact a legal person if it's a JW to start the whole process. It was pretty smooth the time I saw it happen. The Amish/vaccinations thing makes me a lot more upset.

Just that they refuse vaccinations? Or is there more going on?

 

[kami333]

Generally you'll get a call from dispatch telling you when pts are coming in when it's an ambulance; you'll hear about it and the ED clerk will contact a legal person if it's a JW to start the whole process. It was pretty smooth the time I saw it happen. The Amish/vaccinations thing makes me a lot more upset.

While it is true that Amish have lower vaccination rates than the general population (~70% vs ~90%), there are a variety of factors involved and vaccination rates among the younger Amish tend to be pretty comparable depending on the study. There is no evidence of widespread rejection on religious grounds. It's just a fallacy that has been propagated by the antivax brigade along with the idea that the Amish don't suffer from autism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17133167 (might be easier: http://www.aspergillus.org.uk/secure/articles/pdfs/17133169.pdf)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21708796
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus...ccinate-claims-disproved-by-fact-based-study/
http://combatingautismfromwithin.blogspot.com/2008/01/guess-what-amish-vaccinate.html

 

[ppfizenm]

I don't know what all the give and take is here. Religion has no place involving itself in matters of people who are not religious. I don't hate religion, I think it is very useful for some people. That being said it is not useful or even welcomed by all the people. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't want same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against stem cell research refuse to use treatments that came from it. However, you have absolutely no business inserting your beliefs into the lives of others.

To address a previous post, morals can be derived from anywhere. I don't know why it is so unbelievable however, that I can decide for myself what I think is good and what is bad.

 

[drizzt3117]

I was assuming that the blood transfusion was a necessary part of stabilizing the child. In that case, I believe it is standard to go ahead and do it and worry about the court order afterward.

Often you can stabilize people with fluids/colloid.

Just that they refuse vaccinations? Or is there more going on?

Next time you see a kid dying of HiB meningitis, epiglottitis, or has heart failure 2nd to diptheria you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[drizzt3117]

While it is true that Amish have lower vaccination rates than the general population (~70% vs ~90%), there are a variety of factors involved and vaccination rates among the younger Amish tend to be pretty comparable depending on the study. There is no evidence of widespread rejection on religious grounds. It's just a fallacy that has been propagated by the antivax brigade along with the idea that the Amish don't suffer from autism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17133167 (might be easier: http://www.aspergillus.org.uk/secure/articles/pdfs/17133169.pdf)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21708796
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus...ccinate-claims-disproved-by-fact-based-study/
http://combatingautismfromwithin.blogspot.com/2008/01/guess-what-amish-vaccinate.html

Every peds pt I've seen with complications from lack of vaccination has been Amish; that being said there is a relatively large Amish population here.

 

[FSUseminoleEM1]

I don't know what all the give and take is here. Religion has no place involving itself in matters of people who are not religious. I don't hate religion, I think it is very useful for some people. That being said it is not useful or even welcomed by all the people. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't want same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against stem cell research refuse to use treatments that came from it. However, you have absolutely no business inserting your beliefs into the lives of others.

To address a previous post, morals can be derived from anywhere. I don't know why it is so unbelievable however, that I can decide for myself what I think is good and what is bad.

This.

& for those who think we're a Christian nation: our laws are derived from old British common law, which pre-dates the invention of the Christian god.

 

[typicalindian]

there might be variations by state, but in general in an emergent situation most places don't let their parents murder their children because jesus.

at least, that's how i paraphrase it in my head. in reality it is because while the law and the profession respects the autonomy of patients whether or not decisions are based in faith/religious belief, in an emergency the caretakers aren't allowed to act contrary to the best interests of a child's physical wellbeing like that.

there's just not enough time to sort through the bullcrap.

Ok yes that's what I thought

 

[S6MD]

I doubt it has any effect. Most people in the West check their faith at the door. Hence why 98% of Catholics blatantly go against the orders of the Pope.

I assume this to mean the study that concluded "98% of Catholics have used birth control at some point".

Too bad the study was “Restricted to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum, or trying to get pregnant.”

Quoting from catholicvote.com (http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26675):

"So think of who would be included and excluded from this study:

Included: Unmarried teens and young women who sleep with their boyfriends.
Excluded: Unmarried teens and young women who follow the Church’s teaching on chastity.
Included: Married women who are actively avoiding pregnancy.
Excluded: Married women who are not particularly watching whether they get pregnant or not.
Included: Promiscuous party girls.
Excluded: Nuns."


Terrible study

 

[sibitrum]

I don't know what all the give and take is here. Religion has no place involving itself in matters of people who are not religious. I don't hate religion, I think it is very useful for some people. That being said it is not useful or even welcomed by all the people. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't want same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against stem cell research refuse to use treatments that came from it. However, you have absolutely no business inserting your beliefs into the lives of others.

I agree with you that religion shouldn't come into play with same sex marriage. However, if you actually believe that abortion is equivalent to murder wouldn't you try to stop it at every turn ? (I, of course, am pro choice).

 

[S6MD]

.

 

[tantacles]

I assume this to mean the study that concluded "98% of Catholics have used birth control at some point".

Too bad the study was “Restricted to sexually active women who are not pregnant, post-partum, or trying to get pregnant.”

Quoting from catholicvote.com (http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26675):

"So think of who would be included and excluded from this study:

Included: Unmarried teens and young women who sleep with their boyfriends.
Excluded: Unmarried teens and young women who follow the Church’s teaching on chastity.
Included: Married women who are actively avoiding pregnancy.
Excluded: Married women who are not particularly watching whether they get pregnant or not.
Included: Promiscuous party girls.
Excluded: Nuns."


Terrible study

Do you have a link to the study? I've never seen it, though it's not an alien idea to me that most Catholics use birth control.

 

[S6MD]

Do you have a link to the study? I've never seen it, though it's not an alien idea to me that most Catholics use birth control.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

most 'Catholics' do use birth control - though the 98% figure is incredibly inflated (srsly terrible study). Though, I would immediately question the Catholicity of someone who adamantly opposes the RCC's teachings.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

most 'Catholics' do use birth control - though the 98% figure is incredibly inflated (srsly terrible study). Though, I would immediately question the Catholicity of someone who adamantly opposes the RCC's teachings.

there can be a theological and philosophical argument made for diverging from the church's teaching if, after due study and reflection, one's conscience tells you that your course of action is right, or at least not wrong, despite teachings of the church.

then again, when one jesuit said that, another older and far more conservative jesuit ripped his collar off and shook it angrily in the air, shouting "then what does this mean!?

I guess the moral of this story is that the Jesuits can be pretty cool. I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

 

[tantacles]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf

most 'Catholics' do use birth control - though the 98% figure is incredibly inflated (srsly terrible study). Though, I would immediately question the Catholicity of someone who adamantly opposes the RCC's teachings.

While the 98% figure is definitely inflated, I think excluding the groups you mentioned actually makes sense in terms of what the study is trying to get at, though. People who are trying to get pregnant or who already are pregnant clearly won't be using contraception, but you don't get the moral high ground in an argument about birth control by wanting to have babies. I mean, the point is that almost all Catholics who don't want to become pregnant and for whom the question of birth control is relevant use or have used birth control.

Though I know that wasn't necessarily what you were arguing against - You just wanted to say that the number was inflated as the previous poster presented it. And you're right.

 

[NurWollen]

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

I bothers me when scientifically-minded people who don't understand religion dismiss all religious people/ideas with one brush stroke. Likewise, it bother me when religious people who don't understand science dismiss all science as an attack on their faith.

 

[ppfizenm]

I agree with you that religion shouldn't come into play with same sex marriage. However, if you actually believe that abortion is equivalent to murder wouldn't you try to stop it at every turn ? (I, of course, am pro choice).

Again, I don't believe that religious people should be able to impose their religiously based beliefs on people who do not want them to (perhaps a religious version of the do not call list needs to be started). Obviously free speech must be respected, however people need to recognize the line between letting others know what you think as opposed to attempting to force them to do what you want. I don't understand how a women having a legal abortion infringes on the someone else's religious freedom. That person is not hurt in any sense of the word.

 

[jippyslim]

Where are ethics and morals derived from?

your parents, and your parent's parents of course....oh.. and your environment.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I'm a fan of morality and ethics stemming from the philosophy of ubuntu - the idea of our humanity being comingled with everyone else's humanity, that we are affirmed and elevated by what is good for our fellows and we are debased by what tears them down.

No man is an island, entire of itself. The bell tolls for thee, and all that.

At the very least, I'd like people to try operating under the very strict and exacting moral philosophy of "whatever floats your boat and doesn't sink mine."

 

[jippyslim]

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

I'm with you that we all could benefit from being more open minded and understanding of other people's views. However, there are politicians these days who would like to interject their 'religion' derived morals and beliefs into public policy, and that could affect the care we hope to someday provide.

 

[NurWollen]

I don't know what all the give and take is here. Religion has no place involving itself in matters of people who are not religious. I don't hate religion, I think it is very useful for some people. That being said it is not useful or even welcomed by all the people. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't want same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. If you are against stem cell research refuse to use treatments that came from it. However, you have absolutely no business inserting your beliefs into the lives of others.

To address a previous post, morals can be derived from anywhere. I don't know why it is so unbelievable however, that I can decide for myself what I think is good and what is bad.

Again, I don't believe that religious people should be able to impose their religiously based beliefs on people who do not want them to (perhaps a religious version of the do not call list needs to be started). Obviously free speech must be respected, however people need to recognize the line between letting others know what you think as opposed to attempting to force them to do what you want. I don't understand how a women having a legal abortion infringes on the someone else's religious freedom. That person is not hurt in any sense of the word.

your parents, and your parent's parents of course....oh.. and your environment.

We all have a worldview formed by a combination our individual experiences, our parents' values, our education, our ethnic culture, and other factors. For some of us, that includes religion, and for some of us, it does not. However, each of us, when participating in public discourse, exercising voting rights, and so on, bases our decisions and arguments on our worldview. Any politician, any leader, and any voter makes his or her decisions based on their own biases that form their worldview.

We shouldn't automatically dismiss someone's worldview simply because it has a religious influence.

 

[IMSingular]

America is not more conservative and religious than other western countries. We are just loud. The non-religious population is on the increase in all 50 states in the US.

+1, and US constitution makes it possible for extreme views legally possible, and prosperity of US and large population makes it possible that they get financial support from the followers of extremesisms which constitutes a very small fraction of the population.

 

[tantacles]

We all have a worldview formed by a combination our individual experiences, our parents' values, our education, our ethnic culture, and other factors. For some of us, that includes religion, and for some of us, it does not. However, each of us, when participating in public discourse, exercising voting rights, and so on, bases our decisions and arguments on our worldview. Any politician, any leader, and any voter makes his or her decisions based on their own biases that form their worldview.

We shouldn't automatically dismiss someone's worldview simply because it has a religious influence.

I'm not sure that any of the posters mentioned are dismissing anyone's worldview. What they are dismissing is the idea that someone else's worldview should always be allowed to restrict the way that others behave.

 

[ppfizenm]

We all have a worldview formed by a combination our individual experiences, our parents' values, our education, our ethnic culture, and other factors. For some of us, that includes religion, and for some of us, it does not. However, each of us, when participating in public discourse, exercising voting rights, and so on, bases our decisions and arguments on our worldview. Any politician, any leader, and any voter makes his or her decisions based on their own biases that form their worldview.

We shouldn't automatically dismiss someone's worldview simply because it has a religious influence.

There are aspects of what you are talking about that I do agree with. To preface this I am a confirmed catholic and was raised in a religious family. I however am entirely secular. In god we trust on the money and one nation under god in the pledge does not bother me. If it makes some people feel good and doesn't hurt others that is okay (expect the utterly ridiculous proposal I heard to go back and change the constitution to read like a religious doctrine. That's akin to removing the "N" word from Huck Finn to suit present day sentiments). However I take issue with situations where the lives of others are infringed upon to suit the religious beliefs of another person.

 

[premed67783]

I come from a muslim family, went to a protestant christian grade school, and a catholic christian high school.

My impression thus far is that openly "religious" people tend to be less moral, by far. They generally feel less obligated to do the right thing, knowing that their religion will "absolve" them.

Non-religious people tend to use common sense to build their own guidelines of what is right and wrong. This is not a hard thing to do for an intelligent, rational person. They have no one to answer to but themselves, and have no reason to excuse any of their behavior based on forgiveness from their religious leaders. Thus, they're always more likely to behave morally.

I strongly doubt that people need religion in order to be moral. In fact, I think it only hinders us.

 

[premed67783]

well i think thats an easy interview question that i'd love to have had.

You obviously give them the transfusion.

are you high? If you have reason to believe that their religion forbids blood transfusions, then you lose the implied consent necessary to do the transfusion without legal retribution.

If you answered like that in an interview, you would lose some major points with the interviewer....

 

[theseeker4]

are you high? If you have reason to believe that their religion forbids blood transfusions, then you lose the implied consent necessary to do the transfusion without legal retribution.

If you answered like that in an interview, you would lose some major points with the interviewer....

See post 54, 55 and 56 above....

 

[Prairiepalmeri]

This.

& for those who think we're a Christian nation: our laws are derived from old British common law, which pre-dates the invention of the Christian god.

Well actually, Christians believe that God was around far before this Earth was created so I think they would disagree that he was "invented".

 

[jippyslim]

I come from a muslim family, went to a protestant christian grade school, and a catholic christian high school.

My impression thus far is that openly "religious" people tend to be less moral, by far. They generally feel less obligated to do the right thing, knowing that their religion will "absolve" them.

Non-religious people tend to use common sense to build their own guidelines of what is right and wrong. This is not a hard thing to do for an intelligent, rational person. They have no one to answer to but themselves, and have no reason to excuse any of their behavior based on forgiveness from their religious leaders. Thus, they're always more likely to behave morally.

I strongly doubt that people need religion in order to be moral. In fact, I think it only hinders us.

this is a gross oversimplification, premed67783.

what do you mean by openly religious people tending to be less moral? you see them downing kamakaze shots? and how do you know that the non-religious people you have observed to be more moral aren't secretly watching child porn on the computer?

we are all some what immoral in the truest sense of the word. we just try to make the best decisions we can based on how we see the world, and the laws of the land.

 

[sirenomelia]

to answer multiple posts

1. USA isn't the most religious/conservative western nation by far.
2. you don't need a bible to teach you morals
3. religion has prevented potentially valuable life saving stem cell research, drives families into poverty with no birth control/ no abortion, prevents marriage equality, ect (then they claim attempting to act contrary to any of this infringes on their religious freedom.)

Blatant anti-religious bigotry. BAN

 

[Miss Alyssa]

Given the opinions of a couple of the presidential hopefuls I worry about the future of women's health and the practice of ob/gyn. Contraception, abortion care, prenatal testing, sterilization, IVF embryos seem to be very contentious. I don't like that groups (many being religious groups) are pushing the government into aspects of a woman's health.

 

[ppfizenm]

Blatant anti-religious bigotry. BAN

rich

 

[sirenomelia]

SDN is so rampant with narrow minded stereotyping it is appalling. It scares me to think that a large majority of these posters will successfully get into medical school. Holding religious beliefs does not necessarily equal fanaticism. I consider myself deeply religious, however, I would never allow my faith to compromise the care of my patients. All of the anecdotal, n=1 examples are extremely immature and do not necessarily reflect the minds of modern American believers. Does fanaticism exist? Certainly! Is it prevalent within the field of medicine? I think not.
Many modern day religionists hold fundamentally naturalistic worldviews and are able to successfully reconcile their faith with their understanding of science. Unfortunately some religiously minded people feel that they must battle the teachings of science as it is an "enemy" of religion. However, as stated previously these convictions are not homogenous within the religious community and are much less prevalent among the learned medical populous. I only ask that we be more open minded and less akin to disrespectful and ignorant commentary.

Very well said. This thread and the whole Liberty University thread both were apalling with ignorance and prejudice.

 

[S6MD]

Given the opinions of a couple of the presidential hopefuls I worry about the future of women's health and the practice of ob/gyn. Contraception, abortion care, prenatal testing, sterilization, IVF embryos seem to be very contentious. I don't like that groups (many being religious groups) are pushing the government into aspects of a woman's health.

??? actually their argument is that the government is pushing into aspects of religious freedom... an HHS mandate requiring Catholic institutions to pay to cover contraception, sterilization, and some abortifacient drugs. And it has nothing to do with your view of the morality of contraception. It has to do with the government telling a religious organization to violate their consciences.

 

[premed67783]

this is a gross oversimplification, premed67783.

what do you mean by openly religious people tending to be less moral? you see them downing kamakaze shots? and how do you know that the non-religious people you have observed to be more moral aren't secretly watching child porn on the computer?

we are all some what immoral in the truest sense of the word. we just try to make the best decisions we can based on how we see the world, and the laws of the land.

you're right. that was a poorly articulated statement. by "moral", I mean people's treatment of other people (ie lying, stealing, cheating).

 

[QuizzicalApe]

are you high? If you have reason to believe that their religion forbids blood transfusions, then you lose the implied consent necessary to do the transfusion without legal retribution.

If you answered like that in an interview, you would lose some major points with the interviewer....

Scenario:

A 32 yo male presents to the trauma bay after his car was T-boned on the driver's side. Blood loss at the scene was reported to be significant, and on arrival the patient is delirious and becoming less alert. The patient has a high heart rate and a lackluster response to repeated fluid boluses.

As he was being undressed, a document from a local group of Jehovah's Witnesses falls out of his pocket which contains a list of times and places for upcoming events within the congregation.

Being a mega-boss doctor and the rapidly worsening situation vis a vis the vitals, you know that he is going to need blood to survive, and surgical exploration for an internal bleed, compounding the need for blood products.

Do you:

A. Attempt the surgery without employing blood products (Maybe try to skate by with an autotransfuser if there is blood in the abdomen/chest)
B. Administer O- blood immediately while waiting for determination of blood type, get this dude to the OR and have some additional blood waiting up there for him
C. Delay the decision until calling the contact number on the document to find out if he is a member of the congregation

spoiler:

If A: The blood loss was already significant. By the time you realize the bleed was retroperitoneal and are ready to go with the autotransfuser, much of the blood has clotted and the patient has passed.

If C: Patient dies in the trauma bay while everyone in the ED is screaming things at you because you are on hold with a secretary flipping through records.

If B: Patient pulls through the surgery, and gives you a big ol' high five for finding and repairing a challenging internal bleed. He doesn't mind the blood products because he is devoutly Jewish, having taken the document to be polite from a Jehovah's Witness who chatted him up while in an elevator. he had forgotten it was in his back pocket.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

in the initial proposed scenario, document doesn't mean membership, and membership doesn't mean belief. I call myself a Catholic on forms, but if I was in the ER for a life-threatening condition that could only be treated with protected pre-marital sex with ravishing models of questionable morality, I would demand the highest allowable dose and demand the doctor find a way to arrange home treatment as prophylaxis.

When you assume, a malpractice attorney makes an ass out of you and the hospital.