Religious people in the medical field

[brewer]

If a religious doctor refuses to provide treatment on the grounds of religious convictions, then that doctor should in no short order become your former doctor. If a doctor simply believes Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins (or whatever it is Christians believe) and they want to deck their office out with things that make them feel comfortable, and this doctor can also cure cancer or remove a brain tumor, then I say pick and choose your battles.

That's all well and good....................... until you have an emergency where you can't pick and choose. Medicine needs to come before religion and/or politics.

I think this law is still in effect: https://nurse.org/articles/trump-gives-h...rotection/

[Belacqua]

Currently we're talking about religious objections to good procedures. Everybody on this forum agrees, I think: we don't want certain people to refuse to do things because their consciences object.

We have to be careful about what kind of laws we demand, though. If Trump makes it illegal to deliver "anchor babies" or sell medicine to people who don't carry proof of citizenship, then conscientious objection to those laws will be necessary. So we don't want to find that we've accidentally thrown those people in jail.

[vulcanlogician]

If a religious doctor refuses to provide treatment on the grounds of religious convictions, then that doctor should in no short order become your former doctor. If a doctor simply believes Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins (or whatever it is Christians believe) and they want to deck their office out with things that make them feel comfortable, and this doctor can also cure cancer or remove a brain tumor, then I say pick and choose your battles.

[brewer]

If a religious doctor refuses to provide treatment on the grounds of religious convictions, then that doctor should in no short order become your former doctor. If a doctor simply believes Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins (or whatever it is Christians believe) and they want to deck their office out with things that make them feel comfortable, and this doctor can also cure cancer or remove a brain tumor, then I say pick and choose your battles.

Fix.

---

Currently we're talking about religious objections to good procedures. Everybody on this forum agrees, I think: we don't want certain people to refuse to do things because their consciences object.

We have to be careful about what kind of laws we demand, though. If Trump makes it illegal to deliver "anchor babies" or sell medicine to people who don't carry proof of citizenship, then conscientious objection to those laws will be necessary. So we don't want to find that we've accidentally thrown those people in jail.

Medicine needs to come before religion and/or politics. (see post #21)

Are you blind?

[Belacqua]

Are you blind?

I'm fine thanks. 

I have a religious (Pure Land Buddhist) eye doctor who takes good care of me. 

But thanks for asking.

[brewer]

Are you blind?

I'm fine thanks. 

I have a religious (Pure Land Buddhist) eye doctor who takes good care of me. 

But thanks for asking.

Has to be a comprehension issue then. Got it.

[Belacqua]

Got it.

Until we live in a communist utopia, politics will be a part of medical questions. Not all medical issues are self-evident -- different consciences may disagree. 

My point about not outlawing religious objection to medical decisions is that it works fine for us now, while we're talking about those evil right-wingers. But future cases may involve good and pure left-wingers objecting to right-wing decrees.

So for example, a relative of mine goes to a liberal Christian church in the midwest. Her pastor views it as an injunction from the New Testament to welcome immigrants to the USA. If the law restricted medical attention given to immigrants, that pastor would have to disobey it due to his religious conscience. And I would approve of his doing so. 

So we have to ask whether we're against religious objections based on conscience, or we're against religious objections based on consciences that we disagree with.

[Aliza]

If a religious doctor refuses to provide treatment on the grounds of religious convictions, then that doctor should in no short order become your former doctor. If a doctor simply believes Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins (or whatever it is Christians believe) and they want to deck their office out with things that make them feel comfortable, and this doctor can also cure cancer or remove a brain tumor, then I say pick and choose your battles.

That's all well and good....................... until you have an emergency where you can't pick and choose. Medicine needs to come before religion and/or politics.

I think this law is still in effect: https://nurse.org/articles/trump-gives-h...rotection/

This is definitely news to me, and if I understand this correctly, this is opening a door to some pretty bone-headed ideas. I kind of got this mixed feeling of disgust that such a department would be created, and a sense that it's hard to get mad at the grocery store for not selling bullets; it's just not what they're in the business for. In terms of emergencies, I don't accept from my current understanding that anyone would find themselves in a situation where they'd need emergency sterilization or an emergency sexual reassignment procedure. They most certainly can find themselves in a position where they can require an emergency abortion.

Where I'm from, hospitals are either secular, Jewish or some denomination of Christianity. Private entities make their own rules and they decide what the moral standards are for medical practice. Patients may choose their provider and power always rests with the customers (patients) to cease going to religiously affiliated hospitals and seek their treatment elsewhere.

I'm not immediately opposed to doctors choosing not to perform elective procedures whether its because they're morally opposed to them or because they have selected not to undergo the necessary training to competently perform such procedures. I think that's something that the public should sway by choosing which doctors they go to. An excellent way to convey this message to doctors and hospitals is to not seek treatment with them.

... unless they're the only ones with the cure, of course.

[Belacqua]

An excellent way to convey this message to doctors and hospitals is to not seek treatment with them.

This is YET ANOTHER argument against US-style health insurance, which may limit patient choice. 

Japan-style single payer is superior in every way.

[The Valkyrie]

I've known two Christian doctors and one nurse here in Japan.

The first religious doctor I met converted to Christianity after his city got nuked. He was young and his family had been burned up, and he wanted the spiritual support that the church gave him. He founded a hospital, took a tiny salary, and lived in a 4-mat room on the top floor. He developed some of the first techniques for doing endoscopic examinations of the stomach.

The second doctor came from a Christian family in Nagasaki, which has a minority Christian neighborhood (it was basically ground zero for the bomb there). After the war he founded a group called Physicians against Nuclear Weapons and was active in peace movements around the world.

The nurse volunteered in a poor part of Brazil after she graduated from school. She was so impressed by the dedication of the Christian volunteers she met that she converted while she was there. After coming back to Japan she continues to work with the most difficult and unrewarding patients.

And I know of an atheist physician, several, in fact, who was on the ground volunteering time helping during the ebola outbreak on Sierra Leone a few years ago.

The point being religious physicians aren't the only ones who help others.