Sharing faith in a medical practice

[rmorelan]

Thanks for your input, everyone. As I'm sure you've reflected from my initial post, it is not my intention to abuse my position of authority. However, that being said, patients are coming in to see me for advice. My opinions and advice reflect my expertise - and if my expertise happens to be in spiritual matters in addition to medical matters, then I suppose it might be of benefit to have an open forum to share it.

 

I can say at Western the general teachings are to not project your personal beliefs in any way as it may cause some people to be less open with the information that you would need to be most effective. They argue the doctors role is to solely determine the clients beliefs/goals/feelings and not use our own (even unconsciously) to contribute to our course of action and not to reach beyond our professional roles. This is not easy because regardless of your beliefs there are people whose views are entirely opposite to yours (not just talking about religion here) and things we care about deeply. We are actually already given standardized patients with positions designed to be "provocative" shall we say

 

Even if you are christian there are so many variants that it is quite possible to still cause friction. Also as much as we would like to have the flexibility to have more tailored practices (in many ways, not just regarding religious matters) with the serious shortage going on any doctor's office will attract by necessity patients who do not have a similar mindset. Going to make things interesting if as the doctor you are expecting one thing, but are confronted with something else - although of course the patient care and the perception of patient care must remain the same regardless. The latter is hard to always have when any form of non-neutrality is introduced.

 

Overall what we have taught so far is it would be considered unprofessional to project any particular religious affiliation in a practice, even though such efforts are usually quite well intentioned.

[itimebomb2]

Keep your beliefs in a magical man in the sky to yourself thanks.

 

I find this sort of attitude toward spiritual beliefs rather shocking. I was not raised in a Christian family and grew up with atheist beliefs. But for some reason, I never fostered as much disdain towards religious people as some of the people on this thread.

 

Where's the sense of curiosity and exploration? Are you not even a little bit interested in what other people have to say? People have staked their lives in religion. Nations have risen and fallen. Yet some people have no desire to learn at all.

 

I'm not saying that the medical environment is necessarily the right forum for this, but as a matter of discussion, I don't see the harm it exploring some ideas about the role of religion in medicine.

 

Whatever one believes is their business. I personally could not care less.

 

But here is some general food for thought.

 

Being an staunch atheist is a belief as much as being a staunch Muslim, Christian, Jew etc.

 

I despise it when people try to convert me to their spiritual beliefs. Most people do.

 

Many of the hardcore atheists feel that they are in a different category from those who subscribe to organized religion. However, being a publicly anti-religion atheist in an effort to "convert" people to your belief is as annoying as the bible thumping person going around trying to convert people... Same thing different belief you are in essence the same.

 

Take note.

 

I think this was very well said by rogerroger. I've never tried to convert someone against their will. But I've had plenty of atheists bash me for no apparent reason except that I believe something that they happen to find ridiculous. I know there are annoying religious people out there who come off as arrogant and obnoxious - I apologize on behalf of all of us. But if I stopped listening to all the annoying/obnoxious secular people, I wouldn't have a lot of people to talk with. A little tolerance never hurt anyone.

[rogerroger]

I think you're very confused. You probably did not study enough history in your life. Continue with your trolling friend.

 

Peace

 

By the way I never said that Hitler had a religious purpose, I said religions were INVOLVED. Learn how to read, it's a very useful skill in med school.

 

Peace again

 

So I can’t read and I am confused huh. Interesting…

Look. I am not going to have a ridiculous pissing match over a pre-med forum with you. It is just not going to happen.

 

If you want to discuss this rationally whilst derailing the thread. Fine. I am bored and can entertain it...

 

I would note that WW1, WWII, the American Civil War, The Vietnam War, the Cold War etc. had nothing to do with religious convictions but everything to do with political convictions.

You responded with:

WW2 you're kidding me? how many jews died during that war?

Jews and other groups were not murdered in WW2 because they only followed the Jewish faith. A quick look at the Nuremberg Laws from 1935 would make this clearly evident to you. They were murdered because they were viewed as being a separate Jewish ethnic group. This is a significant differentiating factor. Applying the Nuremberg Laws one can be Jewish but NOT religious. While Jews and other groups deemed unacceptable were discriminated against and murdered no distinction was made between the practicing Jew and one that never saw the inside of a synagogue.

 

I fail to see how WW2 had any religious motivations involved. WW2 was started solely due to the National Socialist ideology taking hold in Germany. Therefore it was about reclaiming German national pride after WW1, providing Lebensraum (living space) from conquest of territory in USSR whilst creating a mythical “pure” German population. To think otherwise is simply being revisionist with the history of the intentions behind why Germany went to war. So before you start yelling troll alert, giving me school “tips” and being a dictionary may I suggest you reconsider who is confused or elaborate on why religion was a significant factor "INVOLVED" in WW2.

[rmorelan]

Nothing quite like the internet to convert an original post that reasonably inquires about the limits of personal freedoms in professional practice into a raging debate about Hitler's motivations in an attempted genocide.

[Cnussey]

Nothing quite like the internet to convert an original post that reasonably inquires about the limits of personal freedoms in professional practice into a raging debate about Hitler's motivations in an attempted genocide.

 

I was thinking the same thing. I'm also thinking "mesa gonna stay outta dis".

[Madz25]

I just thought I would comment on this quote because its rather dogmatic and unfair... I would note that WW1, WWII, the American Civil War, The Vietnam War, the Cold War etc. had nothing to do with religious convictions but everything to do with political convictions. The Popes who started "crusades" into the middle east are not, and would never, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered true Christians.

 

From a political perspective, countries based on Christian values (America, UK, continental Europe, Australia) generally enjoy the highest standard of living, and the strongest social structures in the world. These benefits can be directly attributed to their founding principles. Think of the American Civil War - Abraham Lincoln - God created all man equal.

 

I would also note that religious institutions (mainly Christian) are also responsible for most of the world's charity organizations (Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, Feed the Children -- 5 of the top 10 charities in America were started as explicitly Christian outreaches -http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/18/largest-charities-ratings_05charities_land.html)

Not to mention that the average Christian donates a significant amount more time and money to charitable organizations (http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/files/giving/en/n-vc1sen.pdf)

 

Don't hate on religion. Religion doesn't hate you. In fact it loves you, and you owe a lot to it.

 

And this high standard of living has nothing to do with invading other nations, enslaving people that were different (and hence considered "savages"), forcing their own beliefs and languages on these 'savages,' and stealing their riches? I highly doubt it has anything to do with religion.

 

Back to the original topic: As a physician, you should discuss your medical opinion with patients. THAT is what they are coming to you for. If they want religious advice then they should seek out that service elsewhere. It will be highly unprofessional to bring religious beliefs into a situation where a patient is looking for medical advice.

[leviathan]

From a political perspective, countries based on Christian values (America, UK, continental Europe, Australia) generally enjoy the highest standard of living, and the strongest social structures in the world. These benefits can be directly attributed to their founding principles. Think of the American Civil War - Abraham Lincoln - God created all man equal.

LOL except for all those black slaves he owned. They weren't equal I guess.

[Lactic Folly]

On the subject of faith-based practices: I have worked in several public hospitals that were faith-based (religious objects on display and references to religion in mission statement) but treated people from all backgrounds. I remember a few classmates were surprised to hear the daily morning prayer being broadcast, but they became accustomed to it quickly. As many Canadian hospitals seem to have been originally founded by nuns, I wouldn't think this is so uncommon.

[itimebomb2]

On the subject of faith-based practices: I have worked in several public hospitals that were faith-based (religious objects on display and references to religion in mission statement) but treated people from all backgrounds. I remember a few classmates were surprised to hear the daily morning prayer being broadcast, but they became accustomed to it quickly. As many Canadian hospitals seem to have been originally founded by nuns, I wouldn't think this is so uncommon.

 

Hm interesting point. It seems the concept of the modern hospital was a concept conceived by Christians during the Roman Empire. See the Roman empire in the following wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#History

 

Interesting.

[Irving]

yeah...i also believe that specially there one Ethical Adviser needed specially for to support patients and staff...

[NewfieMike]

Nothing quite like the internet to convert an original post that reasonably inquires about the limits of personal freedoms in professional practice into a raging debate about Hitler's motivations in an attempted genocide.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

[WaveSense]

Hm interesting point. It seems the concept of the modern hospital was a concept conceived by Christians during the Roman Empire. See the Roman empire in the following wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#History

 

Interesting.

 

uhhh what? your article clearly states that the concept of hospitals was conceived by Egyptians and Sri Lankans...

 

Just out of curiosity... do you believe in evolution?

[rmorelan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

 

I never knew it was so formal I like it. Of course following that law then this thread is already dead...

[thebouque]

elaborate on why religion was a significant factor "INVOLVED" in WW2.

 

I totally understand what you said about the motivations behind the genocide. All I'm saying is that judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity, and people who followed that religion were mass murdered, therefore religion was involved, no matter what the NAZIs motivations were and how they viewed them as a ''race'' along with other ''races'' to ''exterminate''. And I didn't call you a troll, I said the OP might be a troll, but now we're both trolling since we're drifting from the OP's question.

[thebouque]

They were murdered because they were viewed as being a separate Jewish ethnic group.

 

Also you're saying that they were viewed as a separate ethnic group. Maybe they were viewed as one, but they weren't. Most of the jews that were killed during WW2 were non german (they were french, polish, etc). They were killed simply because they were jewish (practicing or not, as you said, doesn't make any difference since WW2 wasn't a crusade or a war motivated by religious conviction). Indeed I don't think it was motivated by religion and I'd be a fool to think of it this way. However, members of a religion were mass murdered that's all I'm saying. Hence I can comfortably that yes, religion was involved in ww2.

[FacetheMusic]

Ok - forgive me, I didn't read the whole thread, but we had a hospital chaplain come talk to us about what they do and there were some interesting things mentioned.

 

It is okay to ask on history "do you have a faith that helps you?", especially if it is a palliative case or they are suffering. You can refer them to the chaplain, and even if they aren't of that particular faith, the chaplain has contacts with other religious authorities.

 

Irrespective of my beliefs, I would probably hand off spiritual questions to trained religious leaders, but that's just an opinion. As a doctor, you can open that door for a patient who might benefit from that interaction though.

[itimebomb2]

uhhh what? your article clearly states that the concept of hospitals was conceived by Egyptians and Sri Lankans...

 

Just out of curiosity... do you believe in evolution?

 

hospitals in the modern sense... Greco-roman culture was the foundation of many of our current practices. sri lankans... not so much.

 

to answer your question - Christianity does not outright deny evolution. it certainly doesn't deny the readily observable, short-term evolution that we can see today. As for the origins of life (and humanity) - it is hazy. some believe that the Genesis (bible) stories were only meant to convey general ideas and not scientific thought. furthermore, even taken literally, the concept of the "seven day creation" as outlined in Genesis 1 doesn't necessarily preclude evolution either, since day and night were only defined on the second day (thereby confounding the definition of a "day").

 

Myself, im inclined to believe the latter. Evolution is an interesting topic to explore from a spiritual side - but it isn't essential to faith in God, imo.

 

Ok - forgive me, I didn't read the whole thread, but we had a hospital chaplain come talk to us about what they do and there were some interesting things mentioned.

 

It is okay to ask on history "do you have a faith that helps you?", especially if it is a palliative case or they are suffering. You can refer them to the chaplain, and even if they aren't of that particular faith, the chaplain has contacts with other religious authorities.

 

Irrespective of my beliefs, I would probably hand off spiritual questions to trained religious leaders, but that's just an opinion. As a doctor, you can open that door for a patient who might benefit from that interaction though.

 

Hm thanks for this input. This is probably the fairest statement I've read so far.

[thebouque]

Finally, I will conclude by saying that anti semitism is not a form of racism since judaism is not an ethnicity.

[leviathan]

Finally, I will conclude by saying that anti semitism is not a form of racism since judaism is not an ethnicity.

Anti-semitism actually refers to people of Semitic ethnicity, not Jewish people. Nice try, though.

[thebouque]

Anti-semitism actually refers to people of Semitic ethnicity, not Jewish people. Nice try, though.

 

The term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples. However, since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews.

 

References:

 

1) "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews." Lewis, Bernard. "Semites and Antisemites", Islam in History: Ideas, Men and Events in the Middle East, The Library Press, 1973.

2) See, for example:

* "Anti-Semitism", Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2006.

* Johnson, Paul. A History of the Jews, HarperPerennial 1988, p 133 ff.

* Lewis, Bernard. "The New Anti-Semitism", The American Scholar, Volume 75 No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 25-36. The paper is based on a lecture delivered at Brandeis University on March 24, 2004.

 

 

Thank you very much

[leviathan]

The term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples. However, since the term was invented it has been used to refer exclusively to hostility toward Jews.

Ethnic Jews...lol....

[Mourning Cloak]

Anglican Priest. LOL

 

Good for the Anglicans!

 

(Married priests are probably happier people)

[thebouque]

To the OP : are you in medical school yet? because your question should be answered (at least partially) in your school's medical humanities (or however they call it) course.

[Cnussey]

Good for the Anglicans!

 

(Married priests are probably happier people)

 

Orthodox can be married as well--although, their bishops cannot be.

 

Yeah, marriage is a good idea. Eliminates a lot of prejudice--LOL.

[rogerroger]

I totally understand what you said about the motivations behind the genocide. All I'm saying is that judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity, and people who followed that religion were mass murdered, therefore religion was involved, no matter what the NAZIs motivations were and how they viewed them as a ''race'' along with other ''races'' to ''exterminate''.

 

 

Pretty sure those who were categorized by the Nuremberg Laws as Mischling and discriminated against would disagree with you...

 

Sure following the Judaic faith was a common characteristic many shared. However, considering religion has been a basic shared characteristic of human populations since the drawn of history then yeah, I guess using your logic religion is "involved" in any human conflict...

 

Yet, your taking a big leap in the way you are defining the involvement of religion in WW2 as an example of it being a war with religious convictions...

 

I would note that WW1, WWII, the American Civil War, The Vietnam War, the Cold War etc. had nothing to do with religious convictions but everything to do with political convictions.

 

Response: WW2 you're kidding me? how many jews died during that war?

 

Anyways, I have the feeling that everyone else gets the point. So I will leave it at that. Ya might want to stick to the medicine over the interpretation of history.