religious Doctor

mukki

would you have faith (pun not intended) in a doctor who was religious?

just thinking today, if a doctor knows all the workings of a human body surly he would know that there is no way that saying a few old prayers in your head can fix health or other problems

if i saw a doctor entering a church* i'd be worried that he might think that their is some other force controling the world and that we have no control over destiny and all that bull.

* except funerals and weddings are a mark of respect

The two are seperate things entirely and discrimination on either side on such grounds would be ridiculous

The Mad Hatter

Good luck finding an atheist doctor in Ireland.

mukki

lol, okay but if you had a choice which would you go for?

sink

A medical doctors religious faith in 99.9% of cases has no bearing on their performance as a doctor. They may believe faith can heal but they know medicine can and they are trained to use medicine not faith. I have no idea what religious persuasion my GP holds, nor do I know that of the surgeon who removed my appendix 2 weeks ago, nor do I care.

thusspakeblixa

My own Doctor is a Quaker, and I amn't dead yet, so I think he's OK.

robindch

mukki wrote: »

if i saw a doctor entering a church* i'd be worried [...]

I'd be far more worried if I saw seeing a pilot praying as he hopped into the driving seat.

laura!

if a religion was that controlling over the doctors views on life, then why on earth would that person have become a doctor in the first place? people become doctors to save others lives..... so if some one believed that only god determined ones health and survival chances, they wouldn't have became a doctor at all

Húrin

mukki wrote: »

would you have faith (pun not intended) in a doctor who was religious?

just thinking today, if a doctor knows all the workings of a human body surly he would know that there is no way that saying a few old prayers in your head can fix health or other problems

You don't think that a doctor would use his medical skills to heal you? Speaking for Christianity, there is no aversion to the use of medical science to heal people. There are examples in the Bible.

Many doctors go to my church and I'm fairly sure that they do as good a job as their colleagues of no faith.

Húrin

laura! wrote: »

if a religion was that controlling over the doctors views on life, then why on earth would that person have become a doctor in the first place? people become doctors to save others lives..... so if some one believed that only god determined ones health and survival chances, they wouldn't have became a doctor at all

yes, that's what every last religious person believes. :rolleyes:

laura!

Húrin wrote: »

yes, that's what every last religious person believes. :rolleyes:

am religious but i dont believe that!!!!

It wouldn't bother me in the slightest, and I don't see why it should bother anybody else. If the doctor bases their profession on what they've been thought about medicine, then that's ok; but, if they base it on religion and superstition, then, obviously, it's not. But, I don't believe there are many, if any, doctors who would base their professional life on their religion.

They're two seperate issues: they have no bearing on each other at all.

philologos

I would have more faith in a doctor who expressed Christianity, and infact in a stressful situation like the one in which they work in I can see how it could be beneficial for those in the medical profession to have faith, as well as others of course.

I would have more faith in such a doctor because in trusting that God is with them in their work, they are probably less likely to freak out.

rainbow kirby

My main worry with a religious doctor would be their attitude to certain issues in terms of female reproductive health. Apart from that - I wouldn't have a problem with one, as long as they weren't pushing faith in my face.

robindch

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I don't believe there are many, if any, doctors who would base their professional life on their religion.

Unfortunately, that's not true.

There are quite a few organizations for professional doctors who are also religious -- the UK-based CMF (around 5,000 members) and the ICMDA are two christian ones, and there are plenty of similar organizations for other religions.

Amongst other things, members of the UK-based CMF have apparently used doctor-patient trust relationship to proselytize (at the behest of the CMF), of publishing highly unbalanced articles on the risks of gay sex and of telling its student members that demonic possession can cause mental illness. The ICMDA, on the other hand, openly advocates creationism while its five aims are solely concerned with proselytization.

There's also a long-running dispute in the USA, over whether or not chemists are allowed to refuse to sell things that they claim disagree with their religious views -- apparently, it's difficult to buy contraceptives in many towns in the bible belt.

.

philologos

In fairness robindch it's also difficult to buy alcohol on Sundays in the Bible Belt too and to be honest with you if it's a cultural norm not to sell contraceptives I would respect and agree with that 100%, and it's only the right of people who run these shops to determine this.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

if it's a cultural norm not to sell contraceptives I would respect and agree with that 100%

Fifty years ago in the bible belt, it was the cultural norm to refuse to serve people with black skin.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I would have more faith in such a doctor because in trusting that God is with them in their work, they are probably less likely to freak out.

Being an atheist doctor, i have to say that most religious colleagues of mine tend to fare worse in the freaking out department. I know a few and most of them have very poor coping skills (and two of whom are probably going to go back to college because they can't handle it). Not entirely sure why it happens but it seems like they never learned the same self-reliance that the rest of us were forced to learn as a junior doctor. When you're put in stressful situations every day, I reckon it's important that you are confident enough in your own ability to handle things than confident in a god, because at the end of the day you're the one who has to sort out the emergencies. Depending on a higher power would be lovely, but it's a maladaptive sort of behaviour for a doctor to place utmost trust in something which is not physically helpful

Dades

As long as they didn't just get their doctorate in theology...

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's not true.

You've some interesting links in that post. I honestly didn't think that it would influence their profession; but, as you say, it does. That's scary, definitely not something that should be allowed (even though it'd be impossible to control).

lostexpectation

sink wrote: »

A medical doctors religious faith in 99.9% of cases has no bearing on their performance as a doctor. They may believe faith can heal but they know medicine can and they are trained to use medicine not faith. I have no idea what religious persuasion my GP holds, nor do I know that of the surgeon who removed my appendix 2 weeks ago, nor do I care.

yes but its the 0.1% of other cases where it does have bearing that matters.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes but its the 0.1% of other cases where it does have bearing that matters.

Indeed, so in 0.1% of cases you get a better deal from your doctor.

I was speaking with a member of our church who is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (I've never quite figured out how that works since we live in a Republic). He is excellent at his job as assessed by the authorities and his peers and his rise through the ranks in the medical world seems quite meteoric. After he goes home from work he spends at least an hour praying for the various patients he has treated that day. I can't see how that can possibly make him a worse doctor, and he is convinced it makes him a better doctor and increases the quality of care his patients receive.

sionnach

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, so in 0.1% of cases you get a better deal from your doctor.

Assuming religion has a positive bearing.

PDN wrote: »

After he goes home from work he spends at least an hour praying for the various patients he has treated that day. I can't see how that can possibly make him a worse doctor

This doesn't make him a worse doctor, but spending that hour reading up about new treatments, diagnosis techniques etc. would certainly make him a better doctor.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

In fairness robindch it's also difficult to buy alcohol on Sundays in the Bible Belt too and to be honest with you if it's a cultural norm not to sell contraceptives I would respect and agree with that 100%, and it's only the right of people who run these shops to determine this.

No it bloody well isnt.

What pharmaceuticals and medical devices can be sold over the counter or through a pharmacy is a matter of federal law and it damn well shouldnt be governed by peoples supersititous nonsense.

If someone wants to run a pharmacy they should be prepared to follow the rules rather than using it as a pulpit to push their dodgy religious views on others.

Thereason these dime-store mullahs have managed to keep the argument going (and continue to restrict the flow of drugs and contraceptives to people) is because of a lack of spine in legislation to fight religious topics and people who support this kind of commercial zealotry with lines like you said above.

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, so in 0.1% of cases you get a better deal from your doctor.

I was speaking with a member of our church who is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (I've never quite figured out how that works since we live in a Republic). He is excellent at his job as assessed by the authorities and his peers and his rise through the ranks in the medical world seems quite meteoric. After he goes home from work he spends at least an hour praying for the various patients he has treated that day. I can't see how that can possibly make him a worse doctor, and he is convinced it makes him a better doctor and increases the quality of care his patients receive.

Your post seems to thing being good at his job and being a shooting star in the world of surgery is directly attributable to religion. I would say that chances are it's because he's a hard worker, gets involved in research and has a good bedside manner. I could point out to you any number of incredibly successful doctors (particularly a number of young female consultants, some in surgery) who have also rocketed through the ranks for the same reason, none of whom are religious or go through the whole "praying for their patients" rigmarole. Religion has no bearing on your performance. A good bedside manner and ability to gain your patients' trust and confidence is the most positive impact a doctor can have on quality of care.

How does praying for them improve the quality of care they receive?

Dades

sionnach wrote: »

This doesn't make him a worse doctor, but spending that hour reading up about new treatments, diagnosis techniques etc. would certainly make him a better doctor.

That's totally unfair. An atheist doctor could be better spent doing medical homework than reading The God Delusion, doing yoga or playing golf on a Sunday.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Your post seems to thing being good at his job and being a shooting star in the world of surgery is directly attributable to religion.

I didn't read that into it I have to say.

MatthewVII

Dades wrote: »

I didn't read that into it I have to say.

Well what I saw was

- There is an amazing doctor who is incredible

- He is very religious

To me, this implies that PDN is drawing a link between these two points. That he believes his patients receive a better quality of care because he prays for them is just icing on the cake.

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith

faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faithfaith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith faith

.......................

seanybiker

thats over thinking it a bit op in my opinion. Im not religious but i dont go around looking for excuses not to believe in people ie doctors ect. Maybe some people belive praying can work. It could be a placebo for all we know or i could be wrong and there might be a god. I dunno

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

Not entirely sure why it happens but it seems like they never learned the same self-reliance that the rest of us were forced to learn as a junior doctor. When you're put in stressful situations every day, I reckon it's important that you are confident enough in your own ability to handle things than confident in a god, because at the end of the day you're the one who has to sort out the emergencies.

MatthewVII wrote: »

Religion has no bearing on your performance. A good bedside manner and ability to gain your patients' trust and confidence is the most positive impact a doctor can have on quality of care

So religion can only ever have negative effects? What about the possibility that religion could improve the doctor's relational skills? I suppose your worldview demands that you dismiss this possibility.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

So religion can only ever have negative effects? What about the possibility that religion could improve the doctor's relational skills? I suppose your worldview demands that you dismiss this possibility.

I don't really see a link between religion and relational skills. I see a link between being a caring person and relational skills. I don't think this comes from religion.

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

So religion can only ever have negative effects? What about the possibility that religion could improve the doctor's relational skills? I suppose your worldview demands that you dismiss this possibility.

As I see it, a doctors job is to diagnose, treat and interact with the patient. Religion certainly cannot improve a doctor's performance in diagnosis or treatment, so religion can only have no effect or a negative effect in these areas.

As for patient interaction, religion might (although in my opinion doesn't really) help a shy or uncaring doctor improve their relational skills, but it can't improve them past the point of an atheist doctor. Being religious doesn't give you an edge in interpersonal skills. Being religious doesn't make you a more caring person.

So yeah, religion might have a positive effect for certain doctors who start out with poor interpersonal skills but it certainly doesn't make them better than atheist doctors.

Dades

MatthewVII wrote: »

Well what I saw was

- There is an amazing doctor who is incredible

- He is very religious

To me, this implies that PDN is drawing a link between these two points. That he believes his patients receive a better quality of care because he prays for them is just icing on the cake.

Well the OP questioned whether a religious doctor would be as effective, and PDN supplied anecdotal evidence of a highly regarded surgeon who happens to be quite religious.

Seems fair enough to me.

lostexpectation

i didn't see anything more worthy in pdn's post did you, anything other then asserting that the addition of faith added something when it clearly doesn't

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

i didn't see anything more worthy in pdn's post did you, anything other then asserting that the addition of faith added something when it clearly doesn't

If you object to PDN's post it might be helpful to give some reasons why? Why is it so clear that it doesn't?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I don't really see a link between religion and relational skills. I see a link between being a caring person and relational skills. I don't think this comes from religion.

I agree that relational skills are determined by personality factors and environmental factors, but religion, whether it is true or a placebo, can produce a moral improvement in an individual.

sionnach wrote: »

As for patient interaction, religion might (although in my opinion doesn't really) help a shy or uncaring doctor improve their relational skills, but it can't improve them past the point of an atheist doctor. Being religious doesn't give you an edge in interpersonal skills. Being religious doesn't make you a more caring person.

So yeah, religion might have a positive effect for certain doctors who start out with poor interpersonal skills but it certainly doesn't make them better than atheist doctors.

Who is this mythical atheist doctor who has reached the apex of relational development? I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

Who is this mythical atheist doctor who has reached the apex of relational development?

I'm sorry if my post was unclear, what I meant was that an atheist doctor doesn't have less capacity with regards to relational skills than a religious one.

Húrin wrote: »

I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

CerebralCortex

sionnach wrote: »

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

Probably not but that won't stop him trying.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

I'm quite offended by this sentiment. You suggest that a doctor who is the same as me in every respect except that he is religious means that I can never be as good as him at relating to patients?

At the end of the day you can be religious and still be cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring. Having faith does not give you interpersonal skills. It doesn't make you any better at reassuring people or putting people at ease. To suggest so is to suggest that all atheist doctors are strictly inferior to their hypothetical religious counterparts.

Atheists don't need a religion or a code to be good, kind people. We do it because people seeking the medical profession are vulnerable and the outcomes for everyone are better when patients are confident in their doctors.

Húrin

sionnach wrote: »

I'm sorry if my post was unclear, what I meant was that an atheist doctor doesn't have less capacity with regards to relational skills than a religious one.

This was an assumption that YOU made about my argument without reading my argument.

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

It seems a pointless discussion. I find it implausible that a religion would cause any moral disimprovement. Religions say that believers should be kind, charitable, etc. I don't think that "atheism" has any equivalent with the same moral force.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm quite offended by this sentiment. You suggest that a doctor who is the same as me in every respect except that he is religious means that I can never be as good as him at relating to patients?

At the end of the day you can be religious and still be cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring. Having faith does not give you interpersonal skills. It doesn't make you any better at reassuring people or putting people at ease. To suggest so is to suggest that all atheist doctors are strictly inferior to their hypothetical religious counterparts.

Atheists don't need a religion or a code to be good, kind people. We do it because people seeking the medical profession are vulnerable and the outcomes for everyone are better when patients are confident in their doctors.

That's clearly not what I said, if you include the line before:

Húrin wrote: »

I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

I'm not saying that anyone needs a religion to be kind. However I think it is unlikely that conversion to a religion will produce a moral disimprovement in anyone. It is not relevant whether the religion is true or not.

It is quite possible that you have better relational skills than some of your religious counterparts. Is this not clear in my post? However, I think that if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve. Remember, this is not dependent on whether the religion is true or a placebo.

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

That's clearly not what I said, if you include the line before:

It effectively is what you said and you repeat it in your last post:

Húrin wrote: »

if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve.

You're saying it's probable that his atheism is holding him back

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

It is quite possible that you have better relational skills than some of your religious counterparts. Is this not clear in my post? However, I think that if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve. Remember, this is not dependent on whether the religion is true or a placebo.

There is quite a difference in saying that religion can hardly cause a disimprovement and that religion will likely cause an improvement.

What my abilities are in relation to my real colleagues is unimportant, as we all start from different baselines. What's important is that you believe I will always be subpar to what I am capable of because I am atheist. That is what I find objectionable about your argument. You suggest atheism is a handicap to compassion, which is simply not true.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

It seems a pointless discussion. I find it implausible that a religion would cause any moral disimprovement. Religions say that believers should be kind, charitable, etc. I don't think that "atheism" has any equivalent with the same moral force.

Yes, because atheists aren't good because we're told to be, unlike many theists. When atheists good, they're good for the sake of being good.

ChocolateSauce

Just so long as they're a competent doctor who is willing and able to perform any procedure I need, and so long as I can see her face in the event of a female doctor (meaning specifically I don't mind the hijab, but the niquab abd burka are out of the question), I have no problem with them. However, I also think that to be a truly exceptional doctor, one must be an scientist who studies medicine, and the greatest scientists are usually not very religous. 600 pointers who memorise vast tomes on biology don't impress me on the whole.

Rev Hellfire

If you're bothered about the religious views of your GP get a new one. Simple as.

And if they're not prescribing three hail mary's and two our fathers twice daily I can't see the issue.

Húrin

sionnach wrote: »

You're saying it's probable that his atheism is holding him back

That is what I mean, but that's not what Matthew thought I said. I didn't say that his atheism made him worse at his job than any particular other doctor.

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is quite a difference in saying that religion can hardly cause a disimprovement and that religion will likely cause an improvement.

What my abilities are in relation to my real colleagues is unimportant, as we all start from different baselines. What's important is that you believe I will always be subpar to what I am capable of because I am atheist. That is what I find objectionable about your argument. You suggest atheism is a handicap to compassion, which is simply not true.

That is what I think. Unsurprisingly, here is where we disagree. It would probably be beyond the scope of this thread to argue the point further.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, because atheists aren't good because we're told to be, unlike many theists. When atheists good, they're good for the sake of being good.

Surely when using this tired argument, you do not believe that theists lack a conscience do you? No, our consciences are reinforced (and occasionally corrected) by external values by which we know that what we intuitively feel is good, is in fact good. Atheists cannot legitimately know this because you cannot believe in an objective, universal morality. You cannot rebuke immorality because it doesn't exist for you outside what is at best determined by contemporary society.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Surely when using this tired argument, you do not believe that theists lack a conscience do you? No, our consciences are reinforced (and occasionally corrected) by external values by which we know that what we intuitively feel is good, is in fact good.

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists cannot legitimately know this because you cannot believe in an objective, universal morality. You cannot rebuke immorality because it doesn't exist for you outside what is at best determined by contemporary society.

Atheists have faith in their own conscience without needing to legitimise what they think with reference to the words of men long dead, who lived in a different time and place.

Ultimately knowing "wrong and right" is only a small factor anyway. It's how you act in that knowledge that matters. There's proportionately less atheists in the prison system, despite the religious inmates supposedly having a 'legitimised' morality.

pH

Dades wrote: »

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Nice spot, I too would be interested in the list of things that his conscience allows but his belief in God prevents him from doing. However I have a feeling it will be very similar to the interview question "What's you biggest fault" ... "Well I work too hard". That said it could go the other way (I think PDN did) and he'll happy to admit what a wretched sinner he is as it glorifies his God's power even more.

dvpower

mukki wrote: »

if i saw a doctor entering a church* i'd be worried that he might think that their is some other force controling the world and that we have no control over destiny and all that bull.

My advice to you is to go home. Go into your bedroom and get under your bed. Stay there. Its not safe to go out. The world is teeming with churchgoers who at moment could decide to take the fast track route to Heaven, taking you with them. /s

deleriumtremens

Personally, I'd prefer for my doctor to be an atheist. Any person who understands fully the workings of the human body and understands as much as is possible about the processes of embryology and genetics in the causation of disease, surely couldnt beleve in a god. Nature is often ruthless and careless with regard to who gets what disease, and, with this is mind, it is, in my opinion, impossible without compartmentalising in ones mind, to include god in any picture of how disease are caused.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Yes. That's because all of us are swayed by sin, and by the values that are encouraged by society.

Atheists have faith in their own conscience without needing to legitimise what they think with reference to the words of men long dead, who lived in a different time and place.

But I find it remarkable that most of the moral convictions of myself and you agree with the morality taught by Jesus and his followers of long ago. That's not alien to us.

It's not a difference of having faith in conscience. It's recognition that we are not pure individualists. Most of us humans have similar moral ideals no matter where or when we have lived.

If atheists believe that each of us has a divergent conscience, how can anyone claim what is right or wrong? How can you know that say, George Bush (or other historical villain), created policies that were wrong, if he was guided by his conscience? All you have is your own conscience to measure him against.

Also, don't you ever think that characterising religious people as needy, and atheists as strong and independent, is condescending?

Ultimately knowing "wrong and right" is only a small factor anyway. It's how you act in that knowledge that matters. There's proportionately less atheists in the prison system, despite the religious inmates supposedly having a 'legitimised' morality.

Atheism is most widespread among the privileged classes, which is also the least represented class in prison.