I'm sure that the BMA, like all unions has a fair few odd motions tabled. However given that doctors are rarely disciplined and GPs even more rarely referred to the GMC I'd rather something stronger saying that religion was not to be discussed than any licence at all. Patients who ask for their doctor to say prayers for them are hardly likely to complain when they do are they (unless the standards of prayer are low!)

Well that;s what I have been saying all along... It;s just a coule of publicity-hungry bucketheads.

calm, kids.

The BMA conference, every year, has the occasional 'nutter' motion that makes the headlines. 99.99% never see the light of day again.

It was in the BMA news, and DH fell about laughing

I was thinking about my doctor who was so santimonious about not signing my prescription for the pill that time.

She didn't have to say "I am not going to sign this prescription because it goes against my religion to do so, i will have to ask one of my colleagues to sign it" in a smug fashion.

She could have simply printed it off and said "I'll be back in a minute" and got someone to sign it. I would have been none the wiser - it wouldn't have occured to me to wonder what she was doing.

So her stating that it went against her beliefs was unnecessary - she was telling me that she belived the medicine and therefore me to be immoral because she wanted to, not because she needed to. And that is the problem with all of this - so many people just can't help themselves when they have these type of beliefs. It is more than a few people...

merry thank you yes I'm back and all is well. Have a new little girl

SGB. Not forgetting that believers tend to the opinion that their particular superstition has more validity than all the others!

Am in agreement with your last two posts!

Well the impression I get is that the people actually agitating for a change in the law are the bunch of bucketheads who backed that stupid twat of a woman at British Airways - basically the law DOES NOT NEED to be changed. There are currently a few people making a big fuss about 'Bwaaaah, you're not allowed to be a Christian any more' when what they mean is 'Bwaaaaaah. other people are allowed to not be Christians and we can't have that....'
Ie it's the medics who have had a slap for overstepping the boundaries who are now trying to bleat that they should be legally entitled to overstep boundaries. Because they have SUPERSTITIONS and that MATTERS more than other people's rights.

But this comes back to my original question: who is this group of people asking for this change in the law? Unless you know something I don't, or unless I've missed something earlier in the thread, there's no mention of who is petitioning, except that they are religious medics. So you must be relying more on your imagination than on fact here, m'dear.

There's been so much hyping up of this story on this thread and in the article which LovelySpam posted - utter hysteria based on a small number of extreme stories about a few religious medics who have clearly overstepped the boundaries. In the context of this particular issue, all this talk of 'pressure' is utter, exaggerated nonsense, as it bears no relation to the motion being discussed by the GMC.

In any profession, when anybody oversteps any sort of boundaries, of course they should be disciplined. But the motion in the GMC agenda is clearly stating that where medics are behaving appropriately (and I would take this to mean medics being respectful and considerate, and only asking people who they know already have a faith), there should be no fear of disciplinary action. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

If you have written 'atheist' in your medical notes, which I would expect you to do, then a doctor approaching you for prayer would be out of line. But if you have written the name of your faith, I don't think it's such a problem for a medic to suggest prayer, and then it's up to you to accept or decline.

Got to go - some git is trying to send a virus to my computer and I'm not comfortable about staying online.

I am not prejudiced against people who believe in gods (or pixies, or crystal healing) ie I think they are mistaken but that doesnt necessarily stop them being nice people. I am unimpressed with people engaging in special pleading or harassment on the grounds of their superstitions - it;s ot prejudice per se to mock and criticise people for their behaviour.

SGB, I usually enjoy reading your posts but when it comes to religion you always manage to sound deeply prejudiced. I'm sure you have good reasons for feeling the way you do, but equally I'm sure you would agree that prejudice under any circumstances is wrong.

MrsMH: because this legal application seems to be backed/started by the usual crop of wankers who are busily trying to demand a privileged status for their superstitious shit to be made law. Plenty of medics have some sort of faith and some of them may well discuss it with patients if the patient starts the discussion and that;s fair enough. But what is being asked for is the right to pester ie to start the superstitous conversation despite having no information from the patient about his/her wishes. And if you are ill and in pain the last thing you need is to have to fend off some superstitious twaddle and then worry that the crap-peddler whose crap you have declined is going to spit in your dinner or 'forget' your painkillers by way of revenge.