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.

Spam! Howya doing?

I certainly am not of the 'religious trumping' ilk! And you're right, many people who practise a faith do have a very judgemental reaction to atheism. I think my curiosity about the strong anti-religious response is perhaps for the following reasons:

1) IME the religious people who are judgemental about anyone who doesn't practise their particular brand of faith are typically narrow-minded people on all matters, so it's no great surprise to discover that their narrow-mindedness extends to their views on religion.
2) Most of the atheists I've encountered who have an equally judgemental response against religion consider themselves to be broad-minded people, and, like SGB, generally are, on most topics. Except religion.
3) Most agnostics and the non-fundamentalist (for want of a better word - I do hate this 'f' word as it's generally used as an umbrella term these days) people of faith, in my experience, are typically more at ease than groups (1) and (2) about discussing religion in all its guises.

Of course this is a huge generalisation but it does represent my experience.

With this in mind, on the hospital issue, I suppose that if someone has stated on their hosp records that they practise a faith, it should be okay for a medic to gently and respectfully offer to pray for them, and to respect their wishes if they decline.

On the abortion issue, although I don't personally agree with abortion, neither do I expect people who don't share my faith to share my views on abortion. If I were a doctor I think I'd have a professional responsibility to treat my patients as adults and respect their views on all aspects of their health, including their decision to have an abortion.

I suspect that the religious doctors who lay guilt on their patients who request abortions fall into group 1 above, and that the religious doctors who fall into group 3 share my 'professional respect' viewpoint and so their patients get consent for the abortion with no guilt, and so never discover whether or not their doctors are religious.

In other words, in life it's always the 'nutters' who stand out as they have the biggest voices. But they should not be taken as representative of the whole.

I dunno. I think it has some very robust challenges by the 'Brights'

Well I'm back! Nice to see this still going.

I kept on the alert and only one person said that they would pray for me - my next door neighbour who was out and about with his bible first thing in the morning. Not a hint of any religion in the hospital.

Merryhenry many religious people are openly taken aback and shocked when confronted with someone who doesn't believe in god. What is so strange about it being the other way around? And I am always interested that the religious assume that their beliefs "outweight" other peoples (lack of) belief. For eg my friends would, I know, tell my children if someone died that they had gone to heaven. I would not dream of telling their children that when you die you are put in the ground and that's it. All the time it seems that I have to go around respecting the beliefs of others but they don't give me the same courtesy a lot of the time.

Religious belief does not "trump" everything else, although society seems to be increasingly going in the direction of saying that it does.

"Does a doctor who does not agree with abortion have a legal obligation to refer a patient to another physician who can make a referral to the appropriate resource"

Apparantly they have to refer you. But in practise (and I know, speaking from bitter experience) that they can drag their feet and delay it so long that it becomes very difficult for the patient. Add to that the ranting and patronising, it makes for a very unpleasant and distressing experience when you are feeling at your most vulnerable.

SGB - how do you know that those are the sorts of people who are asking for this legal right? That sounds terribly prejudiced.

By the way I'm not saying I think this right should be enshrined in law, I really haven't given this aspect of the article enough thought to have a firm opinion. But I am curious about the way some atheists react so fiercely against all religion - from a psychological point of view it suggests some level of insecurity/ bad past experience/ something more going on beneath the surface.

Close friend of mine had an anti-abortion nutter of a GP ranting at her when she had an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy. It was horrible, at a time when she was very vulnerable.

Personally, I think the doctor should have been struck off, or at least re-educated. It is bad enough that doctors are allowed to practise when they refuse to provide appropriate healthcare that is legal and meets the patient's needs, appalling that some get away with bullying patients.

My friend never complained because she was too distressed, so no doubt that shit of a doctor is still being cruel to women with unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, just waht Solid said.

Fir individuals on their own terms faith can be an exaordinarily helpful thing - I have nothing against faith or belief in god - I know it's objectivly not likely that there is a god, and don't believe myself - but I don't think people are daft for believing in god either.

Its when faith becomes religion becomes prescriptive that bothers me

.I don't believe in a God of any sorts but work with a lot of docs who are Moslems,who wouldn't dream of preaching their faith to a patient but their faith and ethical codes determine the way they relate to patients and I have a lot of admiration for them.My dd s paed has mentioned God (Unspecified religion) loooking after myfamily,but hasn't in any way rammed their religious beliefs down my throat.I think if apatient is curiou about religion and wants to discuss it then fine butI have never in 15years or so o practice seen a medical person try to impose theri religious beliefs on a patient.WRT religious belief the only thing I have sen is in dp practice his gp is a catholic and will not give MAP but there are plentyof other docs in the pratice who would.

MrsMH, well, mainly because the sort of people who are agitating for a legal right to make crap-peddling pests of themselves are the ones who will barge in brandishing their superstition without any consideration for the fact that a person who is ill, in pain or in distress doesnt want to hear it and might be further upset by it (if I was about to have some complicated, delicate medical procedure performed, having someone witter on about the power of prayer would scare the crap out of me as I would wonder if they were actually offering me superstition rather than medical competence...)

This is just a very quick post as I really have to do the washing up!

I practise a faith. However if a medic with different religious beliefs offered to pray for me, I'd probably say thanks but no thanks. And then that would be the end of it.

Why can't the atheists on this thread do the same?

IME people who have no faith have a much harder time listening to people who have a faith. I've often had convos with people who are talking what I could classify as religious 'nonsense', but I just tell them that I don't connect with what they're saying but respect the fact that they believe it.

You see, while I agree that health care professionals should be trained to handle the religious requests of patients with diplomacy and kindness they should also be trained to remember that lots of people are free from religion and do not want it shoved at them when they are ill or in pain.

Absolutely, it's part of your training isn't it. Patients dont get training though, that's what I mean. That's what makes them vulnerable. It should be them who makes the first move/gesture before deus ex machina makes an appearance

Monkeytrousers i didnt think of myself as being in a vunerable posistion at all ,i just wanted to put a scenario across that was from the other side of the spectrum.
As for muslim versus christians ,i have seen a muslim Dr hold the hand of a very sick elderly christian patient ,whilst she said a prayer ,he didnt speak out loud but by simply holding her hand at that time at her request ,he showed the sort of compassion that i wish all Drs and nusres showed .I dont agree with any health care professional discussing religion in an innappropriate manner with any patient ,but as health care profesionals we are often involved in conversations that involve a god or spirituality .

I think that you were right to join them, and I would have done the same. But I might (depending on the skill of the chaplin) have felt very uncomfortable doing so.

I generally agree with the idea that religion should be kept out of the workplace (and totally out of schools) but I do have one issue here.

Doctors (clinicians in general really) treating the body only is really not a good model. Returning to the days when doctors thought about their patients as "the stomach ulcer" or "the perforated lung" etc would really not be a good idea. Especially in general practice the idea of treating the whole patient is very important (especially bearing in mind that many GP consultations are about mental health). Many patients have a long term relationship with their clinicians and wish to be treated as individuals in a holistic manner, and it is something that the NHS has been trying to get better at for years (especially in areas like palliative care where caring for the spirit as well as the body is an important part of treating patients as humans).

I agree (mostly) with Spamhead. Better guidelines for all staff would be a good idea, but the assumption should always be not to talk about religion. I have worked with some very religious people, and I do think that they can find it difficult not to speak about spiritual matters, and if you do not wish to be forceful (or it is not appropriate to do so) that can be very awkward. Especially if they are sincere and lovely people.

On the medical students front it is worth pointing out that both GMC and BMA stated clearly that there were no exemptions, and that students would fail their exams if they missed out sections of the syllabus or objected to examinations (as they should).

Bump: but just supposing they had been Christians and you were a Muslim, or vice versa - or at least one party followed a myth system that is hostile to other competing myth systems to the extent of being really offended by being asked to share in a ritual dance or chant or whatever? I think in a case like that it would be equally appropriate for the health professional to join in or to politely and discreetly remove him/herself from the room.

Don't think you are in what is termed a 'vulnerable position' Bump. People aren't professional patients, hospital workers are professionals

I've not had time to read the whole thread, but this sounds like a bad idea. Knowing that someone is praying for you may be bad for your health:

here - "CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from coronary artery bypass graft, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications"

The physicians oath is 'First do no harm' so FGS if they really feel compelled to pray for someone, do it in private!

Well it must have been tricky if caught by surprise. I think you had the option to say "I'll give you some privacy" and leave though I understand how you felt.

Of course strictly speaking they were wrong to assume that a stranger shared their beliefs. Of course you'd want to make allowances because they were upset, but maybe if everyone had it previously drummed into them that theirs isn't the only opinion/belief in the universe it wouldn't arise.

Since they didn't know what religion if any you had they could have been insulting you terribly by suggesting you might want to.

The only safe way is keep religion private and not offer it to others.

I personally think this has been sensationalised by the media .However i would love your opinions on what happened to me at work recently ,bearing in mind that i am not a religous person. We had a patient ,a young man ,who was dying , his family as you can imagine were devastated . I went into the room to check on both the patient ,to make sure he was pain free and not in distress and also to reassure the family that i was there if they needed me .The family were very religous ,in that they had a strong faith. The hospital chaplain entered the room and the family asked me to join them in a prayer . Now would it have been ok for me as a non religous person to say 'sorry but im not hanging about to listen to your superstitous crap' or was i right to join them ,because it felt like the comapssionate and caring thing to do in the circumstances .
By the way i have never ever heard any of my colleagues bar the chaplain offer to pray or even mention thier (many varied) religous backgrounds and beliefs , possibly because we are all too bloody busy

I don't know if they do. Doctors have the right not to perform terminbations of they don't want to.

Whatever the case, plenty of doctors do this.

Does a doctor who does not agree with abortion have a legal obligation to refer a patient to another physician who can make a referral to the appropriate resource (sorry, I don't know who actually performs the TOP here because am foreign by birth and in the US a lot of people go to clinics)?

The Loose Women are currently discussing this issue.

weegiemum, it sounds like we're agreeing on the principle, but it's not just performing an abortion that they are refusing is it.

I mean we have not wanting to refer a patient to another doctor who will do an abortion.

Not wanting to allow antenatal tests since they might lead to termination.

Refusing contraception because that's against their conscience too.

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

If they get a patient with a bad liver they will probably misdiagnose him because they didn't study that.

Suppose it's against someone's religion to dance. Can they refuse to treat a sprained ankle injured doing 'the devils work?

I think that if someone cannot seperate their religion and their work they should go into another profession.

You have to remember that all hcps are legally allowed, for whatever reason, not to participate in/refer for top. Whether that is for ethical, political, religious reasons etc, there is a "conscience clause" in the abortion act (1967?) that means they don't have to end a life if they regard it as a life.

Here's a question. If assisted dying was to become law in the UK, would you insist that every GP/other doc had to be prepared to offer that service? Cos you would simply haemmorage doctors in that case.

I agree very strongly that religion should be left at the door. I'm a teacher, and I despair at the amount of prosletysing that seems to be allowed in schools these days. I don't like the prayer at the end of Beavers. I'm a Happy Clappy Baptist, go to church most weeks, my kids go to Sunday School and a midweek club at church - but that is what church is for - its not what schools, hospitals, GP practices etc are for (and tbh I think that the poster - forget who, sorry- who talked about her "Christian" GP Practice should consider reporting them - they must be breaking a whole load of employment laws)

But there have to be ethics in medicine/nursing etc. While there are still strong views on both sides about things like abortion and euthanasia, then legally binding protection should be respected.

Donnymouse, as for 'hard hearts' remember that religion doesn't just mean christianity. How would you feel if you visited a child in hospital and found a doctor telling them how Satan could cure them if they swore to follow him?

NO WAY!

Doctors are there to look after my body. A vicar or someone similar is there to look after my spirit. I wouldn't want a vicar coming in to do an impromtu diagnosis of my illness so do not see why a doctor should feel capable of poaching on the vicar's patch either.

I am a nurse in the nhs and do have a faith, I have no problem with not discussing it with patients and even when asked (which is rare) I tend to be evasive and suggest more appropriate people to talk to. Having said that I have far more pressing things to talk to patients about - like their healthcare- to have the time to talk spiritual matters.

My role , as with medics and other hcps, is to respect the patients beliefs not peddle my own either verbally or otherwise. It is not policy within the nhs to do this nor should it be as we work in a multicultural society.

I honestly wonder where these people who think they have got the time to discuss spirituality work. tbh I think they need jobs in deprived inner city areas. they wouldn't have the time to think about faith then as they would be too busy trying to survive the day.

agree with solidgold

as a Christian I may well pray for someone I have met in the course of my work (I pray about all sorts of things) but I will not waste my employer's time by informing them of the fact

People have been expressing anxiety about BNP members being teachers or health care professionals quite a bit lately, on the grounds that they might not be able to leave their political prejudices outside the workplace. My personal take on that is the same as on the superstition-peddling - believe and think whatever old cock you like, but keep your trap shut about it at work. If you can't keep your personal issues out of the workplace then you shouldn't be in any kind of job that involves direct contact with the public unless it;s in a recognized viewpoint-pushing organisation of some sort.

As a 17 year old I started having seizures. At one point it got so bad I was hospitalised for 8 days. On one of the three wards I was on a Dr came to talk to me (I believe she had noticed me when I was on a post operative geriatric side ward). She started asking questions about my seizures and seem quite caring. When I explained they started a little while after I had a 1st trimester miscarriage she sighed and said 'Ah that explains it, God is punishing you for having premarital sex'. When I said I didn't believe in a God she then smiled and said 'Exactly!'. She was a Geriatric Registrar. What she thought she was doing talking to me a 17 year old with neuro problems I don't know@@@@@

I didn't know what to do as I was not accompanied by my parents, I didn't know who to complain to about this matter and it would have been just my word against hers. She was not in anyway responsible for my care as I was under a Neurologist not a Geriatrics specialist. It made me feel incredibly vunerable at a time when I was in need of support not to be used to prop up someone's view of what god does to sinners and unbelievers. It's so nice to think that not only did god was punishing me for premarital sex/not believing by killing my baby, he also thought fit (ha I made a funny ) to give me epilepsy too.

If HCPs are allowed to approach patients with a view to proletysing then I will find getting any health care very difficult.

I have first-hand of experience of a GP's religious beliefs being at odds with my own.

I had recently moved to a new area and registered with a practice as I was expecting my first child. I asked him about antenatal tests only to be told "You don't want to worry yourself with any of that as if it showed anything you wouldn't consider termination would you?".

I was totally astounded at this and immediately re-registered with another GP. I found out later that the first practice was that of 2 GP brothers who were Catholics and also undertook missionary work.

This was 20 years ago but I have always felt that those GPs, with such strong religious beliefs, could influence a patient at a troubling time in their life into making a decision that may not be in his / her best interests.

How far could this go - if some gp's dont want to sanction abortions for superstition/religious reasons, then what happens if a gp will not give antinatel care to an unmarried woman? How far will this be pushed that beliefs of a medical perosn bing payed with public money allow them not to care for a patient?.

If a gp or other medic wnats to work gor the public sector then I want them to leave there own beliefs at the door and not mix them with my rights as a patient.

Just as I would not verbally abuse a medical person I want their behaviour to be respectful of me as a patient.

Religion/superstition has not place in NHS

Sorry, but it's just not professional, is it? I wouldn't expect their political beliefs to enter the GP surgery, either.

TBH, the proposal to allow GPs and other HCPs to introduce their faiths and pray for patients made me think 'blimey - that's a bit Medieval, isn't it?' It just doesn't have a place in modern medical practice. I have nothing against a GP having a private pray for me as their patient if they don't tell me, but if they said they'd pray for me, I'd feel horribly awkward and resentful that they were bringing private beliefs to bear on my problem.

And a bit short-changed, frankly! Cure me, don't pray for me!

I think I'm going to have that sign made for my front door, as well!

I think that you would be shocked at how may christian doctors and nurses there are, as many are drawn into caring professions by what they believe.

It just devastates me that peoples hearts are so hard these days.

"The only religious training you need in the NHS is a sign over the door saying "leave it outside or stay outside"" - yep, that pretty much sums up my thoughts too

Unquietdad: yes I realise that, I was just being a little facetious

I've come back to this late but tinofspam, you're totally right about the children in hospital, I wasn't thinking - was just thinking of how I'd feel myself.

But I still think there's a difference between hospital where the staff's views are usually fairly incidental to the point of being there, and school which is where you're supposed to learn stuff. That's why I'm so furious about religious dogma (not learning about religion from the outside which is fine) in schools, because it's in a context of facts being imparted.

Also re hoo-haa - yes there certainly is objection to faith schools/religion in schools and I bang on about it all the time on here! What I meant was official hoo-haaa, so someone getting suspended for saying "I'll pray for you" and so on. Complete overreaction IMO whereas I think teachers definitely should be kicked out for telling children "christ died for our sins" as if it's a fact, but in fact schools are not only allowed to do that, they're actually required to.

I'd have put it gentler , but I'm with SGB. The only religious training you need in the NHS is a sign over the door saying "leave it outside or stay outside"

Good professional training = shut the fuck up about your own superstitions. Because it's not just a matter of being a christian or not - while some believers are merrily, bumblingly tolerant of all the other myth systems ('well, many of us have different names for the Celestial Teapot and It hears our prayers...')some are definitely not and, if devout subscribers to a different myth system, would be sincerely distressed if someone offered to pray on their behalf to a deity they don't believe in and ignored their personal preferences. A Jewish friend of mine was quite upset by a mental health care worker telling her to 'Let Jesus into your heart...'.

UnquietDad - I agree, most research on prayer is, largely, pointless, because it is trying to fit to different epistemologies together - or put it another way, if God exisits, why should he fit in with a research study? and if he doesn't exist, then you aren't going to find anything anyway. So, yes, take all such finding with a large dollop of salt.

fatslag - you raise very good points, hence the need for good professional guidelines - you cannot assume religion won't come up in the healthcare setting - in our multicultural, multi faith society it does more than it ever did in the past, but you can control how it is handled to avoid the problems to you identify.

UnquietDad again - yes, belief and un-belief are not easy to explain to each other. Grace (not just in the theological sense) and consideration and being willing to disagree in a friendly manner help. Walk a mile in another person's shoes is also a good principle. It is so much easier to stereotype than to listen.

I maintain my point that to avoid people being discomforted or threatened (or just hacked off) by inappropriate expressions of faith (religious, political or otherwise) you don't get far by just slapping it down, but you can go a long way with good training and good professional and Trust practice guidelines in these areas.

With that, I bid you all a peaceful goodnight

Even if the patient asked (and as mentioned before the complaints were from patients who didn't) the doctor is supposed to be busy treating people. While he wastes time preaching what's happening to his other patients?

I don't want a doctor to ask permission because if I admit to a doctor that I'm NOT interested in his faith I could end up getting worse treatment. As it is I could be misdiagnosed because my specialist has a gap in his training that he had to miss because of his religion.

I am more and more concerned at the concept of religious GPs and pharmacists who do not offer the full range of services because of their beliefs. It's been said already, but it needs emphasising. There is currently no law that requires an area to HAVE a GPs/pharmacist that doesn't restrict treatment. We are relying on relative numbers and pure luck.

where do you find these doctors who have spare time on their hands once they have given you the briefest of update on your actual medical problems? personally I find it hard enough to get my medical questions answered

As much as I'm enjoying this everyone, I have to get an early night as I'm due at the hosp first thing for an elcs...

Have fun with the debate and don't forget to pray for me UQD I'd like a lizard man/crystal incantation combo from you if at all possible

Will check in when I'm home and hopefully in one piece

It's not about you if you who don't want anything to do with religion. As simple as that. No-one should be hassling you about prayer unless you express that you want to be prayed for. End of story. And clear guidelines and good training is all that is needed.

I think your second question LovelyTinofSpam - is a good one. A good doctor or nurse should be able to recognise clearly when a patient is raising a spiritual concern,and know where to refer (i.e. a Chaplain), or if they feel competent to do so (i.e. they are properly trained) to deal with it themselves.

I am frankly mystified by why so many posters here think that this simple BMA motion means they are going to get Bible Whipped!?

Not all patients are religious. Some are actively non religious.

Not all medical staff are religious. Some are actively non religious.

Not all religious patients have the same religion. Ditto medical staff.

Members of some religions may find offers of prayers from members of other religions insulting.

Some medical conditions may make religious medical staff very uncomfortable.

Five good reasons not to confuse religion and health care.

Certainly I don't believe that if one Christian in need patient clicks with another Christian in need nurse there should be disciplinary action because the two of them have talked about faith.

But given the five previous possibilities I have listed, I still think it's better kept out of healthcare. And if some want to defend a nurse's right to offer prayer without being disciplined, I want to defend my right as an atheist patient for religion not to be mentioned around my bed.

Rubberduck - I think it's just pretty random really. No correlation at all. Religion and prayer are the perfect example of the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy (after this, therefore because of this) - it's the association of discrete portions of data which, in fact, have no association... Or, put another way - a perceived correlation does not equal a causation unless proven to do so. It's like linking the number of people eating foccaccia bread to the number of people watching Doctor Who - both can be shown to have risen steadily between 2005-08, but there is no actual automatic link between them.

Spamhead, your argument demonstrates perfectly the "fish" mentality of religion. I've always found it appropriate that the fish is a Christian symbol, because religious people "swim" in religion - it's their natural habitat and they are surrounded by it. They (almost physically) can't step outside it and see it as someone "alien" to religion would. I think Rhubarb said on here (one believer with whom I have had some quite courteous exchanges) that you "just can't not" believe. I understand that. I think that's as good a way as any of explaining it to an atheist.

Conversely, atheists need to find ways of explaining to a religious person what it is like being us. What we often do (and for which I am often roundly berated for being "rude", inexplicably), is to compare your "thing believed without evidence" with another "thing believed without evidence" - to illustrate how odd and strange and daft religious belief appear if you are outside it. (Or if you are, to continue the metaphor above, on land. Or in a boat. ) So we choose things which are deliberately ridiculous like the Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Or, to put it another way, wouldn't you find it odd if a doctor said: here are your antibiotics, and as I think it'll help too, I can [wave a crystal at you/ offer a sacrifice to Apollo/ make an incantation to the Lizard Men/ delete as applicable] ?

Spamhead which of us is your post actually directed at? The "this is not about you" stuff... Then maybe whoever you are talking to can respond.

Fatslag that's the problem isn't it. And how do you know that the "offer of prayer" is sonething that coincides with the patients particular set of beliefs.

FWIW there was a hoo-ha about people going onto the wards at our local hospital and handing out religious leaflets - but wouldn't you know it I can't find the story now...

If you know a patient well, know that they have a faith, or have raised the issue with you, then you know it might be appropriate. It is good clinical skills to recognise not just the physical, psychological and social needs of your patient, but the spiritual as well.

When I trained as a nurse, recognising the spiritual needs of your patient, whether religious or otherwise, was one of the essential parts of assessing and care planning. Providing appropriate spiritual care is in the BMA professional guidelines, it is in the NMC code of conduct, it is (in Scotland at least) a requirement that all Health Boards draw up clear guidelines and training in spiritual care. It is, like it or not, and always has been an essential part of good healthcare. You may not want it, and you don't have to have it, but other people do.

Once again, it is not about foisting anything on anyone, it is about responding to a genuinely expressed need in some patients. Why is that a problem? If someone thinks prayer could help them, and they want the doctor, nurse or whoever to pray with them, why is that a bad thing? You personally may think that is rubbish and nothing to do with healthcare, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not up to you to say what another person should or should not have by way of support from their GP, nurse, midwife or whatever.

How do you know who "might actually appreciate the offer of prayer"? It's an offer that simply isn't appropriate.

And therein you both have hit the nail on the head. Of course you don't want to have someone's beliefs fosited on you. No-one has suggested that is appropriate, not has abn=nyone even hinted tht it is appropraite to foist anything anyone who is not looking for it? Why do you think that?

This is not about you, it is about people who actually might appreciate the offer of prayer. That's all. Nothing to be threatened by, not now or ever.

As for the only medical professionals being disciplined are those who over stepped the mark, I know of many, many more cases than are in the media - some have overstepped the mark, and needed to be corrected, some acted in good faith and got slapped down when some thoughtful responses from management were needed. None need have happened if better training and guidelines on these issues were in place. You may not like that, but some patients do, and sensible guidelines and good training means you all get the care you need and deserve without either being forced into a corner by a zealous evangelist, or having your very real needs and questions ignored because the health professional is too poorly trained, or scared of being disciplined, or not sure where the guidelines and boundaries are.

Where are these patients who are being pressurised and proselytised? They don't exist I suspect - apart from the odd case (none that you know from the press by the way - ones I know from my own work), it just does not happen. You fear something that is not out there and is not happening.

I've never brought faith up with patients but on many occasions patients have brought it up with me because it is an important part of their lives and affects how they cope wiuth illness. With the recent cases about faith and medicine it would be nice to have some backing to participate in these conversations without feeling uncomfortably that I shouldn't.

Look AFAIK the only times medical professionals have been reprimanded for crap-peddling has been when they have overstepped the mark, been offensive or just annoying in pestering patients who had expressed no desire for superstition-sharing. There isn;t anything wrong with a bit of mutually-appreciated mumbo-jimbo, but the reporting comes from the bucketheads who are trying to push their own crap-peddling agenda.

No and no and no. No way do I want medical professionals asking me if I want prayer with my paracetamol. If I'm hurting and feeling scared, the LAST thing I want is someone asking me if I want a prayer. I wouldn't want to have to be polite to them (did ya guess? ), I would want to push them out of the window and then report them.

As you say, there are plenty of non-religious ways of expressing concern for "existential needs", how about the medical pros stick to them? Why this NEED to offer "spiritual comfort" when patients may not want it?

Keep religion out of the public sphere.

Interesting thread! Lots of agner and lots of half baked half truth being pushed around by the sound of it. It certainly seems to have gotten some people's ire up at least.

To inject some sanity - scientific research is ambiguous on prayer - several meta-studies show that it is inconclusive whether prayer per se has any clinical impact. However, there was a recent meta-study (i.e. an over view and analysis of around 100 other studies in the same or very similar areas) in the Journal of Advanced nursing that suggested that praying with a patient who has a faith can have a measurable impact in reducing stress anxiety and improving the symptoms of acute, reactive depression. Not conclusive proof, but worth a good GP or nurse bearing in mind.

As for this BMA Motion, I confess I have not read it in detail, but digging a bit behind the hysteria, all it says is that health professionals should be able to ask a patient if they would like prayer without fear of censure and disciplinary action, if it is deemed appropriate - i.e. on the basis that they have expressed a faith or concern that is spiritual in nature. I think it should go further and say that appropriate training and national guidelines on providing spiritual care are needed in England. Scotland's NHS has just such training and guidelines, and allegedly Wales does too (though no-one I know there has ever seen sight of them). Interesting that all the negative stories seem to come from England, isn't it?

As for all of that being the chaplains' job - it is and should be, but they are usually thin on the ground and, from experience of people I know in the trade, most nurses are pretty poor at referring patients to a Chaplain, mainly because they have no idea how to even asses if the patient has a spiritual need.

And spiritual does not always have to mean religious - just because you are an atheist does not mean you do not have existential needs and questions in a time of crisis - you just frame them in a non-religious manner, and deal with them in non-religious ways. I've been to humanist funerals that had plenty of spiritual stuff going on. Whether there is a case for humanist chaplains is an interesting one, but to date I have never met one.

I think anyone sane would oppose patients being pressurised and being agressively proselytised - ethically that would be very, very wrong, and it's a no-brainer. However, that is not what this BMA motion is talking about. It is easy to fly off the handle when we see these things (often poorly) report in the press, and not dig out the details, nuances and facts.

OK, that's my tu'penny's worth. I'll shut up and take the flak like a gentleman..

Expat - when I say Christian bucketheads I am referring to a specific sub-set of Christians. Ie the ones who are behind this and other fuckwit news non-stories. They are alwasy bleating about being 'discriminated against for their christian beliefs' when what they mean by that is 'they are not being given special license to inflict their supsertitious crap on other people. THis particular story is that one of these bucketheads is trying to claim that human rights are being infringed because they are not allowed to crap-peddle at work - they are trying to claim the right to bother all their patients with christian bullshit, whatever the patients think. There isn;t anything much wrong with a medical health practitioner offering to behead a chicken or do a headstand on behalf of a patient who shares a particular superstition with that health practitioner - plenty of medical practitioners adhere to one or other myth system, just as many of them vote for one or another political party, and don't inappropriately pester their patients with it.

Oh FFS expat didn't read your post properly. Not too much bond them, I am expert on world religions. it is confirmed.

expat I knew aomeone was going to say that but couldn't think of what religions they do do that stuff. Voodoo maybe? Or have I been watching too much bond...

fatslag nothing trollish I agree with you completely.

Interesting I had the jehovahs witnesses around for the first time the other day waving a leaflet with a pregnant woman and something about abortion. They told me they were in the neighbourhood to discuss "god's views on this issue". I patted my 36 week stomach and said "ah well you don't need to talk to me hahaha" or some other comment but didn't get the barrell of laughs back i was expecting...

I suppose my point is that the christian people seem to think it's OK to refuse to do things to do with their faith but what about things to do with other faiths? What about jehovahs witness surgeons not giving blood transfusions? What about exclusive brethren refusing to use modern technology? What about an osbtetric specialist or midwife refusing to see anyone unmarried?

Same goes for the praying and offering spiritual support. Christian is fine but not other religions? Which ones? Where do you draw the line?

It just goes on and on. There should be no opt outs at all IMO. If you don't want to do the whole job, do a different job. If you want to go around offering to pray for people, become a spiritual leader, offer your services to the hospital as an extension of your role. Don't approach people in hospital randomly asking them about their faith for crying out loud.

Even if you were a Christian you should be rightly pissed off if your GP asked if they could pray for you. Wasn't there a scientific study that showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse? (The hypothesis was that the psychological effect of knowing someone was praying for you was that you were actually much more seriously ill than you thought and that was considered the only avenue left!)

'What if the person in question was a pagan and said "I'll slaughter a chicken for you"? Would you brush that off too?'

Some practitioners of voodoo or santeria do perform animal sacrifices, but it's a myth that this is a universal pagan practice .

Ok I know I'm being deliberately provocative and trollish, but I would like to see something akin to modern anti-smoking laws: what you do in your own home, in your own head, in your own church is fine. But it stops there. So no to faith in public hospitals, state schools, government departments and public transport.

FFS I had the JW's round the other day (hanging around in the porch in front of my apartment, it was raining) who tried to give a pamphlet to my 5 year old. "Oh he'll like it, it's full of cartoons". In a sane society, that would be a criminal offence.

I think if the doctor and patient both agree beforehand, then they should be allowed to have a chat about it without disciplinary action.

I personally wouldn't entirely trust a doctor who was superstitious or believed in mythical beings any more than I'd trust a doctor who believed in homeopathy or unicorns.

Totally agree about the schools. I'm in France where we have official separation of church and state.

But, looking at the list of BMA motions, it seems to me that what is being asked is that just having a conversation with a patient about faith (or praying for them, which might, in some circumstances, be appropriate, I think) should not lead to disciplinary action or suspension.

What if you had a patient, without family, say, who had just been told they have a terminal illness - and the patient raises this sort of issue, and wants to talk about how they feel?

What if the patient is very religious and asks "What do you think doctor?" or says "Think of me" or even "Say one for me" to a staff member wearing a crucifix?

It's not only adults who have to spend time in hospital muffle.

What if the person in question was a pagan and said "I'll slaughter a chicken for you"? Would you brush that off too?

And I believe there is plenty of hoo-ha about daily acts of worship in state schools and faith schools, at least on these boards.

It's funny, I'm an atheist but a healthcare person kindly saying "I'll keep you in my prayers" wouldn't bother me at all - I'd take it as it was meant - I don't mind it any more than someone saying "bless you".

What amazes me is that there is a hoo-haa about this, and authorities banning staff from mentioning it, and yet in state schools it's the law that they must have an act of worship and it must be predominantly christian - and that's for young impressionable minds in a context where they are supposed to be being taught facts. That riles me. In a hospital, with a member of staff talking about their own religious feelings and thoughts, as an adult, you can just think ho hum, whatever, that doesn't affect me. If you really wanted you could say "thanks but no thanks, prayer has actually been scientifically proven to be completely ineffective" but I actually wouldn't be so rude.

It would be different if NHS staff were saying things like "well you'll be off to hell since you're a heathen, repent the now", that I would object to.

if it were me I would say "you will be in my thoughts" and leave it at that.

And find the chaplain or someone more suitable to talk to them about their beliefs.

Solid - totally agree with you. Health care is one area where faith simply should not be an issue unless the patient specifically WANTS it to be.

Which then begs the question... if I am an atheist nurse and some religious nut keeps bugging me to pray for him/her, do I have the right to say "I am an atheist and I do not believe in the power of prayer?"

I would not feel comfortable attending a christain surgery and would not do so. Full stop.

So if that's all there was, I would not be able to access the GP service.

Okay, I take your meaning, squilly. And I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with a practice like yours at all, having been brought up a Roman Catholic and all my family still being practicing Catholics.

I also grew up in a conservative state in the US where there are many Protestant denominations of Christianity so Christianity is more familiar to me than other religions just by virtue of exposure.

But I guess if I were say, a Muslim, it might make me uncomfortable.

The GP thing is slightly different isn't it, as they are self employed and can more or less set their own rules within a framework - rather than having to adhere to rules set by someone else ie the hospital trust. GPs are allowed to put people off their lists for example.

I find weegie's comment about her DH interesting. When the doctor smugly told me that she would not prescribe the pill as it went against her beliefs I had a very strong feeling that she was disapporoving of my lifestyle - of which she knew nothing. That is not providing the service for the patient, that is denying a service based on a medically irrelevant belief structure.

If you are a young woman and you go to your GP pregnant I do not see how it is helpful in facilitating her decision to say that you are against abortion on principle. As that is telling her that abortion is wrong in your eyes. So not presenting it as a reasonable choice.

Ditto the language in the article about doctors being able to use the term "going against their ethics" to carry out certain procedures etc. To the patient that is telling them that by definition the service they want to access is unethical. However it is not unethical to use contraception etc so how can it be right to tell people that that is so?

As for the original article - it wasn't about people engaging with people about religious things if they asked. It was about looking to provide spiritual support if they hadn't asked. Totally different kettle of fish.

And BTW people can pray for me all they fancy, I just don't want to know about it. I would find it unnerving and frankly it would make me question the level of care I was receiving.

I realise this is the bigger picture Expat and I don't disagree with anything you've said, but as a snapshot I think our GPs show that religion can be involved in delivery of healthcare without it being shoved down your throat every day or creating difficulties.

I do see, however, that this view could be changed if I was dealing with a sick relative and didn't really want any extra hassle to deal with. I think I'd be excused in such circumstances, however, for telling any such medical pratctioner to f**k right of

At least, I'd hope so

'I'm just pointing out that our surgery is christian and I, as a non-believer, have found it to be flawless.'

Yes, but surely you can see that this discussion is pertaining to the NHS at large.

We love our GPs ( weegie) and don't have a problem with organised religion ourselves but I can see where others might, if say, there was only a practice such as yours in the area and they were Muslim or Jewish or non-Christian.

Maybe not, but maybe so.

For such reasons, my feeling is that they should keep that side of their lives to themselves unless a patient specifically asks.

I don't have a problem with physicians having religions, except where it means a patient, because of transport or location issues, can't get the care they need because of a healthcare worker's beliefs.

Actually, couldn't care less what a person does in his/her non-professional lif as it's no one's business but his/her own, be it their religion or other practices.

Solid, we all know how you feel about organised religion, but c'mon, don't you think 'bucketheads' is a over-the-score?

Personally, abortions are not for me, I won't even use the copper coil for similar reasons, but they are legal for others, I guess, so as long as there is someone else there to provide those if one person can't.

Trouble is, in some areas, there probably isn't.

I wouldn't have a problem with a practice like yours, squilly, but the principle of the matter is that others very well might, and it's a government-funded healthcare programme.

I'm not talking about a wider provision issue. I'm talking about my own surgery and how it works. And I still don't see a problem with it.

They don't ram religion down your throat and they don't judge you on your beliefs. They do, however, state that they are a christian practise, because that's the main reason why the doc went into practise in the first place.

If this was a rural area you undoubtedly wouldn't be able to accommodate our catholic GPs wants, but because we have our surgery run as it is, we can. And we do have alternatives.

I'm not suggesting this is the model for all other GP practises. I'm not suggesting this would work everywhere. I'm not even commenting on the larger issues of the NHS. I'm just pointing out that our surgery is christian and I, as a non-believer, have found it to be flawless.

Deeja - that is appaulling and that nurse should have been reported - totally out of order and disrespectful to you.

In Scotland you don't expat - except in a rural area where you don't have any choice, and even then, a lot of people are registered where they work, rather than where they live.

My dh is a doctor and a Christian, and many of his patients know that, especially as he has been working part time while he did a degree in Theology! He would never ever bring it up, but if a patient does, then he is happy to talk to them about it, and has prayed with patients when they have asked him to do so. We used to live in a fairly churchgoing part of the country, where a lot of people, especially the elderly, really appreciated that.

He doesn't, as is his right under the abortion act, refer for terminations. There is another doctor in the practice who does. I think to suggest that he should be prevented from doing all the other amazing stuff he does as a GP just because of this is wrong.

After the birth of ds2, while I was recovering from emergency cs, and very ill. There was a nurse that would constantly harp on about christianity to me. It was obvious that I am in fact a muslim, but she continuously sang hymns very loudly outside the curtain, which I have started to keep shut so that she would leave me alone.
No medical staff should not allow their religious beliefs to over-ride the care of patients. I once had to endure a male muslim nurse who was disgusted that I showed him my arm for a blood-test, fgs. As for the muslim pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for the morning after pill, that is obsurd, all medication is allowed in islam, even the morning after pill.
However, these instances are rare, and have never had too much of a problem.

BTW I do pray for some of those I have treated, just as I do whenever I see an ambulance with blue lights etc....but I don't tell them that I am going to. Is that enough to be reported for misconduct or would you only object if I told you that was what I was doing? Bit off the subject, but just wondered....

'But our service doesn't exclude anyone at all, so I really don't see what the problem is. They allow a practising catholic doctor to live by his beliefs, by not making him deal with family planning issues. They employ a different doctor who can take up that role for him.

They don't exclude people who aren't christian, so they are providing healthcare for everyone. Therefore the argument doesn't stand.'

But you're basing your argument on teh belief that, everywhere you go, there are plenty of surgeries around if you don't like a Christian (or other one where faith and articles of faith are obvious), or that every surgery has plenty of doctors on hand if one refuses to perform certian functions or provide certain forms of care because of his/her religious beliefs.

This is not uniform in every place. Many areas have only one choice for surgery available. In Scotland, for example, you have to go to the surgery based on your address.

In rural areas, options are limited.

So by allowing NHS healthcare providers to opt out of certain functions due to their religious beliefs, this is a denial of care and completely unacceptable as the NHS is not a private insurance provider.

I knew as soon as i wrote that, someone would come back with that comment, expat. Yes, i didn't articulate it well enough and of course, refusing care does impose your religion on others - which I have said is wrong. But....the OP was about a motion (a very minor one that hasn't been passed) that was saying that doctors wanted to be able to talk about spiritual matters. Presumably, this motion is needed becuase of the recent reported suspensions. There was a lot of religion bashing and bashing of doctors with religion at the start of this thread and I just wanted to say that most healthcare professionals are not like that and actually do respect their patient's wishes. Those that don't, should clearly be dealt with professionally. I am now aware, though, that if a patient asks me about my faith and talks to me about theirs, due to the recent press coverage, I am much more wary to talk about it. I don't actually think doctors want to be chaplains, and if this motion seems to suggest that, it is wrong. I personally just read it as a way of protecting those amongst us who may enter into a discussion with the patient's consent. Maybe i am being too idealistic.

If any doctor I went to see gave me a promise to pray for me with the prescription, I'd look at him/her as if they were mad, and then report them for professional misconduct.

Look, this is the fucking buckethead christians at it once again. They are demanding the right to make pests of themselves ie the right to voluntarily crap-peddle to patients despite the patients' wishes, opinions and personal beliefs. It is not appropriate for medical professionals to peddle superstitious crap to patients - patients who want superstitious stuff are at liberty to call in their own crap-peddlers or indeed make use of the NHS ones.
THe 'victimized-for-being-christians-' bucketheads always turn out to have overstepped the mark, demanded special privileges or said something unacceptable to someone else. Plenty of peope manage to be christians without actually being arseholes about it, same as other people don't autiomatically bring their football tribalism or political affiliations into the workplace.

But our service doesn't exclude anyone at all, so I really don't see what the problem is. They allow a practising catholic doctor to live by his beliefs, by not making him deal with family planning issues. They employ a different doctor who can take up that role for him.

They don't exclude people who aren't christian, so they are providing healthcare for everyone. Therefore the argument doesn't stand.

I only mentioned that they state they are a christian practise because they feel it's important for people to know that. The fact that you don't believe in God may affect your choice of surgery, but would never affect their service.

Sorry if I implied you had to be christian to be treated there.

Also, I just meant in terms of christian faith, the catholic situation. I know that muslims have major issues with things like the MAP.

'It started off by implying that doctors who have a faith will want to shove their faith down the throats of those who don't want it and i just wanted to point out that this is not the case for most people.'

But when a physician or healthcare worker denies a patient care by refusing to perform a certain duty because of their religion, they are shoving their faith down someone's throat.

I actually agree with you LovelyTinOfSpam in the fact that any healthcare professional shouldn't practice in a field where they cannot give patients the full care - so, for instance, doctors who disagree with emergency contraception should not work in areas where they will come accross patients who requst this. It is not fair on the patient. But that is not what the original discussion was about. It started off by implying that doctors who have a faith will want to shove their faith down the throats of those who don't want it and i just wanted to point out that this is not the case for most people.
'If you try and take advantage of someone sick or dying to push your religion I won't debate and quibble over your right to do so. I will just hit you with a chair until you stop'

The discussion then went on to have a go at those with a faith.

'Keep your f'ing superstitious cr*p to yourself.'

The NHS should not be divided amongst lines of religion and, for the most part, it isn't. To say so is sensationalist. Yes, by all means, it should be clear that Doctors should not refuse patients care on the basis of their own religious belief - i believe that that goes against the code by which healthcare professionals ahdehere to - namely to provide the best care for the patient. But, that is not what this discussion was about and I just wanted to address some of the comments that had been raised.

'Isn't it just catholics who object to the coil/abortion/morning after pill? Or at least mostly catholics? I may be wrong but my own GP has never had a problem here.'

No, not all. Many of any faith who believe that life begins at conception have issues with copper coil, abortion and MAP, as evinced by MT's link regarding a Muslim pharmacist who does not wish to hand out MAP.

LovelyTinOfSpam - I agree with you completely.

I do not drive, and if my local pratices (those within walking distance) were all faith based, I would effectively be denied a service.

No-one isa saying that healthcare professionals shouldn't have a faith, girlwiththecurl. Just that their faith should not interfere with their ability to do all aspects of their job, or be raised with patients who do not wish to discuss it.

squilly I have been thinking about your surgery. What if you lived in a very muslim area and all the practices were muslim and you were an athiest? You wouldn't be able to use them. Ditto if you were in an area where all the practices were christian and you were a hindu, or jewish, or whathaveyou.

The NHS is supposed to be open to all eligible people but that would effectively close the service off to loads of people. Especially those who couldn't drive to the one non religious practice miles away and so on.

I know you will say but yours is only one, and people can go somewhere else, but its the principle. People should not be denied a service as taxpayers because they do not adhere to a particular creed or superstition.

It all reminds me of the whole faith schools thing, and that despite merrily paying my taxes for years my DD will not be able to attend a primary school in walking distance because they are all faith schools.

Do we really want the NHS being divided along reigious lines, with some people not being able to access services at all? I would very much hope not.

sorry - just to add, and if, once invited into a discussion with a patient, it would be nice to feel that my job is not under threat as a result. So, as far as this piece of 'news' goes - if it actually did come to something, I don't think it will actually change the way most would practice and for those who do abuse their position, as now, there are ways to deal with it through the professional bodies - and it should be dealt with. As long as respect for the patient is maintained, then there surely is no problem. I personally think this is over-sensationalised reporting designed to have a go at those amongst us who have a faith (as you have done on here)

hi - just wanted to present a slightly different view. Firstly not all christians are homophobic, shove-it-down your throat people who refuse people emergency contraception etc. I am a practising christian and a nurse - a sexual health and contraceptive nurse. I know many other health care professionals who, like me, believe that their role is to provide the best care for the patient - looking a what the patient wants and needs for their life. I would never just start talking about my faith to a patient without them bringing it up in some way, but if they did bring it up and have questions, then I would like to be able to tralk to them provided that it didn't interefer with my professional relationship with them. Whilst some 'professionals' may wish to shove it down unwilling people's throats, many more are happy to live their faith through service.

expat, one doc in the practise is catholic and will not get involved in these areas, but he is never in the surgery alone, iykwim. There's always an alternative doctor if you're looking to discuss contraception based issues and whenever I've rung and the catholic doctor is on duty I've been asked if the appointment is about family planning.

I've never had a problem with contraception of any kind, the morning after pill or anything else. They have always supported all forms of contraception.

Isn't it just catholics who object to the coil/abortion/morning after pill? Or at least mostly catholics? I may be wrong but my own GP has never had a problem here.

MT - I think that's terrible and would automatically make me want to take my custom elsewhere if I didn't already live too far away to visit either Sainsbury's or Boots. What happens when the colleague is off sick and Ahmed is there by himself?

"This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds"

I spent a week in hospital last year and it was crap. I was bloody miserable and wanted to go home and I think someone bringing up religion would have tipped me over the edge. I shouldn't have to worry about people harping on about their religion when I'm stuck in bed and can't escape.

I think religious support should be available for those that want it though but from a chaplain, not a doctor. And those that haven't requested it should be left well alone.

what if you wanted, say, an abortion or morning-after-pill, squilly?

would they just send you somewhere else?

what if you wanted, say, the copper coil (considered an abortificant by many Christians)?

Slightly different, but my GP runs a Christian practise where all the staff are religious. It states so clearly on the walls, not shoving it down your throats, just stating this is a christian practise. There's also a small plaque devoting the place to the glory of God near the reception area.

You don't like it? You find another doctors. There's several in the close area but funnily enough, this one is very busy.

I find my GP compassionate, understanding and frankly a bloody briliant doctor. He always explains what's wrong with us fully and is always understanding of things like depression or exhaustion.

I'm not religious myself, but he has offered to pray for me once when I was having a really shit time (after my second miscarriage). He knew how much we wanted kids and was always very kind about it. I think he's possibly the best doctor in the world.

So...though I understand it's not what you'd necessarily want throwing at you when you're dealing with the sickness of a loved one, and particularly coming from a stranger, I like my GP just the way he is. And I'd be sad if someone said he couldn't be up front abuot his religion any more. It's clearly really important to him.

MT - I was quite shocked by your link about Muslim medical students refusing to study certain things. I have never heard anything like this before. Have they no human compassion? And patients suffering from sexually transmitted diseases might not be promiscuous in any way, but could be totally monogamous and have caught the disease from an unfaithful partner, for example.

I don't think I would be happy with the idea that there could be doctors who have not studied the full curriculum and might not recognise the signs/ symptoms of certain diseases. Where does one draw the line? Should non-smoking doctors refuse to treat smoker patients? It's ridiculous.

Religion has no place in medicine. A dcotor has to treat people from all walks of life, and all different creeds. If they are not happy with that, then they are in the wrong profession.

Its incorrect for news organisations to suggest that this is the view of the medical profession as a whole.

This story comes from a motion due to be raised at the BMA Annual meeting next week.

You can see it here:
link

It is motion number 368, on page 51.

You only have to look at the other motions that have been suggested to set this 'news' into context. It will be voted on at the AGM, Isuppose we will see then if it is passed or not.

i would find this inappropriate and wouldn't hesitate to state this and then request a switch of physician because i don't want to be cared for by someone who allows his or her personal life to interfere with their professional life (unless he/she is an RE teacher or vicar or that).

Talked about this with my DH (who does believe in something but doesn't do organised religion, but his parents do) and he flat out could not understand why I would go mental if someone working in a professional medical capacity told me they would pray for me.

He seemed to think it was on a par to saying "all the best" or good luck or something.

Just goes to show you don't have to be a religious nut to think some really odd things are "harmless".

MT your first link reminded me of something at the GPs a few years ago. I went in for the pill and the doc did the blood pressure etc and printed the prescription but then had to take it for a colleague to sign as her religious beliefs prevented her from doing it. All delivered in a quite superior manner with undertones of "you dirty little slapper".

I told my dad (GP) and he was livid and said it should not be allowed. His view is that doctors are not there to make judgements about their patients choices, they are there to treat them. He also thought that people shouldn't be able to opt out of performning abortions - if you don't want to do it then go into a different branch of medicine.

I get sooooooooooo p*ed off about this sort of thing. People want to believe in Father Christmas, FINE. BUT DON'T BEAT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH IT. Particularly if I'm ill. Keep your f'ing superstitious cr*p to yourself.

AIBU?

It is utterly inappropriate. It shouldn't even be up for debate.

Tbh I don't think it would be a priority in your average doctors treatment plan.

I am an atheist so would be a bit narked by it.

Having said that dds paed,who is a very lovely man,quite often talks about God.I have no idea what religion he is but he often says "God will look after you all" at the end of his consults (Last time we saw him dp was quite poorly and the docs spent 5 mins of dds consult listening to dps woes,not really part of his job).He is such a lovely man that I would feel a bit of a miserable cow saying I didn't believe in God!

If there are any doctors reading this let me make my position clear. If you try and take advantage of someone sick or dying to push your religion I won't debate and quibble over your right to do so. I will just hit you with a chair until you stop.

They ought to make up their minds. I remember not so long ago a nurse was suspended for telling a patient that she would pray for them. Doctors are not there to discuss religion and anyway they barely have time to discuss the medical details of a patients condition.

definitely no from me too. It is a personal choice and if I want to discuss spirituality I will talk to a priest - not a doctor when I'm trying to take in what has been said.

Think its certain doctors trying to return to paternalistic healthcare (wonders if these are the ones who talk about special medicines..)

Absoultely not! There are hospital chaplains for this.

There are already doctors in the NHS who can't refuse, but can defer you to another doctor if you are asking for an abortion if they don't 'believe' in it - and also doctors refusing to treat homosexual patients.

A big NO from me!

blimey

This has really surprised me and is not something I would be at all happy about. I don't want the people who are caring for me when I am ill wittering on about god and my spiritual wellbeing. I am an athiest. I do not want my midwife asking if she can pray for me for example

My hospital has a chaplain and a prayer room - you can ask for people of whatever religion to come and see to you if you want to talk spiritual stuff. Why on earth would you want your nurse or doctor chatting on uninvited?

I also notice they talk about Christianity - but many staff in hospitals are muslim, jewish, buddhist, well all creeds and faiths are covered. My mum even worked in theatre with a jehovahs witness!

So naturally if the christians can spread the word on the words all the other religions could too...

This sounds like a dreadful idea - there is already provision for those who want it, why give free rein to all and sundry to bring it up all the time? A lot of religions have a tihng which says their followers should spread the word or convert others - the more fervent people wouldn't be able to help themselves would they? And they have the best audience in the world - a captive audience who may be facing their own mortality.

Any thoughts? Anyone think this is a good idea?