Religion in hospitals - docs want to chat about god

[LovelyTinOfSpam]

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?

.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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

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!)