Religion and Medicine
As the national debate over religion has been more prevalent, there is more discussion on whether doctors should invoke religion as a means of comforting, understanding, and guiding patients.For many physicians, doing so comes naturally.
In a July 2005 issue of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, a survey showed that 90 percent of the 1144 physicians surveyed attend religious services at least occasionally (compared with 81 percent of the general population), and 55 percent agree with the statement, "My religious beliefs influence how I practice medicine."
Many physicians see religion as one of many things that should be taken into consideration and, occasionally, "prescribed" if it's important to the patient and might affect his or her response to medical recommendations.
I personally ask all new patients about their religious beliefs. I believe it has an impact on their care as some religions forbid transfusions, some have special diets and others guide their beliefs in treatment and healing. I believe it should be asked of every patient as part of a complete history.
Knowing something about a patient's belief system can be helpful in determining social support systems and their acceptance of death.
Many patients and families ask physicians to pray with them or for them as they go through difficult times and it is more common if patients understand their physician’s beliefs.
Holding their hand and offering a silent prayer can be very beneficial to a patient with a religious belief, but it can offend others. This is why it is important to know the patient’s beliefs.
Physician’s initial goal is “to do no harm; and attempt to heal. Healing involves much more than prescribing pills or procedures.
Asking about religion is not proselytizing. It is part of a complete history as it impacts decisions on care.
The physician-patient relationship has to be open to conversation about anything that is relevant to the patient's experience of illness. This includes topics of sex, money, problems with kids, a troubled marriage, conflict at home, work stress or religion. All of these can exacerbate medical problems and coping mechanisms.
The best physician in the world can only prolong life and the statistics are pretty convincing that one out of every one person will die. We should do more to help with the dying aspect and this many times involves religion!
posted by Anonymous at 6:10 AM
34 Comments:
Last fall, while undergoing diagnosis for possible sleep apnea, I visited Floyd Memorial's facility to receive a trial mask & machine for night breathing.
The man was pleasant, but almost immediately asked me whether I was married and had children, then where I go to church.
As a longtime atheist, I'm accustomed to deflecting unwelcome probes, so I responded merely that I don't belong to a church - which is the truth.
Somewhat aggressively, he countered: "But you do believe in God, don't you?"
Acknowledging that he is a technician and not an MD, still I defy HB or anyone else to explain to me how this line of questioning had anything to do with my medical treatment.
It annoyed me, but since I'm a nice guy, I didn't include it on his evaluation.
I feel a personal physician should know where his patient stands on religious/belief issues in order to give that person the best care. I do feel that other people worry too much about other people's position with God and should be quiet and lead by example. The technician dealing with the new albanian would do better by giving thoughtful care than by sharing his thoughts.
A primary care doctor knowing his patients religion doesn't seem like a bad idea. I have spoken with my care providers about many aspects of my spiritual beliefs as they pertain to my medical care. I agree with HB it's good doctoring to take these things into account. I've also been in the position New Albanian has described whereby a professional encounter is compromised when you sense your privacy being threatened. I don't even like being asked if I'm married et al., so I more than most appreciate good boundaries in the work-a-day world. I was taught it was impolite to ask people such questions. I realize the "evangelize" in evangelical is there for a reason too and these old bounds of propriety don't always stand today. But what really worries me is care providers mistaking symptoms of illness as having spiritual cures. For instance, I would rather be treated for depression than prayed with if I "presented" in with malaise; I would rather be given cognitive behavioral therapy as opposed to prayer if I complained of panic attacks. Or if I showed up in the emergency room thinking the devil in is my spleen I'd hope I got some anti-psychotic meds, not a bible reading.
A note to the previous statement...there was recently a large-scale scientific study that proved prayer has no effect on the outcomes of illness, and that in fact, the study subjects would knew they were being prayed for fared worse than the control group. Leave religion at church!
Study performed by whom? On whom? Paid for by whom? Published by whom? Reviewed by whom?
All the talking we've done about tainted studies that produce bad data--I would have hoped that SOMEONE would have caught on by now. You cannot believe all the information that comes from random studies. I'm not saying that this alleged study is wrong--I question everything. You could show me a study that says the sky is blue, and I would ask the same questions as above.
Leaving religion at church is exactly what's wrong with religion. And church.
It wouldn't surprise me if studies that were deliberately designed to track the healing powers of prayer yielded inconclusive results. While I do believe that sometimes we have not because we ask not, I also believe that we have been instructed, "Do not put the Lord your God to a test."
We know that there is healing power in laughter and positive thinking, as there are innumerous studies that support the idea that "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine." How do you think praying makes people feel? Let's think it through, here, people.
$
Physicians do need to take religion into consideration including the religion of atheism, naturalism, etc. because it does affect the way a person copes with situations and especially their health.
The study g.coyle refers to has several flaws, biases, etc. as every study does. There are other studies contradicting these results.
Everyone has a religion and worldview and live by their beliefs. It does not belong solely in the church and cannot lie solely in the church because we live by our beliefs whether we are Christian, Jews, Muslim, Atheist, or Naturists.
Christianity has done many things to make civilization more "civil" even though critics only want to show the few bad things performed in the name of Christianity.
Compare any culture in the world where Christianity is or has been strong and compare it with those that are not and you can see the barbaric difference.
More civil? Are you kidding? Forced conversion and near destruction of native civilizations in North and South America by "Christian" Europe? Christian sects fighting each other forever in Northern Ireland--over rival versions of Christianity? Oh, let's not forget Christian Germany's civilizing efforts against the Jews and their "civil" treatment of the Russians during WWII. Should we mention how much the Inquisition added to a kinder, less barbaric culture? How about American Christian slave holders? Then we have the gentle civlizing work of Jim Jones, David Koresh and that "Christian" church that disrupts military funerals to punish America for condoning homosexuality. Witch trials? The "Christian" KKK?
Get real! Christianity is no more or less civilizing or gentle than most other belief systems. It is more than flexible enough to accomodate just about anything that anyone wants to do badly enough.
Anon 6:49,
Unfortunately, you are fighting a losing battle. HB is very skilled at setting the debate up.
He frames the "bad acts" in the name Christianity as foibles by man. The "bad acts" by those with other value systems or views are because of those systems.
Read the last two paragraphs of 6:18am comment above.
Let the record show that HB did not attempt to answer my concern.
What began as a generally helpful notion that it can be beneficial to know where patients are coming from with respect to religious belief quite predictably turned into another exposition about the "religion of atheism" (how absence of belief can be a religion is beyond me) and a celrbation of the civilizing influence of Christianity.
I feel like Charlie Brown, on his back, looking up at Lucy with the football -- baited and switched again.
6:49, if you study closely, you'll notice that a great deal, if not all, of the things you mention were done by/in the name of organized religion. This illustrates what I said before about how leaving religion at church is exactly what's wrong with religion, and with church. Historically, organized religion tends to be grossly corrupt as the focus shifts more toward legalism and ritual, and away from the call to model one’s life after Christ’s example. There is a vast difference between the two, and scripture warns us against allowing Sunday-morning ritual to take the place of pursuing a personal, daily relationship with our Savior—for those of us who accept Him as such.
In many ways, “religion” is synonymous with hypocrisy—as if there is anything we could ever do during a church service that would impress God, redeem ourselves, or transform our own hearts/lives in any way. If we could do that, we wouldn’t need Him. Sadly, there are many sick Christians, and many dead churches that believe this way. It gives us all a bad name. Our salvation is not about what we can do for God. He does not need us. But He wants us. And all He wants from us in return is that we would want Him, too. It is no different than any other parent/child relationship. Terrible things happen in the name of religion all the time, but this is a function of humanistic legalism rather than a shortcoming in the nature of Christianity.
This is what worries me about HB’s black and white philosophy. There is black. There is while. And sometimes, there is gray. There is a time and place for legalism, but we should be careful about letting it skew our vision.
P.s. "Compare any culture in the world where Christianity is or has been strong and compare it with those that are not and you can see the barbaric difference."
HB, this is a function of education (or lack thereof). Not religion. Look at India--NOT a Christian nation. Also not barbaric. While many Hindu and Christian principles are similar, Hinduism does not recognize one true God, let alone a Messiah.
Barbaric nations repress themselves through ignorance, which begs violence...of which organized religion has also been guilty. See previous comment.
Bad logic again. Tsk, tsk.
Not to say that these 2 represent all people from India, but aren't 2 doctors from India being held in question of the Scottish airport incident. Evil is of human nature not of God.
and who created that "human nature"? Pretty poor workmanship if you ask me.
I might have misunderstood HB's use of the word "barbaric." I understood him to be referring to barbaric cultures rather than barbaric individuals. Twisted persons can come from any setting, but my comment was more to the uneducated masses whom either control, or allow themselves to BE controlled because they don't know any better.
Did you see Blood Diamond? Something along those lines...some African countries are among the richest places in the world in terms of natural resources, but ignorance + violence = everyone starves to death. The guys with guns don't get it, though. Things could be so much easier on everyone if they would pull their heads out of their butts.
Funny how the same thing goes for healthcare providers, eh?
(1) Get your head out of your butt.
(2) See that your people are taken care of properly (patients AND staff).
(3) Enjoy all your new disposable income.
Come to think of it, I may have been giving us too much credit before. HB, take a whiff next time you’re in a nursing home (you do go there, don’t you?); count the call lights not being answered and then count the staff members standing around talking on their cell phones. Then come back and tell us again how civilized and what a good Christian nation we are. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?
$
Yes, yes, 3:52, you seem to have a firm grasp on your one critical thinking skill. Why would anyone have children when they could have puppets instead!
Well, anonymous 3:58, do you require your children to "worship" you? Do you damn them forever if they don't? Seems like that old Free Will is somewhat limited unless you want to spend eternity with Satan. If it walks funny and hangs from strings...it must be a puppet.
You can't require someone to love you. Read previous post--salvation is not something one can earn. It is only something one can accept. When we use our free will to reject what is offered to us through salvation, we damn ourselves. We choose the action, we choose the consequences.
If you want to debate this topic, you might want to learn something about it first.
You don't want to debate, you just want to mouth the platitudes that you have listened to for years without question. Free will is being able to choose between chocolate or vanilla. Between a vacation or a car. Between having children or not having children. Your definition of free will is that you can either do it exactly as God wants it (as described by the version of his will that you happen to adhere to)or you go to hell for all eternity. That is just stupid.
I think that there is a right way and a wrong way to pursue this. Asking right off is great----and listening to the answer is really great. If a person does not belong to a church and doesn't seem to want to engage the subject it is best dropped. If a person engages in conversation about faith, great.
Also, I really believe that there is a huge difference of discussing this with your physician or a technician in the hospital. Frankly, I don't even want to talk to the tech about this. A little common sense and common courtesy go a long way.
Glad to see we stirred up so much discussion. It is very good for people to think about their belief systems.
As for NAC, I have said before and to you personally that your encounter was inappropriate coming from the technician.
It is ironic how the very freedom of speech that so many use to castigate Christianity and its values is largely a by-product of Christian influences of cultures over the centuries.
Speaking on the history of Liberty and Justice:
• It was Moses who first began with having 2 or more witnesses for an offense. (Deut. 19:15)
• Jesus Christ said “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matt. 22.21)
• St. Paul (1st century missionary) said “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28)
• Tertullian an early 3rd century African Christian apologist taught Freedom of religion and in the “Ad Scapula” said every man should be free to worship according to his own conviction
• Lactantius an early 4th cent. Church father known as “Christian Cicero” taught freedom of religion and in the “Epitome of the Divine Institutes” said no one should be compelled to worship against his will
• Hosius, Christian Bishop in Cordoba Spain told the Emperor Constantius II that government is not to meddle in the ecclesiastical affairs
• St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan in the 4th century told the Emperor Theodosius I in 390 that “no one, not even the emperor, is above the law”
• Stephen Langton, British archbishop and architect of the Magna Carta reiterated St. Ambrose’s statement and said the King cannot be above the law in 1215
• Martin Luther in 1520 in an "Open letter to the Christian Nobility" said the Church and State must be separate realms
• John Locke, British political philosopher said in the “Two Treatises of Government” people’s rights are not given by governments but by the laws of nature
• Baron de Montesquieu, a French political philosopher, said in the “Spirit of Laws, 1766” the powers (branches) of government must be separated
• Franz Pastorius was part of the antislavery proclamation in Germantown Pennsylvania in 1688
• Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that God has given people unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
• Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher wrote in the “Wealth of Nations” that liberty must also be present in people’s economic affairs
• James Madison wrote in “Memorial and Remonstrance in 1788 that freedom cannot be denied to those who do not believe
• Abraham Lincoln gave freedom to the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation
All of these are examples of the Christian influence that have inculcated societies for centuries based on Christian principles and belief systems.
Christianity’s shortcomings are heavily outweighed by its benefit to every society that has embraced it.
Apologies if the end of my previous comment was abrasive. It was not intended to be--I only meant that for someone to be so resolute in believing (or not believing) something, it's wise to become familiar with it first. I would challenge you to pursue an open-minded knowledge of this topic before speaking so firmly.
--A. 5:17
Speaking of the benefits of Christianity, when are you going to talk about the new Creationism Museum which opened in Kentucky.
Ok, that time it was funny.
Your timing is getting better ;-)
When you are a caregiver, you see situations that look pretty dire and even after all medical care has been exhausted, the patient seems to get better on his or her own. We can't explain it, so right or wrong, we look towards religion to explain it.
I think if we all were told by our physicians that we are going to die soon because of our disease and nothing medically can be done, we all might get a little more religious.
I looked it up (Dec. 22, 2006), and indeed, HB offered this somewhat tepid survey of "inappropriate."
However, these many months later, I'm still puzzled as to why I must be the one to endure what HB describes as something not sanctioned by the hospital and also inappropriate, and do so because I'm "comfortable" in my beliefs, when I'm not the one guilty of invasiveness from the start.
After all, the last time I approached a customer with, "you are an atheist, aren't you?" was ... well, there is no last time because there's not been a first time.
Wouldn't the Christian technician's comfort in his beliefs lead to a sufficient respect for the privacy of a patient?
Or is that, as I warily suspect, somehow different?
NAC,
This is not a policy in any way at Floyd.
Most people in the healthcare field know from experience that a faith in God helps people through trying times.
Some people feel much more comfortable “evangelizing” and believe they are helping the individual.
I know your beliefs, but he/she did not. I am sorry if you were offended, but I would not apologize for the sincerity in the gesture.
If you are comfortable in your beliefs, there should be little discomfort when someone broaches this topic and you should just politely state your beliefs. If they persist after that, then I would certainly have a problem.
"...many months later...I must be the one to endure...when I'm not the one guilty..."
Sounds slightly melodramatic. Do you hold onto every rude/invasive encounter the way you hold onto this one? Maybe you should just...idunno...get over it?
What would you like the tech to do now that would undo that conversation? We all say things we wish we could take back sometimes. I'm sure he/she meant no harm. Rise above it already.
many months later...I must be the one to endure...when I'm not the one guilty..."
Sounds slightly melodramatic. Do you hold onto every rude/invasive encounter the way you hold onto this one? Maybe you should just...idunno...get over it?
What would you like the tech to do now that would undo that conversation? We all say things we wish we could take back sometimes. I'm sure he/she meant no harm. Rise above it already.
Amen.
NAC,
Just curious. Do you expect your health insurance to pay for your CPAP if it's prescribed by your physician?
What?
Anon 6:24--I must have previously overlooked your comment. There is nothing about anything that I do not question. I know what I believe and WHY I believe it, though I think it's interesting that you think you know so much about me, and what I "have listened to for years without question." I'd be happy to explain everything in that sentence that does not apply to me, but not in this context.
Once again, you are more focused on the argument rather than what is actually being said. I said this twice already--salvation is not about what YOU or I can do. You cannot, with any amount of work, earn it. Go read it for yourself. It's called the New Testament. It is not about following rules. It's about relationship, and worship is an act of love.
The rules we are given are for our own safety, and to teach fairness, justice, faithfulness, integrity, objectivity, etc. When your heart is in the right place, it is no more difficult to live by those those than it is to breathe.
Why do you believe all the answers are in the New Testament (ignoring for a moment, that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of conflicting interpretations of what it says and implies). If you had been born into a Hindu or Muslim culture, the New Testament wouldn't be of much value to you. But you BELIEVE...you aren't reasoning or doing a comparative analysis between some version of Christianity and, say, Budhist beliefs and values. You are a product of what you have been exposed to since birth.
Again you are telling me what I've done and not asking. You can't possibly know the answer to that. It happens that I am, right now, looking across the room at a stack of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin dictionaries, and a concordance fatter than any phone book you've ever seen. I do quite a bit of analysis and debate. I was raised by one Southern Baptist and one Calvinist (polar opposites within the Christian spectrum).
The New Testament can be of value to anyone who cares enough to read it--Muslim, Buddhist, whatev. And as for the copious interpretations--see previous post about how our legalism defeats our own purpose. I've already addressed that.
Per your argument--are you also a product of this "Christian culture" (notice how I am asking and not telling)? If the answer to that is yes, and you have been exposed to the same things as I since birth, then why aren't we on the same page? Maybe there's a little more to it than that...
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...many months later...I must be the one to endure...when I'm not the one guilty..."
Nice edit job, anon. Many months later I'm puzzled, and there's nothing melodramatic about that. I just enjoy debating HB about the hypocrisy.
Cheerio!
Post a Comment
<< Home