Health Professionals talking to patients about religion.

Post Reply New Topic

No, the doctor should not choose which role is appropriate.
The patient chooses the medical role by visiting the doctor in a medical setting.
The doctor can suggest adding the religious role, and it is up to the patient to decide whether this is acceptable to him/her.

First off I heard, & seen examples of this irl in the LDS church when I was a church leader in it.

I think your missunderstanding my last question, I changed the setting to a religious one. We looked that the medical setting now lets look at the converse setting and role. As really there are ethical issues in play in both roles and settings.

If I was a healer, I would bring 'spritual' matters to the table if it seemed appropriate and useful.

I would not force it on someone, just like I would not give them an invasive surgery they did not want.

cdfox7 said: "So basicly the professional should choice which role is appropriate for that occasion."
I disagree; the patient should choose.


In a spiritual setting, the professional should stick primarily to his/her spiritual role.
If the professional wanted to discuss medicine, he or she could suggest the topic and allow the parishoner to decide whether or not the conversation could proceed in that direction.

A medical emergency is, of course, another story. Emergencies almost always call for action that is outside the normal course.

For those who think it is acceptable for a doctor to prescribe religion, where do you draw the line?

Full article:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/56509-gp-pr ... to-patient

Okay, that's pretty wacky for a professional GP.

I wonder about that doctors origins, other than Birmingham. That sounds like the perverted mix of christianity and witchdoctory rampant in Nigeria.

I place that it in the same category as the doctor who proscribes amputation for minor cut on the arm. Proscribing the wrong thing is totally different from proselytising and to suggest we should restrict the latter because it can be construed as a the former is a particularly long bow to string.

What irony. 91, I man who wants to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, a man who thinks gay and lesbian adoption undermines the family unit, a man who'd probably be appalled if a lesbian doctor showed patients a picture of their wife, is whinning about "persecution". Granted, 91 is grossly intellectually dishonest, so this is exactly the type of hypocrisy I expect from him..

"Will no one rid you of this turbulent poster?"

Thanks for the ad hominem you are a river to your people.

Exorcism is not a religion.

Does not technically require the patient's collaboration.

Does not in fact require the operator to be a theist.

Compare and contrast psychotherapy..

There are different types of healer though. If I went to see a Reiki master or a Chinese herbalist, then I think I would be more open to matters of the spirit. Plus I would have researched that type of therapy before going there, and would be paying privately for it. I would have chosen an 'alternative' holistic form of medicine. I would be paying for a service, and the power balance would be more equal.

A GP is the gateway for all people to access practically every type of healthcare. They are funded through the Government. They are a medical practitioner and should stick to doing what the Government pays them to do; to provide medical services.

It's worth noting that in this case, the mother of the patient complained about the GP's conduct, because it caused distress to her son. Therefore it seems quite obvious that the GP had misjudged the situation.

My particular concern is with health professionals dealing with people with mental health problems. There is a power imbalance when a person sees a GP, psychiatric nurse, social worker or psychiatrist. The person is very vulnerable, possibly suggestible. They are likely to be in a state of high anxiety. Maybe they are trying to work out how to tell the GP that they hear voices, or are thinking about suicide, or are summoning up the courage to ask to be referred for an assessment for Asperger's. They have their own concerns and issues to deal with, without having to be burdened with the issues of the health professional.

Personally, I would find it very difficult to know how to deal with a GP asking me if I knew the love of Jesus, or a Support Worker telling me about how Jesus helped him through the death of his little boy. Seeing a psychiatric nurse is stressful and awkward enough without being told that Jesus died for my sins. And I would find it hard to say no if someone offered to pray for me, when they started speaking in tongues as the midwife mentioned above did, I think I would possibly freak out a little.

A health professional's religious beliefs are his business. They shouldn't be foisted onto people who have a limited/no range of choices of doctor or nurse. A GP only gets 10 minutes with a patient, they should be asking them about how they are feeling, not sharing their feelings with the patient. I don't need or want to know about how Allah, Krishna, Kali, Hecate or Satan saved their soul, and can save mine too.

And this is absurd. What if the GP was a Muslim, Sikh, Krishna Devotee, Wiccan, heathen, Baha'i or Scientologist? Would you feel the same?

The free exercise of religion should not happen in a relationship between a doctor, paid for by the state, and a vulnerable patient, who has limited or no choice in doctor. The patient's issues should be the primary concern in this relationship. Not the religious beliefs of the doctor.

Strictly speaking, I'd probably have to be refuting or insinuating that your claim is incorrect given your hypocrisy for it to bea "true" ad hominem. But, given your intellectual dishonesty and my headache, I really didn't have the willpower to point out the absurdity of limits to what you can say in a professional relationship being equivalent to "persecution" or to analogize that, when I worked as an aisles person at a retail store, had I lectured people on the improbability of God's existence or the preferability of an NDP government in Manitoba, I would have had my ass canned.

To be fair to the doctor, all the doctors at that surgery are Christians. It is considered a Christian practice. They say it on all their adverts and literature for new patients. Patients know exactly what they are signing up for. They don't have to register with this doctor/surgery, they are quite free to go to another one which isn't staffed by Christians.

Freedom of religion and speech applies to everyone. As long as treatment came first I would not have an issue with it.