Balancing science, faith:

[rug]

Researchers studying how medical schools help doctors incorporate religious beliefs

April 4, 2012, 8:14 a.m. EDT
McClatchy/Tribune - MCT Information Services

CHICAGO _ As a medical student, Dr. Julie Oyler was told to remove the cross she wore on the lapel of her white coat. As a resident, Dr. Aasim Padela was told he wouldn't have time to recite Islam's five daily prayers. But ignoring God was not an option for Oyler, an evangelical Christian, and Padela, a Muslim. Nor should it be, according to researchers at the University of Chicago, where both doctors now freely practice their medical specialties and religious traditions.

After discovering that silence on matters of spirituality left some patients unsatisfied with the care they received at the University of Chicago, two doctors there and four faculty scholars have chosen to examine how some medical schools either encourage or discourage physicians to integrate their faith both in conversations with patients and their own professional lives. Doctors who set their faith aside, they say, can become disillusioned and less effective.

"When doctors are dispirited, the care they give to patients is worse," said Dr. Farr Curlin, co-director of the Program on Medicine and Religion. "Patients should be very hopeful that their doctor sees their work as a remarkable privilege, even a holy privilege, that will make the doctor respond to that patient out of joy."

Both Curlin and Dr. Daniel Sulmasy, an internist who also serves on the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, said they believe that as the gap between health care and religion has widened, the quality of care for patients has diminished.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/balancing-science-faith-researchers-studying-how-medical-schools-help-doctors-incorporate-religious-beliefs/2e1ee87c1087651f461a8e15f3bff2b1

[longship]

1. Huh? What has this to do with science?

Isn't it just that these doctors want to use their position as physician to convert their patients to their religion?

If any doctor tried that on me I would be more than offended. Furthermore, I would bet that such activities would violate the oath that all doctors take. Regardless, it's not the job of a medical doctor to "heal the soul".

The only conflict between science and religion is when religion makes statements about nature that have been shown to be incorrect. E.G., Noah's ark, seven day creation, prayer heals people, the multitude of so-called miracles, the numerous pious frauds like the shroud of Turin, etc.

Science answers to a higher authority, nature herself.

[rug]

2. You might say "What has this to do with religion?"

One of the goals is a broader treatment of patients.

[trotsky]

3. I don't want my doctor to feel he has a "holy privilege" to treat me.

What if she rules out certain treatments for me, without even telling me, because they violate her sincerely-held religious beliefs?

How does that help with the goal of "a broader treatment of patients"?

[longship]

4. Everything

Mixing religion and science, religion and medicine, religion and politics, religion in government is always toxic to both religion and the other. Why don't people understand this simple fact?

People need to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, not misuse science, medicine, politics, or government to inflict them on others.

[cbayer]

7. Wow. From what in the article did you get the idea that these physicians just wan to

convert their patients?

The only reference to a physician sharing their own beliefs was about the evangelical who said she only did that if a patient revealed to her that they were an evangelical.

"Healing the soul" can be interpreted many ways and is essential for any good physician. You might call it bedside manner. Very few people are happy with a doctor who is just a scientific automaton. Most want someone who sees them as more than just their illness.

[longship]

8. "Fine, doctor, but keep your religion to yourself"

The doctor patient relationship does not give the doctor the right to use his religious beliefs to skew his diagnoses, his treatments, his relationship with the patient.

As far as healing the soul, that is my choice, not the doctor's. If I want a priest or whoever, that is my choice. If I don't, that's my choice, too. No where does a doctor have a right to interfere with that. The most I would agree to is maybe he could ask the patient if he or she wants counselling, religious or otherwise. Beyond that, no way.

[cbayer]

9. If a physician is religious, it may in fact color the way s/he perceives things

including their diagnoses, treatments and relationships with patients. That is true is a physician is a male or black or gay as well. Pushing an agenda from that perspective I will agree is not appropriate and rarely happens.

However, patients often seek out like minded physicians. Hence the overwhelming influx of women into OB/GYN, something that male GYN's have complained bitterly about as they saw their patients leave for female physicians.

Of course healing the soul is your choice and I agree that a physician has no right to interfere with that. But having sat at the bedside of many patients, I can assure you that in times of need patients often ask for it in one way or another.

[longship]

10. Cbayer, as usual, you phrased it better than I did

But we agree on the principles 100%.

My worries, as an atheist, is that there may come a time where I don't know that a physician is making decisions to give me options, or not, based on something which is manifestly non-scientific, but based on personal beliefs.

I think you would agree that would be wrong.

As always, thanks for your reply.

[cbayer]

11. I have never met a physician who would alter their practice of medicine

based on their beliefs without assuring that their patients were very aware of that up front.

To do otherwise would be unethical and even malpractice.

While some disagree, I believe that most physicians are extraordinarily careful about monitoring themselves, including their prejudices, when it come to their patients.

I always enjoy engaging with you longship. You are both articulate and challenging and always civil.

Kudos.

[longship]

12. You forgot that I'm also a bit of a pedant

On edit: me too, you.

[darkstar3]

14. I have. They work at St. John's Hospital in Saint Louis, MO.

They treat women of childbearing age different from elder women, men, or children, and they do it because they believe that the potential existence of a fetus is more important than the effective treatment of an actual patient.

They are not the only ones, but they are the worst I've seen. I do think it's unethical. I do think it's malpractice. But unfortunately, the state medical board doesn't agree.

Also, having known many physicians over time, I can tell you that very few of them bother to worry about their prejudices. I've heard physicians use both the word "faggot" and the word "nigger", and I've seen them dismiss patient claims of pain by saying "of course {she's complaining of pain}, she's a woman."

Your belief does not mesh with my reality.

[cbayer]

5. This is a really difficult and complex area.

As the article states, physicians deal with passages that may hold profound religious meaning for some - birth, death, illness, suffering.

Physicians are notoriously bad at ascertaining what a patient's religious beliefs may be and recognizing the impact those beliefs may have on treatment decisions and compliance.

So, on the one hand, a physician who is more comfortable and open about their own beliefs may be more receptive to the beliefs of others. OTOH, they may be less receptive if their views are fundamentalist.

In the end, there are those that do it well, and those that do it poorly. What is needed, imo, is more education of physicians during training in cultural sensitivity, including sensitivity to religious differences.

[Angry Dragon]

6. .........

[darkstar3]

13. Shoehorning belief into the workplace (and medicine) using dubious evidence and specious reasoning.

FTFY.

The idea that you should wear your faith on your sleeve like a fuckin' conversation starter was originally an evangelical attempt to inject faith into public discourse so that they could proselytize to others, and anyone who latches onto that train is headed in the wrong direction.