55 percent of doctors influenced by religion

[ckramer]

A study from the University of Chicago, being billed as the first to examine physicians' religious beliefs, has found that 55 percent of doctors say their religion influences how they practice medicine.

In addition, 76 percent of doctors said they believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife, putting them more in line with their patients than the rest of the scientific community.

"We did not think physicians were nearly this religious," said the study's author, Dr. Farr Curlin, citing previous studies that indicate religious belief tends to decrease as education and income levels increase.

link

[Mairead]

1. "We did not think physicians were nearly this religious"

Self-defence. They need to believe that it's not all down to them, so that they can live with themselves if their hand/brain slips.

[1932]

5. You should read Jim Wallis's God's Politics.

It is incredibly unproductive for Iberals to insult religion and faith like that.

[Mairead]

10. "insult religion and faith" like what? (nt)

[1932]

11. I may have misread your post, but ...

you seem to be arguing that religion's usefulness to a doctor is limited to forgiving oneself for mistakes.

Isn't it more likely that these doctors who consider themselves religious are doing so not for selfish reasons, but because they take to heart the overall message of religion about helping the poor and suffering and giving power to the powerless.

religion may be personal, and spiritual, but it's all about taking care of others.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. A common reference to Jesus Christ

is "The Great Physician" for his working in healing the lame and the blind. It's not for nothing that many doctors would also be people of faith.

[dhinojosa]

2. As long as I don't have to pay for their prayers....

I'm cool. :)

[Mandate My Ass]

3. IIRC my statistics, mail surveys are one of the most unreliable

because of self-selection bias.

They are really pushing this religious angle re: the practice of medicine, especially in light of the fundy pharmacists refusing to fill BC prescriptions. It gives me the heebie jeebies.

[1932]

4. good. 90% of bible is about helping the poor and challenging powerful

I'm reading Jim Wallis's God's Politics which is opening my eyeas about the issue of religion and politics.

Abolition was the most important social movement of the 19th century. Spiritual leaders led that fight. Civil Rights was the most important social movement of the 20th centure. Spiritual leaders led that fight.

I believe that fighting poverty (and fighting neoliberalism abroad) will be the biggest social movement of the 21st centure and it will be a fight led by spiritual leaders as well.

(Jubilee was the year in the ancient Hebrew calendar when slaves were freed, debts were forgiven, and the poor were given land. We've freed the slaves, but we have more work to do, and Jubilee should be our model.)

It's not going to help matters if liberals get outraged every time they hear that someone has faith and religious conviction.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Now, hold on there a second...

People without religion aren't granted a voice in this society, and somewhere around 85% of the population believes, so don't go patting yourself on the back too much for the glories of religion.

Lest we forget, some of the most powerful forces for slavery and against civil rights were religious ones, too.

Religion has a very loud voice in this country at the moment. Sadly, whether the good believers or the bad believers prevail, the victory will be for believers, and that does not bode well with the creeping theocracy we face. Personally, I feel that a crappy and somewhat dysfunctional secular government is much better than the most milky of human kindness theocracy.

There was also a considerable amount of secular force behind the civil rights movement, too, and that should be recognized.

What scares me to no end is the constant hinting that without religion, our little world simply couldn't be. Many of us wholeheartedly disagree and see the net effect of religion as more bad than good.

[1932]

12. I'm not saying I agree 100% with Wallis, but he argues...

...that the reason conservative religious voices dominate the scene is because people who have a different message about religion are afraid to step forward and talk about politics in terms of their faith.

John Edwards works with Wallis and endorses his recent book and does much of what Wallis suggests in terms of not being afraid to talk about how his religion informs his politics.

And by having more people talk the way Edwards does about the connection between sincerely held faith and progressive politics it will push out the crazy un-christian ideas about religion that Falwell and Robertson display. And to repeat for emphasis, the reason Falwell and Robertson dominate the landscape when it comes to talking about religion and politics is because there aren't enough progressives talking about how faith informs their politics.

And, incidentally, of course religion justified slavery and objected to civil rights. But if it wasn't for people like the Quakers in the 1800s and Martin Luther King, Jr and all the churches in the 1900s, change would have come at a much much slower pace.

You should read Wallis's book. Edwards has read it and I know you like Edwards.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. I will at some point

Look, it's quite simple: I have no problem with religious beliefs being the precursor of a person's policies; indeed, this is a great place to start for many people. (I wish people had more morality for morality's sake instead of having to have it enforced by some supernatural being, but what the hell...) I DO have a HUGE problem with religion being used to justify policies, though, and the line is far too often blurred.

For a politician to look to his/her god for inspiration to create or direct a political agenda is one thing, and if it sets him/her on a course to advance policy that addresses it, then it's great. If that person starts to say that god wants this particular law passed, I'm completely against it. People can say that if they want to, but I will adamantly resist, and if they do it as part their work as an elected or unelected government employee, they should be stopped. By Article One of the Bill of Rights, no employee of government should even be able to state as fact that there's a supreme being; that's what establishment means. It's endorsement. It's not just a case of not picking between religions, it's THE VERY CONCEPT ITSELF.

Doctors, of course, are mostly NOT part of the government, so they can do as they please, but if they deny care based on their beliefs, they should be sued six ways from Sunday and hung out to dry. If they pull this crap while working for the VA, they should be given a chance or two to be true to their job or else be fired then and there.

I don't think your contention of a slower pace of change can be justified; neither of us can truly describe what a society without religion would have been like, say, in the nineteenth century. If religion was used as a tool to justify slavery as well as a beacon to end it, where is the balance of good and evil here? Religion fostered the problem; perhaps without it, people wouldn't have stood for such a thing in the first place. This hits at the heart of one of my principal contentions about most religions: they take all the credit for everything that's wonderful and absolve themselves of anything that went sour. Just once, I want to hear some ball player say: "Man, I just don't get it. We was workin' real hard'n prayin' an' everything, and Jesus, man he just fucked us." Fat chance on that one, though; god is good, and shut the eff up.

The battle for our nation's future will be fought by left-believers and reactionary-believers; the rest of us don't have a voice, and I still think there's serious reason to dread that when the smoke clears, it will be driven even deeper into our national psyche that ONE MUST HAVE RELIGION OR NOT TRULY BELONG. It's sad, but I don't see anything in the offing but more pro-religious bigotry, no matter how gentle, nurturing and "good" the prevailing assumption is.

So be it, though. This is the world in which we live, and if the liberal believers don't organize and use this for all it's worth, we're going to be swept under by feudal thugs with nary a scruple in the lot of 'em.

Yes, I will read that book at some point, but it's a bit down on the list.

Now here's something to chew on: reactionaries haven't just co-opted religion; organized religion is inherently CONSERVATIVE.

Conservatism is selfishness, demand for strict order, hatred of anything different and unwavering certainty. Tweak a few words here and there, and you've got a good working definition of most christian sects. Faith is certainty. Outsiders should be brought into the fold. Worse than anything is this: it's an inherently selfish belief system; one's principal duty is to save one's own ass, and whatever happens in the process is just secondary. Couple this with the absolute hierarchy of god, the ultimate father figure, and it's easy to see why the reactionaries have a leg up on using it to their advantage. Some sects depict god as the nurturing father (as Lakoff would put it) but many have him as the stern taskmaster withholding his love until you toe the damn line, and ready to throw you in the fiery pit of fear if you don't submit like a quavering slave. Harsh fundamentalism is a demeaning misery, and those who will go along with that will go along with anything the god-surrogates want. Liberal religion emphasizes peaceful obedience and even uncertainty and some questioning, but that submission to authority is still there.

Tactically, liberal believers are at a huge disadvantage. Who's going to prevail, the gentle colloquium of mellow friends, or the cocksure, goose-stepping phalanx of the fire-breathing certaintybots?

Good luck to the liberal believers; there's a lot of heart and feeling out there to tap into, and if abortion and gays can be kept from demonizing liberalism, the need for social and economic fairness can provide a real groundswell.

[1932]

22. Liberation theology is not inherently conservative.

Slavery was wrong morally, politically, economically, etc.

But I think it took the moral framework to make the political and economic reasons clear.

It's just one more tool, and it helps the others resonate.

I think people see religion as being conservative because liberals are so afraid to talk about how their religion informs their politics.

I think the OP here is a great example. Doctors who say their religion influences their practice of medicine -- why do we only think of abortion and gay rights when we read that statement. Isn't it much more likely that these doctors use religion to inform attitudes about mercy, helping the poor, etc? After reading Wallis's book, that's the first thing that came to my mind. I admit that before I read his book, I might have had the same responses that others have here, but I definitely don't now.

As for your resistance to politicians being inspired by religion -- I don't see how you could say that it's OK for a person to, say, be inspired to help the poor because they grew up in poverty, but not OK to be motivated to help the poor because they grew up in a church that said it's your moral duty to help the poor.

The constitution says that the government can't establish a religion or treat people differently because of religion. It doesn't say that politicians can't be motivated to help the poor because of any belief system, including religion. If Father Berrigan ran for office on a platform of peace and assitance for the poor and said that he was motivated to do so by his personal religious convictions, I would have no problem voting for him.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. An emphatic NO

Conservatism is selfishness...as an analogy to religious faith. The fact is that faith is about a complete surrender to God and to your fellow man. Martin Luther used to talk about how we are "freed by slavery to God" (kind of a freaky concept, I know). But the point is that selfishness and religious faith are entirely incompatible. The guy hanging on the cross, giving his life to save humanity? Selfless. And he's supposed to be our role model. Martin Luther King Jr? Mother Teresa? Dietrich Bonhoffer (it's a Lutheran thing)? Selfless, all of them. I don't mean to say this in a mean-spirited way, but I think that many of the people who dislike organized religion dislike the loud and noisy conservative religions. I don't like them either, but I know enough about myself and my faith to know that they don't represent and God that I would care to worship.

[1932]

14. Another way to put this:

If you sincerely have faith and it leads you to have progressive politics, it's probably a good idea to explain the connection.

I think Lakoff would agree.

A politician who does that is providing the public with a frame -- they're helpig explain the bigger picture so that voters can colate new facts and understand what the politician stands for.

For example, if Edwards says that he believes that he has a moral obligation to help the poor, why is that bad? Add that to his experiences growing up, and you're giving the public a very rounded impression of his motivations and his character. It can only help. And, as I said in my other post, you're giving the public a different version of what it means to be religious which will surely push out of the public mind the Fundie-version of religion (at least that's what Wallis argues).

I'm not religious, but I enthusiastically welcome every argument to the debate which makes the case for helping the powerless, whether they're founed in Jefferson, Marx or the Bible.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Sorry, it doesn't belong in politics or medicine

It might be some doctor's moral obligation to refuse a medically accepted treatment or procedure because of his/her religious beliefs.

Morality is subjective and it does not belong in the OR and it does not belong in legislation.

[Igel]

16. The poor weren't given land. The land that their family held

was returned to them.

You couldn't sell land, except within a city; you couldn't sell people, except for a limited time. Although I must say that I suspect I'm getting the sabbatical year and year of jubilee a bit muddled.

And weren't those who took refuge in the "cities of refuge" free to leave?

[1932]

26. Ask the Rabbi: Jubilee 50th Year

Question

I would appreciate if you would explain the Jubilee to me, and also when it occurs.

Answer

It is written in the Torah, "You shall sanctify the 50th year and proclaim freedom throughout the land for all its inhabitants; it shall be the Jubilee year for you, you shall return each person to his ancestral heritage and you shall return each to his family. It shall be a Jubilee Year for you - the 50th year - you shall not sow, you shall not harvest its after-growth and you shall not pick what was set aside of it for yourself. For it is a Jubilee Year, it shall be holy to you; from the field you eat its crop." (Leviticus 25:10-13)

Basically, these verses indicate that the Jubilee requires all debts between Jews to be annulled. Also, any Jew that sold his or herself into slavery is released, whether they worked the amount of time they promised, or not. Rashi, (11th century France) points out the world Jubilee is related to the Hebrew word for "ram," alluding to the fact that the Jubilee year is proclaimed by the blast of a ram's horn! Nachmanides adds that the word Jubilee is also related to the Hebrew word which means "to move around." Thusly, we are reminded that all Jews who had sold themselves into slavery, or were shackled (so to speak) by debt, were now released from their bonds and were given the freedom TO MOVE AROUND.

...

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_jubilee.htm

[daleo]

18. Spiritual leaders also fought these movements

Plenty of religious leaders supported slavery and segregation. Religion certainly can be a force for positive social change, but it can also be used to support an oppressive status quo. Right now, we are probably seeing more of the latter than the former.

That being said, I have no problem with people professing faith or religious conviction, as long as it is not used to oppress or manipulate people.

[1932]

25. Wallis addresses this. He says slaveholders gave slaves the bible...

...hoping they'd interpret it as a reason to wait until the afterlife for justice.

Instead, they interpreted the words of Jesus and Moses as the moral basis for justice in this life.

The fact is that religion is a powerful source of moral and ethical guidance in the world. Why leave religion to the slave holders? So long as many people are religious, why not encourage the left to incorporate arguments (along side every other argument) that come from religious beliefs? It can only help, and it prevents the right wing from appearing as if their interpretation of religion is the only possible interpretation.

I think that's pretty much what you've said, so this isn't addressed to you.

[Bridget Burke]

6. How many of these doctors are Hindu, Sikh or Muslim?

Today's MD's follow many different religious paths.

[youspeakmylanguage]

7. Exactly. These results are too broad...

There is a huge difference between professing a faith in a higher power and praying for miracles in the operating room or refusing to prescribe birth control.

[1932]

13. How does that change anything?

Why do people here imediately associate faith with fundamentalism?

This study didn't say that half of doctors were fundies. It says they are religious. From the get go, this study included all religions. But it seems people have such a bias against religion, that they "read" fundamentalism.

[onager]

17. Oh, cry me a river

As someone upthread pointed out, the superstitionists in America outnumber us non-believers by about 8 to 1.

:nopity:

The huffing and puffing about "religion bashing" REALLY gets old.

And IMO, any social benefits of religion were largely secondary. Religion has always been about controlling people, from the Levite priests of the Old Testament, to Paul of Tarsus, right down to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

[donsu]

21. I believe the number of non-believers is higher

it's easier for people to say they believe then to put up with comments.

I also think that many people that go to church don't believe but feel they have to put up a face of conforming.

[Bridget Burke]

19. Yes, "people here" are all anti-religious!

If we don't get with the mainstream, the Democratic Party will be marginalized.

Deja vu....

[1932]

24. My point is:

if Democrats continue to think all religion is conservative and bad, they will miss a huge opportunity to tap into the progressive possibilities of people driven by a moral objection to war, poverty, and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the wealthy and powerful.

There is no indication in the OP above that Doctors who consider religion in their jobs do so to deny people treatment or make moral judgments about the worthlessness of their patients. Yet that seems to be the presumption made by everyone (but me) in this thread.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I know a few fundie MDs

and even a few fundie PhDs.

I guess I know more Muslim MDs than I do fundie Christian MDs--and the Muslims are certainly not fundies.

My general impression s that most Xian MDs belong to mainstream non-fundie churches: Episcopals, methodists, some Catholics & the like.

[moondust]

23. Dear Dr.: What kind of God allows a 3-year-old to die of leukemia?