Religion
Related: About this forumShould doctors be allowed to bring their religion to work?
Written by Dr. Benjamin W. Corn
4 hours ago
Yesterday, I stubbed my toe on an IV pole. Though not uncommon for someone working in a hospital like myself, this particular IV pole was located not in a cancer ward, but in a synagogue—the synagogue that is part of our hospital.
While living in the US, I expected church to be separate from state. Most US citizens regard religious liberty as a core value guaranteed by their country’s Constitution. Although in practice that may not always be the case, conceptually, this is the American way.
When I moved from Philadelphia to Tel Aviv 19 years ago, however, I realized things were different. As there is no separation of church—er, synagogue—and state in the deeply Jewish nation of Israel, I’ve since given up the inviolable principle of religious liberty. Today, I reside in a country where religion is inserted into government as well as life in general: Buses don’t run here on Saturdays because it’s the Jewish Sabbath, prime minister Netanyahu dines with president Obama exclusively at kosher restaurants, and every one of Israel’s hospitals (each an extension of the ministry of health) contains a synagogue.
I was initially surprised the synagogue in my hospital was not a source of protest for local residents. After all, could you imagine an urban medical center in the US hosting discussions about candle-lighting times for the upcoming Sabbath? Secular Israelis, however, seem to have a live-and-let-live attitude about that sort of thing.
http://qz.com/827785/should-doctors-be-allowed-to-bring-their-religion-to-work/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)So I guess I'll never even visit a country where they do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)13% of US hospitals nationwide. 90% in the Seattle area.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I don't want a doctor to pray for my health. I want him or her to use the best science and training they have at their disposal to give me the best chance.
If I want some prayin' I'll call the chaplain. Or not.
So to me it comes down to who can provide the best medical care and do so without the hocus pocus of religion.
I don't care if any of my medical professionals are religious as long as they don't let that prevent them from doing their best job. But if I am sick, I don't want a Doctor saying "Well you know, sometimes Jesus calls people to heaven." I want the doctor to say "Here's what we know about your condition and here are the three best medical options for taking that on."
Jbowman
(8 posts)In my opinion I don't see anything wrong with it, If the Doctor is Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness, Hindu or whatever..... black, white, yellow, green or poke a dot...Straight, Gay, Trans whatever...If (he/she) is healing me then I am praying and put my faith in my God that this person knows what they're doing and I hope they are praying to theirs for themselves to help to make them better at what they do...
ismnotwasm
(41,993 posts)I work with a Muslim RN who prays 5 times a day--he is discreet, and this doesn't interfere with his work. If he is very busy, obviously he can't do it. I know a Hindu surgeon who accotionally wears a Bindi--not sure why it's intermittent, I assumed some sort of ritual--and certain Catholics who wear ash in their foreheads from Ash Wednesday. My Muslim friend fasts during Ramadan as well. Many healthcare professionals modify their schedules to accommodate holy days or what have you.
We also accommodate patients needs, we have a spiritual care team. We have Clergy visit in various denominations. Occasionally, after a death, the body stays in the room much longer than is usual because of religiuos beliefs or practices. Sometimes the body needs to be washed in a ritualistic manner-we literally have to find a room with a proper drain to for the water used. Jehovah's Witnesses do not use blood products, so we use blood expander when necessary, or sadly, they are not eliglible for certain surgeries where blood will definitely be needed. Spiritual beliefs are simply a reality of the human condition.
Now as far as "praying" over a patient--well, no. Not unless specifically asked. I think offering is not intrusive either--a partient can say no--I've had many patients decline the offer of the spirtual care team.
Dorian Gray
(13,496 posts)As long as it doesn't interfere with patient care, then religious symbolism doesn't bother me at all.
Also, having a chapel, interfaith place of worship, synagogue, etc. at the hospital doesn't bother me. That could be a place for doctors/nurses/admins to duck in to pray, or for patients and families to do so, if they'd like.
As long as they're doing their job, whatever else happens, I'm cool.
Now, if they take it to the extreme, obviously, that's more of a problem.
goldent
(1,582 posts)this seems pretty low on the list.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)"I expected church to be separate from state."
Playing devils advocate - should I tell the person who is an avid environmentalist to keep their opinions to themselves if they comment on my gas-guzzling, smog-spewing truck? Sure I could, but they still have a right to speak; they have a passion, they have an opinion. As long as they are not infringing on my rights of "person & property", I can't claim freedom FROM speech.
And this is why religion is part of the 1A: "GOVERNMENT shall make no law...".
IOW, freedom OF religion should not be construed as freedom FROM religion.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)To limit the opinions they express to me to opinions regarding the service being provided, actually
Jim__
(14,077 posts)I have no objection to a doctor bringing his religion to work. I do object if the doctor treats me based on his religious training rather than his medical training.
Carlos Fraenkel wrote a column in The New York Times on In Praise of the Clash of Cultures An excerpt from that column:
When we can transform the disagreements arising from diversity into a culture of debate, they cease to be a threat to social peace. I now live in Montréal, one of the world’s most multicultural cities. When a couple of years ago I had to see a doctor, the receptionist was from China, in the waiting room I sat between a Hasidic Jew and a secular Québécois couple, the doctor who attended me was from Iran, and the nurse from Haiti. This was an impressive example of how Canadians, despite their deep moral, religious, and philosophical differences, can work together to provide the basic goods and services that we all need irrespective of our way of life and worldview.
But while I certainly didn’t want to get into a shouting match about God’s existence in the doctor’s office, or wait for treatment until everyone had agreed on how to live, I see no reason why we should ignore our differences altogether. Some advocates of multiculturalism ask us to celebrate, rather than just tolerate, diversity, as if our differences weren’t a reason for disagreement in the first place, but something good and beautiful — a multicultural “mosaic”! Others argue that our moral, religious, and philosophical convictions shouldn’t leave the private sphere. A good example is French laïcité: you are a citoyen in public and a Jew, Christian, or Muslim at home. Both models try to remove our reasons for objecting to beliefs and values we don’t share — one tries to remove them altogether, the other tries at least to keep them out of sight. A culture of debate, on the other hand, allows us to engage our differences in a way that is serious, yet respectful and mutually beneficial.
Some object that a culture of debate is of no value to religious citizens. Don’t they take God’s wisdom to be infallible, claim to have access to it through revelation, and accept its contents on faith rather than arguments? Yet a brief look at the history of religions shows that plenty of arguing was going on about how to understand God’s wisdom — within a religious tradition, with members of other religious traditions and, more recently, with secular opponents. Al-Ghazâlî for one writes how, after the bonds of taqlîd were broken, he “scrutinized the creed of every sect” and “tried to lay bare the inmost doctrines of every community” in order to “distinguish between true and false.”
The rich philosophical literatures we find in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as in the Eastern religious traditions offer plenty of resources for a culture of debate. The privatization of moral, religious, and philosophical views in liberal democracies and the cultural relativism that often underlies Western multicultural agendas are a much greater obstacle to a culture of debate than religion. My friends in Cairo at any rate, and the participants in the workshops I subsequently organized, all enjoyed arguing for their views and criticizing mine.
Earlier in the column he explains taqlîd as the authority of “parents and teachers,” which we can restate more generally as all things other than rational argument that influence what we think and do: from media, fashion and marketing to political rhetoric and religious ideology.
