Das ist wie eine große Ressource, die Sie bereitstellen und du gibst es umsonst. Ich genieße es, Websites, die den Wert der Bereitstellung eines wichtigste Ressource für freie verstehen. Ich liebte das Lesen Ihrer Post. Vielen Dank!

Dear me, Caroline, you're getting awfully worked up about this, aren't you? Won't your beliefs stand up to being challenged?

"I did however expect my GP to keep his views to himself with regards to my faith. "

Agreed! Which is why I would have expected you to be as strongly critical of this appalling practice that Nelson describes - since it mandates the GP *not* keeping his views to himself with regards to the patient's faith.

"although mental welfare should always be a consideration in any treatment. I was not seeking any sort of validation for my faith, however, I did not expect the level of disrespect that was shown, which was entirely unsolicited. "

When you declare that you plan to martyr yourself for your faith by pregnancy you are soliciting reactions. Most of which are going to be negative, because it's a thoroughly silly idea. From your GP, I entirely agree, they should have kept their reactions to themselves - your religious beliefs, however silly and self-destructive, are your own affair.

"I simply stated that I would have found some sort of support helpful, had this been on offer. "

Then you should have found support for your martyrdom somewhere else. You have a right to expect your GP to refrain from expressing negative remarks about your foolish decision to risk death in pregnancy for your God. Physician-assisted suicide, however, is illegal in the UK: expecting *help* from your GP for your need to martyr yourself is just plain morally wrong.

"I have not argued that a doctor ought to be allowed to preach at his patients, willy nilly, doctors need to adhere to the GMC guidelines, however, if a patient has signed on with an openly evangelic practice and is open to receiving spiritual/faith based advice ALONGSIDE conventional medical treatment, provided that it is consensual, I cannot see the problem."

Hypocrite. If you're OK with patients receiving religious interference from their doctor, you have absolutely no cause to complain that your GP criticised your damfool belief that you ought to die for your faith.

Particularly, as, from what you say, *you* brought religion into the conversation with your GP - you were soliciting religious approval for your anti-health decision, and so you brought it on yourself when you got religious disapproval instead. Don't like it? Don't ask for it.

Stuart: "By and large patients don't have much of an option of where they go to get medical attention. It's usually the local surgery. People rarely change GP because it's a pain in the arse to travel and you have to fill in health questionaires and have your blood pressure taken etc. This gives GP's a captive market of the people who live around their surgeries"

Exactly. If you're *lucky* you might have the choice between two practices, but most people have no real option but to go to the nearest. If people want spiritual support they shouldn't be seeking it at their GP - Caroline's little story that she loves to tell about how she proselytised to her GP is a perfect example of how in the GP surgery, religion should be kept out.

RFM, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Sir Michael, it is not allegory but history. However, I do appreciate your lack of hate for religion.

As a pastor, I have had many an opportunity to comfort Christians and non-Christians alike during times of physical and emotional need. Now that I am working in the business world, I use those pastor skills to provide comfort to co-workers and client who are in need. One time, a client was in my office and she mentioned how her husband died 3 weeks after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a couple months before I met her. She was distraught. I prayed with her. My boss's son committed suicide and I was able to comfort her by praying with her and performing her son's funeral. A coworker of mine and I were talking a couple weeks ago and she mentioned that the doctors think her mother might have luekemia. I prayer with my coworker for her mom.

What the doctor did, while in your country, is looked down upon by many of you, is a great opportunity to provide comfort and an opportunity to restart their lives.

There is no better way for a person who is suicidal, maybe living under a load of guilt for whatever they have done or in despair on how their lives gone on at this point, than to find a personal relationship with the Living God through His son Jesus Christ.

Maybe this patient was involved in many of religions that require you to earn your salvation? No wonder he was feeling the pressure to peform. How freeing it would have been for him to know all he needed to do was confess his sin and accept Christ's gift of eternal life. All the knowledge in the world does not give you peace. All the money in the world does not give you peace. Just Jesus gives you peace.

'For a doctor to take advantage of his privileged position to initiate preaching to his captive audience is thoroughly wrong.'

Of course. But this one got prior permission.

Troll alert.

"In my view there is no (sensible) counterargument to that particlar assertion."

*looks at Keir's comment*

Demonstrably!

Gracious, Yonmei, I forgot that you tend to get quite aerated at these threads.

Just to answer a few points:

Spiritual support was not lacking. I did not "demand" or even expect spiritual support from a medical practitioner, I did however expect my GP to keep his views to himself with regards to my faith.

Of course one does not go to a doctor to receive spiritual counsel, although mental welfare should always be a consideration in any treatment. I was not seeking any sort of validation for my faith, however, I did not expect the level of disrespect that was shown, which was entirely unsolicited.

Nowhere in my response did I say that I was willing to risk death, nor did I state that doctors should be obligated to dispense any sort of spiritual or religious advice. I simply stated that I would have found some sort of support helpful, had this been on offer.

What i received was entirely the opposite, and as I suspected, the risks of my pregnancy were entirely overstated. I am still here, together with my 21 week old daughter, both of us now in excellent health. The "risks" such as they were, were mainly due to unexpectedly falling pregnant shortly after a cesarian, when my body had yet to fully recover. That is by the by.

I was entirely confident in my beliefs, however it is distressing, when a woman is physically vulnerable and explaining why she will not be terminating her baby, one whom she has already accepted, when the doctor dismisses and undermines her faith, implying that it, and its adherents are stupid. It belied a lack of respect and undermined my trust in that particular GP.

I have not argued that a doctor ought to be allowed to preach at his patients, willy nilly, doctors need to adhere to the GMC guidelines, however, if a patient has signed on with an openly evangelic practice and is open to receiving spiritual/faith based advice ALONGSIDE conventional medical treatment, provided that it is consensual, I cannot see the problem.

I don't believe my GP was angry. Just opinionated, patronising and unhelpful. I wonder whether or not he would have opined at length had I been a member of any other religion?

What I find shocking and unacceptable is that this is a NHS clinic.
I object as a tax payer. I do not want to contribute to medical treatment which also includes Christian mumbo jumbo. In fact I had no idea this was going on. OK the clinic makes it clear that its doctors are all Christians etc.. but I don't see why they should practice this kind of medicine and indoctrination with NHS money.
Go and become private by all means but do not waste tax payers' money telling patients to go and pray to a god for their recovery.After all God will provide, I am told, so these patients can fund their own delusions.
This is frankly INSANE!

Absolutely not. Religion should not enter in to tax payer funded medicine. It is not a requirement for medicine. What next, enforced circumcism? Homophobic surgeries? No blood transfusions? Women not allowed abortions?

People have their own faith and they can discuss their religious needs with their church/faith leaders and congregation. I would not go in to a church, temple or mosque etc and spout aetheist messages or rantings.

Leave medicine with science and non religious, to serve all people. If people wish to get through an illness using faith etc as a help, let them do in their own time. I would not want religious iconography or religious instruction in a doctor's surgery, otherwise it takes away the rational, objective medical choice of the patient.

Praying is for the individual to do, with other religiously minded people at a time of their choice. Not for medical people to push their religious views on to others.

My doctor is muslim. Never once has he mentioned his religion, or used it to influence my medical decisions. Yet he is quite an active member of his religious community outside of his work. That is how it should be.

what next? religious checkout staff? telling you to eat kosher or halal or vegetarian or commenting on your calories? Whilst all these options may be available at the supermarket, luckily we are still left to make out own life choices!

A competent scientist who is also an articulate believer. Ever notice how often that is synonomous with ignorant about history? In case anyone was wondering, the answer is all the time.

I am really baffled by the fact that the Bible, and so by extention Judaism, Christianity and Islam, has been shown to be so thoroughly historically inaccurate as to have no credibility, and yet so few religious people have paid any attention to it at all. Oh, lord, the damned inconvenience of it all.

Oh come along, Stuart. Do you think Margate is a one street village in a wasteland? Anyone living there has plenty of choices of surgery. I live in Canterbury and the are half a dozen surgeries I could attend rather than the one I actually DO attend. If it were entirely staffed by muslims or proselytising communists I would probably go elsewhere.

Having opted to not participate in the religious add on provided by this surgery, I would not be confident that I was receiving the same level of medical treatment, as would have been the case otherwise, from a doctor who believes that I am going to spend eternity in hell regardless of the policy statement to the contrary. How much choice do the local public have in this part of Margate? He more or less states that he has a captive audience, outrageous.

As a gay man, I do so look forward to being treated by an Islamic or Roman Catholic doctor who will no doubt treat my HIV diagnosis with the contempt id deserves.

If you go to a dentist you shouldn’t encounter attempted coercion to discuss the tooth fairy.

What seems to frighten is a competent scientist who is also an articulate believer. But, believe me, the typical Alpha Course advocate is as frightened as any atheist may be.

It would be interesting to know what religion the patient belonged to. There seems to me to be a difference between inquiring about the spiritual support that might be available, which is maybe what the patient thought he was agreeing to, and giving someone permission to rubbish one's religion and to advocate his own as an alternative.

If a Moslem doctor tried to convert him to Islam, would the liberals be getting excited about it? Think not.

The doctors job is to guide medical treatment and offer the patient guidance to make treatment choices and respect those choices. If a patient is already christian, discussing that is ok, but if a patient is muslim, hindu, jew, etc or an atheist, then this doctor should not be disrespecting their beliefs by imposing his own christian beliefs from his postion as a caregiver. It is no different than sexually abusing a vulnerable patient.

Yonmei. With the greatest of respect, please do not attempt to pyscho-analyze a person who you do not know nor dictate to me what my feelings were. This is projection pure and simple.

Risks do not equate to martyrdom. There were some risks but none that put my life in any immediate danger.

I absolutely did not lack confidence in myself or my decision, one which had already been made, quite the opposite, I went to my GP to report a pregnancy and ask for anti-nausea medication. What I did not expect was to be informed that I ought to consider termination and upon explaining why that was not an option, to be subject a diatribe on the Catholic faith.

You clearly wish to create your own false narrative based on your own assumptions and prejudices, explaining "I am a Catholic, abortion is not something I could consider" should make it plain to most people that my position is unequivocal and I was not open to discussion with regards to abortion. It does not invite the GP to launch into an analysis of Vatican teaching, nor does it amount to proselytizing.

As for saying "you started it" - grow up. Your martyrdom narrative is specious. There was never a threat to my life. My comment is entirely relevant to the topic of whether or not faith may have a role to play in medicine, my contention is that it may prove helpful as a supplement but GPs should always respect the views of their patient and not attempt to discuss spiritual matters unless the patient is amenable.

You will be delighted to hear that subsequently I found a Catholic doctor who was able to respect all my choices and support them without the need to pass comment or for me to justify any aspect of my choices, none of which have been irresponsible. My consultant offered to pray for me, I found that very comforting.

I am afraid your prejudices make you unable to discuss this rationally or impartially and you feel the need to construct your own false narrative.

Religion can have a place, provided it is consensual and a shared faith (of whatever denomination) can strengthen the doctor/patient relationship which has to be one of mutual trust and respect.

When you start using phrases such as "damn fool" and "whacko crap" you rule yourself out of any sensible, rational or adult debate. You come across as something of a bigot when it comes to religion, hence I shall leave it here.

@Graham Lowell

In addition to addiction, if you get put in for counselling/therapy sessions on the NHS you will quite likely bump into woolly-minded pseudoscience and "spiritualism".

Personally, I'd much rather have to deal with a Christian practitioner because there was a point in its history where scientific matters were split away from faith. Contrary to what @Angela_K says, you're much more likely to run into somebody "slaughtering a goat" as a possible treatment with a spiritualist than with a religious person.

In addition, I would radically differentiate between recommending a religious course for somebody suffering from depression and "faith-based" treatment. If you're talking about seeking the best patient outcome in terms of making them able to function in the world, as opposed to the best patient outcome in terms of enlightened free-thinking patients, it could probably be pretty cost-effective.

Medical care should always, wherever possible be holistic, that is, it must encompass body and soul. Mental and spiritual well-being are accepted as being linked to and part and parcel of physical welfare.

Provided Dr Stott and the Bethseda Medical Centre do not substitute or supplant accepted medical treatment, but rather supplement with spiritual guidance, where appropriate, there should be no issue, provided the patient is well aware of the ethos of the surgery.

I am wary of saying that faith has no place in medicine, as a Catholic who experienced a physically risky unplanned pregnancy, which I was encouraged to abort on 3 separate occasions as my pregnancy progressed, personally I would have welcomed the spiritual support instead of being made to feel that my faith was rendering me obstinate, reckless and something of a problem.

My GP had absolutely no problem criticising the Catholic faith and the Vatican when I stated one of the reasons I could not abort, something that left me feeling equally distressed and ignorant. I did not invite his opinion on my faith, particularly when I was 7 weeks pregnant with a suspected multiple pregnancy and hyper-emesis. Of course his opinion was "clinical".

The problem seems similar to that of faith schools in that this is an a NHS funded service which is only suitable for a niche group.

There is an area of medicine where religious indoctrination is routine and part of the accepted treatment: addiction. It is virtually impossible to find a rehab which does not make attendance at 12 step meetings compulsory. If I go to a doctor and say, "I hear the voice of God telling me what to do" I'll be diagnosed a psychotic and given drugs. But if I go to a doctor and say, "I'm taking too many drugs and it's having an adverse effect on my life" I'll be advised to attend 12 step meetings, say my prayers and hope God starts to give me advice on how to live.

"I am wary of saying that faith has no place in medicine, as a Catholic who experienced a physically risky unplanned pregnancy, which I was encouraged to abort on 3 separate occasions as my pregnancy progressed, personally I would have welcomed the spiritual support instead of being made to feel that my faith was rendering me obstinate, reckless and something of a problem."

Well, Caroline, I'm delighted you survived your pregnancy, but sorry you had absolutely no one you knew to give you spiritual support. That's a very lonely state to be in.

Demanding that your religious practitioner should also give you spiritual support has its drawbacks, surely: do you really want to have to be told by your GP that you should be wearing a burqa, or advised that you'll feel better if you attend a ritual circle at the next full moon? If you insist that you get your doctor's religious views along with their medical care, you may come to regret that!

"My GP had absolutely no problem criticising the Catholic faith and the Vatican when I stated one of the reasons I could not abort, something that left me feeling equally distressed and ignorant."

Dear me, you weren't terribly confident in your beliefs, were you? You were willing to risk death for your religion, yet felt "distressed and ignorant" when your GP criticised a religion that demands women risk death for their beliefs?

"The problem seems similar to that of faith schools in that this is an a NHS funded service which is only suitable for a niche group."

Only if the doctor and the patient happen to have religious views which coincide.

I personally think that the doctor ought not to have imposed *his* religious views on you, Caroline - he shouldn't have criticised the Vatican and the Catholic Church to your face, no matter how angry as a doctor it made him to have you decide to risk your life for that faith.

But if you think a doctor ought to be allowed to preach to their patients, how can you have the hypocrisy to complain that you don't like the sermon?