Do you patronize "Christian" establishments?

[Tricky]

I'm not talking about a business whose owners happen to be Christians, but rather those who flaunt it egregiously. It annoys me to see businesses who either blantently declare themselves Christian, or subtly, by including their little fish sign in their advertisements. To me, that says several things. One "We will treat you better than other businesses because we are Christian." Another is "If you are Christian, we may treat you preferentially."

So, being an atheist, I go out of my way to avoid those businesses that do that, simply because I resent the implications. Perhaps "Christian" businesses do in fact have more ethics than other businessess that worship the almighty dollar, although my experiences with Christianity indicate that Dollar worship in no way conflicts with Jesus worship.

Perhaps this indicates I am a petty, small-minded person. Sorry. It still annoys me.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm not talking about a business whose owners happen to be Christians, but rather those who flaunt it egregiously. It annoys me to see businesses who either blantently declare themselves Christian, or subtly, by including their little fish sign in their advertisements.

I've seen the fish (a symbol of Dagon not Christ), but the flaunt it egregiously thing I have not seen. I have lived in New York City, Albuquerque, Conway (Arkansas, supposedly in the so-called Bible belt), and Chicago.

Where are you?

[Suezoled]

I've seen symbols on business cards, company vehicles, and of course Christian stores. But not on businesses themselves. And I receive the impression that, for the most part, the little christian add-ons are personal for the person who has the business card, company car, etc. Not that is reassures me any.

[Gulliamo]

I haven't really seen this other than the blatantly "Christian Bookstore" or "Hebrew Supplies." This may very well be because I live in NYC. I have never went to "christian" dry cleaner or a "muslim" shoe shine guy. At least not knowingly.

[Tricky]

The place I have noticed it most often (in Houston) is in Yellow Page ads. It is usually fairly inconspicuous, but I still am annoyed by it. I was even more annoyed when I got a "Christian Yellow Pages" delivered to my doorstep.

The most blatent example I ever saw was back in my home state of Alabama. There was an automotive dealership called "Brothers In Christ Used Cars". It went out of business several years ago. I could not resist smiling when I heard that.

[Ravenwood]

If I'm feeling a little nasty, I sometimes ask them "didn't jesus chase out merchants from the temple for trying to conduct business under the cloak of religion?"

[Suezoled]

Well there you go. Alabama. Yup. That's do ya. No where else in the world. They all congregate to Alabama. And they can stay there. ;)

[MoeFaux]

I don't go to In & Out for this very reason; there's bible verses printed on their burger wrappers and the bottom of thier cups.

[evildave]

As far as I'm concerned, if they only want to ever do business with Christians, that's their own problem.

I was almost put on a jury where a lawyer that was representing his client (who slammed on their brakes in a parking lot front of a marked pharmacy delivery van - and managed to injure their necks with "proof" from a chiropractor's examination) went immediately into Jesus Gibberish before even getting the trial started.

One of the things I've discovered over time is that the louder and more immediate the proclamation of "Jesus" in most forms of business, the more likely the person is to be a lying weasel.

But this is only my experience.

[Dancing David]

Local to my neighborhood, there is a place that we refer to as the Christian House of Pie, there are bible verses all over the place and it is very obvious, but the pie is expensive and not that good. I don't care what religion they are, if they have a good product then I buy it. There are some middle eastern restrauns with arabic verses on the wall, it's the food , that I go for.

[Peach Jr.]

The worst example I can think of (other than the obvious - bookstores and such) is Chik Fil A. There - mercifully - aren't any around here, but you can't walk 10 feet in NC without falling into one. I understand one cannot be hired there without being an Xian. All of their outlets are closed on Sundays and all major Xian holidays. We do whatever we can to avoid them.

Oh, I almost forgot - there's the Big Furniture Store that does the "inspirational ad" every Xmas, Easter, Thanksgiving...really obnoxious stuff. I wouldn't buy from them if they were the Last Store On Earth.

[Yahweh]

So, who here wants to quit their job and open a chain of Darwin themed eateries, I figure I'd plaster the Theory of Special Relativity all over the walls and get a stained glass image of Mark Twain on the door.

Get a children's Darwin Fish, fries, and small coke for only US$2.49! Mention this ad get a free Benjamin Franklin Bobblehead Doll!

[Beanbag]

I suppose it's a matter of doing business and associating with those you feel "comfortable" around.

At one time, I went into a serious, long-term business relationship with another person who made a point to me that he was "Christian", and I based everything on a handshake and his word. The fact that he was Christian had nothing to do with it -- as a matter of fact, the subject caused me no little concern, since I wasn't sure how he'd react to having an atheist on board. What I responded to was the patent decency and trustworthiness of the man, plus the fact that he so readily trusted me as implicitly.

I work with another Christian gentleman who I would classify as "Obvious, but not Pushy." You know he's deeply religious, based on some things he's said, and the fact that you can find him perusing his (well-worn) Bible at idle moments. He quietly asked me if I'd like to pray with him when he found out I had throat cancer. I told him I was pulled about eight different ways on that one, that I was working on this particular situation myself, but that if he wanted to pray for me, I'd be honored (and I meant it). He's one of the few people I'd trust with anything and everything I own.

Marking a business as Christian or as aligned with a particular faith indicates a common ground that prospective customers and patrons can reasonably expect to find in the business. Think of it as similar to a "Se Habla Espanol" or "English Spoken Here" sign on the front door. That doesn't mean I automatically trust them, nor will I automatically avoid them. I've met more than my share of weasely Bible-thumpers, as well as a lot of decent Islamists, atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Mormons.

As long as they conduct their business in a crisp, professional manner, and don't require participation or indoctrination in their beliefs as part of doing business (think of the salesman who asks you to get down on your knees with him and pray for the sale -- yes, I've encountered more than one of them), then I let the normal rules of commerce take their course.

And I see nothing wrong with Chik-Fil-A employees having Sunday off. The company policy is to make sure their employees have a predictable day of rest, and in the food-service industry, that's a rare and treasured policy. Ask any restaurant owner the last time they've had a day off or vacation. Likely never.

They killed off the religious-inspired Blue Laws here in Texas over a decade ago, so you can actually buy hardware on Sunday. Car dealerships, however, are still required by law to be closed one day a week (usually, they choose Sunday, though some close Saturday) so the employees are guaranteed at least one day off a week. I work for an international company based (loosely) in France, but I don't get Bastille day off, nor can we have wine in the break area (heathens) because we're in the USA.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Glory]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I don't go to In & Out for this very reason; there's bible verses printed on their burger wrappers and the bottom of thier cups.

Really?! I have never noticed this.

Things like this don't bug any more than the alter behind the counter or the horoscopes on the place mats at my local chinese restaurant does. I see it as the same thing. I do find it strange that they would take verses from a sacred text and use them wrap up greasy food, knowing that their ultimate destination is the trash can but it's no skin off my nose. I see religious paraphernalia all over the place. It means nothing to me so why should it bother me?

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Tricky
To me, that says several things. One "We will treat you better than other businesses because we are Christian." Another is "If you are Christian, we may treat you preferentially."

I always took it as an effort to entice christian customers. I know that there are a lot of christians out there who feel a whole lot better about doing business with other christians than they do about doing business with anyone else. They assume that they have the same values as the person they are dealing with. Also, there's the tendency of christians to assume that they are always being persecuted. If christians know that they have a choice of supporting a christian business or a spiritually ambiguous one, they may decide to support the christian one on principle. I wonder how many people out there pretend to a religion they do not really believe in in order to attract religious customers. I know a man who sold cars in Alabama a few years ago. He said that if he had not gone to church every Sunday he would never have sold a single car. His boss told him when he first started that the only way to build trust with the local populace was to go to church with them wether you believed or not.

Glory

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm not talking about a business whose owners happen to be Christians, but rather those who flaunt it egregiously. It annoys me to see businesses who either blantently declare themselves Christian, or subtly, by including their little fish sign in their advertisements. To me, that says several things. One "We will treat you better than other businesses because we are Christian." Another is "If you are Christian, we may treat you preferentially."

So, being an atheist, I go out of my way to avoid those businesses that do that, simply because I resent the implications. Perhaps "Christian" businesses do in fact have more ethics than other businessess that worship the almighty dollar, although my experiences with Christianity indicate that Dollar worship in no way conflicts with Jesus worship.

Perhaps this indicates I am a petty, small-minded person. Sorry. It still annoys me.

I am petty and small minded too. I have noticed, at least around here, those people who run blatantly "Christian" establishments tend to be suspicious, dishonest, rude and smug. I believe they feel a sense of entitlement, but so hooked up with the creator and all.

[Pahansiri]

Today leaving Lowe's home improvement store. In front of the store was a Boy Scout troop selling something to raise funds.

I wondered to my wife ( our young son was also with us, he is 10), if I should go to them, with respect and ask if I may buy a box of what they were selling.

Then tell them my money was “owned, earned” by a Buddhist and by such an atheist and someone who while not gay has many gay friends and strongly believes in the rights of gays and all beings including the Boy Scout etc.

I would ask if they minded attaining my money knowing this, if they said yes I would ask if they would accept my son as a Boy Scout knowing what they now know about my family.

I did not want to be rude to them or place them in a position I believe they would have been it.

We just kept walking and my son said he respected them but had no desire to be a Boy Scout is they were going to be unkind to people.


So Tricky I know what you mean and we have businesses here that adverstise they are "Christian" businesses and have on all their adds and signs the fish, which is fine.

I guess I would do what I said above and see what they said.

If they had something I wanted etc and they were not rude or unkind I would buy it as it would be them whould may be the Hypocrite not me.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Today leaving Lowe's home improvement store. In front of the store was a Boy Scout troop selling something to raise funds.

I wondered to my wife ( our young son was also with us, he is 10), if I should go to them, with respect and ask if I may buy a box of what they were selling.

Then tell them my money was “owned, earned” by a Buddhist and by such an atheist and someone who while not gay has many gay friends and strongly believes in the rights of gays and all beings including the Boy Scout etc.

I would ask if they minded attaining my money knowing this, if they said yes I would ask if they would accept my son as a Boy Scout knowing what they now know about my family.

I did not want to be rude to them or place them in a position I believe they would have been it.

We just kept walking and my son said he respected them but had no desire to be a Boy Scout is they were going to be unkind to people.


So Tricky I know what you mean and we have businesses here that adverstise they are "Christian" businesses and have on all their adds and signs the fish, which is fine.

I guess I would do what I said above and see what they said.

If they had something I wanted etc and they were not rude or unkind I would buy it as it would be them whould may be the Hypocrite not me.


The Boy Scouts as an institution discriminate agianst homosexuals, athiests and , though it hasn't been brought to the forefront in a while, girls. This is integral to how they conduct their business. Businesses which are advertised as "Christian" are not discriminating by being so and do not necessarily engage in discriminatory practices by virtue of their professed religion. I think that this is an unfair comparison. I also think that it is somewhat prejudicial to assume that a christian will discriminate because others have done so.

Glory

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Glory



The Boy Scouts as an institution discriminate agianst homosexuals, athiests and , though it hasn't been brought to the forefront in a while, girls. This is integral to how they conduct their business. Businesses which are advertised as "Christian" are not discriminating by being so and do not necessarily engage in discriminatory practices by virtue of their professed religion. I think that this is an unfair comparison. I also think that it is somewhat prejudicial to assume that a christian will discriminate because others have done so.

Glory

Greetings Glory,

I agree what you say about the Boy Scouts and also what you say I think that this is an unfair comparison. as to a business and the Boy Scouts.

But I did not say what all "Christian" businesses do or think or act etc in this way or that way. I can not know all "Christian" businesses or their owners or how they conduct business. As I said it is their right to do as they will and think how they will.

You write I think that this is an unfair comparison. I also think that it is somewhat prejudicial to assume that a christian will discriminate because others have done so.

I fully agree but I did not say in any way to do so. I said So Tricky I know what you mean and we have businesses here that advertises they are "Christian" businesses and have on all their adds and signs the fish, which is fine.

I guess I would do what I said above and see what they said.

If they had something I wanted etc and they were not rude or unkind I would buy it as it would be them would may be the Hypocrite not me.

Where I did word my statement very poorly was the end in saying as it would be them would may be the Hypocrite not me.


As if they were not rude or unkind and took my money they would not be hypocrites if they were rude and spoke against my beliefs or others not like theirs but took my money then it would be them that were hypocrites.

So I do have to say I am very sorry for my poor wording there.

[Nyarlathotep]

I won't go out of my way to avoid a "Christian" establishment, but all other things being equal I will probably avoid them. They have a right to believe anything they want and show it any way that they please but I do find it slightly irritating and pushy so if their is another equally acceptable alternative, i will avoid them. However it's not SO annoying that I would avoid a place that otherwise gave me superior service/value/whatever on account of some stupid fish symbol, though.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
But I did not say what all "Christian" businesses do or think or act etc in this way or that way. I can not know all "Christian" businesses or their owners or how they conduct business. As I said it is their right to do as they will and think how they will.

You are quite right, of course. I atributed attitudes to you which were not evdienced by your writing, I apologise.

As if they were not rude or unkind and took my money they would not be hypocrites if they were rude and spoke against my beliefs or others not like theirs but took my money then it would be them that were hypocrites.

So I do have to say I am very sorry for my poor wording there.

I think I understand you better now. Is the merchant not a hippocrite, though, if he takes money from someone with whom he disagrees so fundamentally? Is not your money tainted and therefore not acceptable? After all, you openly admit to consorting with homosexuals. What if some of that money actually came from homosexuals? Ultimately, a merchant who reveals too much about his personal religious beliefs is cutting his own professional throat. Customers are just too varried. Once one commits to dealing with the public one has to be prepared to deal with all of them.

Glory

[arcticpenguin]

Check out the bumper sticker in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=22386&highlight=restaurant)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I won't go out of my way to avoid a "Christian" establishment, but all other things being equal I will probably avoid them. They have a right to believe anything they want and show it any way that they please but I do find it slightly irritating and pushy so if their is another equally acceptable alternative, i will avoid them. However it's not SO annoying that I would avoid a place that otherwise gave me superior service/value/whatever on account of some stupid fish symbol, though.
I'm this way too, but rarely are "all things equal". Most commonly it happens when I am scanning the Yellow Pages for a specific service or product.

My feeling is that if the Christian businesses put that fish or something else in their ad, hoping that it will be the thing that tips the balance in their favor when there is no clear preference, then they should also accept that for some people it is going to tip the balance out of their favor in such situations.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Check out the bumper sticker in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=22386&highlight=restaurant)
And still Yabba-dabba-delicious!

[Prospero]

I find it hard not to feel scorn for any person or group brandishing the fish symbol. In my mind, they had to go out of their way to flaunt their beliefs (just like I had to go out of my way to get a Darwin fish) in an effort to antogonize. I say antagonize because I do spend unfortunate amounts of time in the Bible Belt (specifically Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi) where I have had people threaten to rip my Darwin Fish off my Jeep saying such things as "we don't tolerate that kinda thinkin 'round here!" and "son, don'chu go ta church? You'll end up in hell for something like that!" I wish I could say that this is an exaggeration, but it is not.

Now, I find it difficult not to glare at people with that small symbol affixed to their vehicles and, though I'm not inclined to deliver my business to establishments that blazon their beliefs, I would cease further actions should the subject matter come up in conversation in a manner that would be deemed "pushy".

[Prospero]

I find it hard not to feel scorn for any person or group brandishing the fish symbol. In my mind, they had to go out of their way to flaunt their beliefs (just like I had to go out of my way to get a Darwin fish) in an effort to antogonize. I say antagonize because I do spend unfortunate amounts of time in the Bible Belt (specifically Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi) where I have had people threaten to rip my Darwin Fish off my Jeep saying such things as "we don't tolerate that kinda thinkin 'round here!" and "son, don'chu go ta church? You'll end up in hell for something like that!" I wish I could say that this is an exaggeration, but it is not.

Now, I find it difficult not to glare at people with that small symbol affixed to their vehicles and, though I'm not inclined to deliver my business to establishments that blazon their beliefs, I would cease further actions should the subject matter come up in conversation in a manner that would be deemed "pushy".

[Glory]

Originally posted by Prospero
I find it hard not to feel scorn for any person or group brandishing the fish symbol. In my mind, they had to go out of their way to flaunt their beliefs (just like I had to go out of my way to get a Darwin fish) in an effort to antogonize. I say antagonize because I do spend unfortunate amounts of time in the Bible Belt (specifically Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi) where I have had people threaten to rip my Darwin Fish off my Jeep saying such things as "we don't tolerate that kinda thinkin 'round here!" and "son, don'chu go ta church? You'll end up in hell for something like that!" I wish I could say that this is an exaggeration, but it is not.

Now, I find it difficult not to glare at people with that small symbol affixed to their vehicles and, though I'm not inclined to deliver my business to establishments that blazon their beliefs, I would cease further actions should the subject matter come up in conversation in a manner that would be deemed "pushy".

Talking about it something else entirely. I would go out of my way to avoid a business which employed anyone who brought up the subject of religion during the course of business. It is simply innapropriate under all circumstances. Wrappers I don't have to read. Signs I can ignore as I can symbols on their advertisements. Talking to employees and proprietors, though, is unavoidable. They are under an obligation, I feel, to not talk about religion or politics, neither of which are considered polite topics of conversation.

Glory

[whitefork]

Please let me know when you see a Kosher Deli with openly Christian owners. I'll make it a point to go there if I'm in the area.


Anyone have the lyrics to "Noshville Katz" by the Lovin Cohens handy?

[Professor Frink]

I would avoid a blantantly-christian business especially if that business was there to protect my health or home or family. I don't want someone praying that my pipes stop shooting hot water - I want someone who will fix the problem. Nor do I want to hear a doctor say "it's in God's hands" - I want him/her to rely on science.

That said, when I went to church when I was growing up I knew a number of business owners that I knew operated above the board absolutely and were above reproach based on their Christian beliefs. I would have done business with them in a heartbeat if I needed those kinds of services. I do not believe that any of them wore their religions on their sleeves - their customers knew they were trustworthy by the way they were treated.

Frink

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Professor Frink
I would avoid a blantantly-christian business especially if that business was there to protect my health or home or family. I don't want someone praying that my pipes stop shooting hot water - I want someone who will fix the problem. Nor do I want to hear a doctor say "it's in God's hands" - I want him/her to rely on science.I'm not sure that a Christian plumber or physician is substantially more likely than a non-Christian one to rely on divine intervention to the exclusion of professional expertise.

Would you really avoid admitting your child to, say, Georgetown University Hospital on the basis of its Christian affiliation?

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure that a Christian plumber or physician is substantially more likely than a non-Christian one to rely on divine intervention to the exclusion of professional expertise.

Would you really avoid admitting your child to, say, Georgetown University Hospital on the basis of its Christian affiliation?

I REALLY don't want a xtian doctor treating me. Really. Once you're relying on voodoo, common sense goes out the window. Don't wave a chicken at me.

A magician friend of mine did a card trick for a physician during an office visit, and she insisted it was real magic. He was finally able to tell her it was a trick, but, she said, "there's real magic, though". This went on into a discussion where she revealed her belief in angels.
He never went back. It turned out she was an awful doctor anyway, and was severely impacting his heath by fu**ing up his medications.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tricky

My feeling is that if the Christian businesses put that fish or something else in their ad, hoping that it will be the thing that tips the balance in their favor when there is no clear preference, then they should also accept that for some people it is going to tip the balance out of their favor in such situations.

I think that's exactly what they expect. Given that the vast majority of folks in the South ARE Christian (or at least say they are), then they're likely to pick up more business from Christians than they are going to lose from atheists and people of other religions.

[HarryKeogh]

when i go shopping i choose not to discriminate because of the owner's relgious beliefs unless they treat me differently than their other customers.

[Professor Frink]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'm not sure that a Christian plumber or physician is substantially more likely than a non-Christian one to rely on divine intervention to the exclusion of professional expertise.

Would you really avoid admitting your child to, say, Georgetown University Hospital on the basis of its Christian affiliation?

Not necessarily, but if the doctor came to my bedside and told me that he prayed for a successful operation I would be concerned that he was looking for help from dieties instead of (say) looking at a medical text to refresh himself on the procedure. I don't want the person doing the work to appear to be relying more on divine intervention than on their own skill.

Frink

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I REALLY don't want a xtian doctor treating me. Really. Once you're relying on voodoo, common sense goes out the window. Don't wave a chicken at me.Well, it's one thing to consider, as we have been doing, businesses or professionals whose religious affiliation is explicitly brought into their professional relationships. Your post seems to suggest, though, that individual religious belief ("voodoo", presumably not limited to Christianity) prevents a physician from diagnosing or treating people competently. Are we really to believe that the great many physicians and medical scientists (ranging from small-town GPs to Nobel laureates) who do subscribe to some form of supernatural religious belief are necessarily chicken-waving witchdoctors who have thrown all common sense out the window?

I agree with Frink that even the mere thought or appearance of subordinating ordinary medical (or other professional) standards to superstition is anxiety-provoking. However, there seems to be no real reason to conclude that the average doctor's level of expertise and care is adversely affected by his or her religious beliefs, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that personal religiosity does not hinder medical practitioners and researchers (or any other professionals) in attaining the very highest levels of proficiency in their fields.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Professor Frink


Not necessarily, but if the doctor came to my bedside and told me that he prayed for a successful operation I would be concerned that he was looking for help from dieties instead of (say) looking at a medical text to refresh himself on the procedure. I don't want the person doing the work to appear to be relying more on divine intervention than on their own skill.

Frink

If he told you that he spent the evening meditating in order to acquire the state of mind he needed in order to perform a delicate, long operation, would this be ok with you ?

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Well, it's one thing to consider, as we have been doing, businesses or professionals whose religious affiliation is explicitly brought into their professional relationships. Your post seems to suggest, though, that individual religious belief ("voodoo", presumably not limited to Christianity) prevents a physician from diagnosing or treating people competently. Are we really to believe that the great many physicians and medical scientists (ranging from small-town GPs to Nobel laureates) who do subscribe to some form of supernatural religious belief are necessarily chicken-waving witchdoctors who have thrown all common sense out the window?

I agree with Frink that even the mere thought or appearance of subordinating ordinary medical (or other professional) standards to superstition is anxiety-provoking. However, there seems to be no real reason to conclude that the average doctor's level of expertise and care is adversely affected by his or her religious beliefs, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that personal religiosity does not hinder medical practitioners and researchers (or any other professionals) in attaining the very highest levels of proficiency in their fields.

I tend to agree that I find it hard to imagine a medical professional who would ignore their medical training in favour of their religious training; hard but not impossible.

It does give me pause, though, when, I consider going to a catholic hospital. My father has an enormous appendectomy scar which is the result of a badly botched procedure. He believes that the hospital's being Catholic is directly responsible for the problem. Many of those people believe that suffering is good for your soul and that it makes you stronger.

I wouldn't go any where near a Catholic hospital if I was pregnant, an area of medicine in which Catholics are notorious for
putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.

Lastly, their are areas of research of which the Catholic Church disapproves. Because they disapprove, they may feel ethically obligated to not make use of the results of that research. This in turn may lead them to ignoring medical breakthroughs and withholding certain treatments from patients because they were acheived using information considered to be ill gotten. I take no comfort in the notion that they are more concerned with saving my soul than than my body.

Glory

[Azathoth]

Originally posted by Peach Jr.
The worst example I can think of (other than the obvious - bookstores and such) is Chik Fil A. There - mercifully - aren't any around here, but you can't walk 10 feet in NC without falling into one. I understand one cannot be hired there without being an Xian.

There's a teen in the atheist community on LiveJournal who works at Chik-Fil-A. Every once in a while, she gripes about the very religious nature of the company and employees. IIRC, she's 'closeted' about her atheism. I don't recall if she mentioned whether there is a 'religious test' to get hired there.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think doctors (or any other sort of professional) are a good example in this regard. I wouldn't let somone cut me open or give me medicine unless I did some checking on them and was confident that they were at least competant. By that time, their religious afiliation (or lack thereof) becomes as meaningless as whether they are a Republican or a Democrat. Their being religious would not make them a bad doctor any more than being an atheist would make them a good one.

If the doctor in question were pushy about their religion it would definitely be a strike against them in my book, but it would be no different if a completely atheist doctor tried to sell me Amway or somesuch; I would see it as an inappropriate thing for my doctor to do. But if they were religious but didn't try to push their beliefs on me and were otherwise good doctors, I would have no problem with a doctor of any degree of religiosity treating me. I could make similar arguments for Lawyers, plumbers, or anyone else performing a service on my behalf.

Boycotting a doctor (or any other business) soley on their religious beliefs would make me no different than the type of theist that I find most despicable. It would make me a hypocrite.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory


I wouldn't go any where near a Catholic hospital if I was pregnant, an area of medicine in which Catholics are notorious for
putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.

Glory

:confused: Is this true? I have never heard of it and I am sure that If they did such a thing, their greatest enemies the Orthodox Greek Church would made a huge issue about it.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm not talking about a business whose owners happen to be Christians, but rather those who flaunt it egregiously. It annoys me to see businesses who either blantently declare themselves Christian, or subtly, by including their little fish sign in their advertisements. To me, that says several things. One "We will treat you better than other businesses because we are Christian." Another is "If you are Christian, we may treat you preferentially."

So, being an atheist, I go out of my way to avoid those businesses that do that, simply because I resent the implications. Perhaps "Christian" businesses do in fact have more ethics than other businessess that worship the almighty dollar, although my experiences with Christianity indicate that Dollar worship in no way conflicts with Jesus worship.

Perhaps this indicates I am a petty, small-minded person. Sorry. It still annoys me.

I don't think, you are petty or small-minded. I don't think christians are any better than anyone else in business, but they are practicing their subtle bigotry, "We are better than you because we are christians." I don't support bigotry.

When my children were much younger, they attended a daycare center for many years before it was sold to a christian woman, who made it a christian daycare center. It was about a month before the woman 'found out' (I don't keep my atheism a secret) about my lack of belief, and then my disabled son was not permitted to attend any longer although she and I had discussed his needs when she purchased the center, and she had told me, "That baby is always welcome here!" (her exact words) But a month later, now that she knew I was an atheist, he was "too difficult to care for" although the only thing that had changed in the daycare center was the owner, the same employees worked there and same kids still attended.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


:confused: Is this true? I have never heard of it and I am sure that If they did such a thing, their greatest enemies the Orthodox Greek Church would made a huge issue about it.

Well, they are awfully reluctant to perform abortions even under the most dire circumstances.;) Birth control of any kind is not available in a catholic hospital. They withhold information about options from pregnant patients. I consider this a gross violation of medical ethics. They put their religious beliefs ahead af a patient's choices and, in rare cases, their health. I don't know how the Greek Orthodox Church feels about these issues. I know that I have an IUD today because my obstetrician reccomended it. She could not have done that had she been Catholic. She would have been barred from discussing birth control of any kind with me.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
I wouldn't go any where near a Catholic hospital if I was regnant, an area of medicine in which Catholics are notorious for
putting their religious beliefs before their medical obligations.Every year (including this one), when US News & World Report publishes its rankings of American hospitals, several Catholic hospitals earn honors in the subcategory of gynecological and obstetric care (not that all the OB/GYNs in those hospitals are necessarily Catholic themselves, I imagine). If the physicians working in those departments did not treat their patients with a level of skill, professionalism and conscientiousness comparable to that of their peers in non-Catholic hospitals, I expect that their reputations would suffer accordingly.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory


Well, they are awfully reluctant to perform abortions even under the most dire circumstances.;) Birth control of any kind is not available in a catholic hospital. They withhold information about options from pregnant patients. I consider this a gross violation of medical ethics. They put their religious beliefs ahead af a patient's choices and, in rare cases, their health. I don't know how the Greek Orthodox Church feels about these issues. I know that I have an IUD today because my obstetrician reccomended it. She could not have done that had she been Catholic. She would have been barred from discussing birth control of any kind with me.

Glory

Oh yes abortions.I see what do you mean. The birth control is a serious issue and as ceo_esq mentioned I had the impression that Catholic Hospitals are high in rankings, how can they be if they refuse to talk to their patients about birth control for example.

I refuse to represent drug dealers and child molesters in court based on moral grounds, I hope that this doesn't make me seem like a less efficient lawyer.

[Fun2BFree]

There is an appliance store round these parts that prclaims they are CLOSED ON SUNDAY because that is God's Commandmant.

Also I have had patients ask me my religion and when they learn I am not a Christian it has worried a few of them to the point of considering changing doctors...though the few have come back realizing I am pretty darn good at what I do...even without a connection to the Almighty.

[Cleopatra]

But to address Tricky's original question I am put off by enterprises that "play the card" of religion in order to do business.

In Greece this plays a huge role. There is a tendancy for Christians to support each other when it comes to business. I wonder what distinguishes such an attitude from ghettoization.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
There is an appliance store round these parts that prclaims they are CLOSED ON SUNDAY because that is God's Commandmant.

* snort * Obviously not Seventh Day Adventists.

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Every year (including this one), when US News & World Report publishes its rankings of American hospitals, several Catholic hospitals earn honors in the subcategory of gynecological and obstetric care (not that all the OB/GYNs in those hospitals are necessarily Catholic themselves, I imagine). If the physicians working in those departments did not treat their patients with a level of skill, professionalism and conscientiousness comparable to that of their peers in non-Catholic hospitals, I expect that their reputations would suffer accordingly.

If they prescribe birth control, they are in violation of the Catholic Church. If they won't, they have, IMO, no business practicing obstetrics or gynecology. It is too much a part of reproductive health to ignore. How would you feel about a surgeon who was a Jehova's witness and refused to transfuse blood to his patients? What about a cardiologist who disapproved of angioplasty for whatever reason? I don't care how good they are at delivering babies and providing pre and post natal care. Their neonatal ICU may be the best in the land. They ignore one of their responsibilities to their patients and I find that unacceptable.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Oh yes abortions.I see what do you mean. The birth control is a serious issue and as ceo_esq mentioned I had the impression that Catholic Hospitals are high in rankings, how can they be if they refuse to talk to their patients about birth control for example.

It does mkae me wonder about the criteria on which they are being evaluated.

I refuse to represent drug dealers and child molesters in court based on moral grounds, I hope that this doesn't make me seem like a less efficient lawyer.

Interesting comparison. Somehow this is different to me, though, I cannot put my finger directly on the reason why. Perhaps because you are not acting under a church mandate which says that such individuals must not be represented by any one.

I should clarify that while it bothers when a doctor does not perscribe birth control or perform abortions because of his religious beliefs , my real beef is with the hospital. Doctors can do what they like and I don't have to go them. Hospitals are ususally chosen for us though, by our insurance companies. Should one's insurance be contracted to a catholic hospital, then you are stuck with Catholic beliefs governing your care. I don't like that at all.

You don't have to represent anyone you don't want to represent. Doctors don't have to perfrom procedures that they do want to. Once you are in a position to impose your beliefs on others though, as Catholic Hospitals can, then there must be shift in priorities from your beliefs to the rights of your client or patient.

Glory

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

* snort * Obviously not Seventh Day Adventists.

Off the subject...I was raised an SDA. One Saturday Little Richard came to our church (I attended a "gospel" church for several years. I was the only white girl). After church, I ran after Little Richard and asked for his autograph. He said no, and walked off to his limo. I called after him, begging (I was 13) and his body guard said, "Sorry, Mr. Richard does not sign autographs on the Sabbath". I've hated Little Richard ever since.

On the subject...
I've heard, I don't know where from, that you don't want to go to Catholic hospitals if you're a woman of child bearing age. They're discrimanatory against women.

[Roadtoad]

A gentleman I spoke with years ago explained why he displayed the Ichthys, even though he wasn't a Christian:

"It brings in the suckers."

Nuff said.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Glory
If they prescribe birth control, they are in violation of the Catholic Church. If they won't, they have, IMO, no business practicing obstetrics or gynecology.


Except among women who don't want abortions or birth control, maybe? As long as the doctor is up front about it, why not? The doctor could still deliver babies or diagnose ailments. Might even be good at it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Glory


It does mkae me wonder about the criteria on which they are being evaluated.



Interesting comparison. Somehow this is different to me, though, I cannot put my finger directly on the reason why. Perhaps because you are not acting under a church mandate which says that such individuals must not be represented by any one.

I should clarify that while it bothers when a doctor does not perscribe birth control or perform abortions because of his religious beliefs , my real beef is with the hospital. Doctors can do what they like and I don't have to go them. Hospitals are ususally chosen for us though, by our insurance companies. Should one's insurance be contracted to a catholic hospital, then you are stuck with Catholic beliefs governing your care. I don't like that at all.

You don't have to represent anyone you don't want to represent. Doctors don't have to perfrom procedures that they do want to. Once you are in a position to impose your beliefs on others though, as Catholic Hospitals can, then there must be shift in priorities from your beliefs to the rights of your client or patient.

Glory [/B]

There is a big difference when it comes to doctors. According to the Hippocratic Oath they cannot choose to whom they will provide their assistance, of course this very oath excludes abortion but I guess that things have changed in our days. The important thing is that the point of this Oath-- at least the way I understand it-- is exactly that; to ensure that doctors won't deny their help to anybody. To put it bluntly I am not sure if doctors are entitled to have beliefs when they exercise their profession.

I will attempt to contact a friend who has been dealing with medical ethics for years and see what he has to say about this.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


There is a big difference when it comes to doctors. According to the Hippocratic Oath they cannot choose to whom they will provide their assistance, of course this very oath excludes abortion but I guess that things have changed in our days.


It's not necessary to have taken the Hippocratic oath to become a doctor. Some medical students do swear it upon graduation - but it's strictly a personal thing. The ones that do take it will typically refuse to perform abortions (at least unless it's necessary to save the life of the mother.)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
If they prescribe birth control, they are in violation of the Catholic Church. If they won't, they have, IMO, no business practicing obstetrics or gynecology. It is too much a part of reproductive health to ignore. How would you feel about a surgeon who was a Jehova's witness and refused to transfuse blood to his patients? What about a cardiologist who disapproved of angioplasty for whatever reason? I don't care how good they are at delivering babies and providing pre and post natal care. Their neonatal ICU may be the best in the land. They ignore one of their responsibilities to their patients and I find that unacceptable.I see what you mean, but I'm not sure those are good analogies. Blood transfusions and angioplasty are procedures/treatments that are given under circumstances where they are medically indicated for therapeutic reasons. Isn't prescribing birth control to an otherwise healthy individual different?

Of course, the same drugs used for birth control are also used to treat various medical conditions, and I've read that Catholic hospitals will normally prescribe contraceptive treatments if the supposed primary purpose is not contraception (although your IUD would presumably not qualify for this loophole, since it does not have non-contraceptive applications and is, moreover, considered an abortifacient by Catholic doctors).

Where the only purpose of prescribing, say, birth control pills would be to prevent contraception in a fully healthy person - although I'm all for it under safe conditions - it is difficult to characterize as therapeutic (or even preventive) medicine. Accordingly, I'm not sure why it would be inconsistent with professional medical ethics to decline to prescribe them in that situation.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
A gentleman I spoke with years ago explained why he displayed the Ichthys, even though he wasn't a Christian:

"It brings in the suckers."

Nuff said.
This is one of the biggest reasons why I tend to not patronize establishments that display the Ichthys. They have so little respect for their customers that they think that flashing the "secret sign" is good enough to lure them in. Sadly, they are often right, but I try to excercise my personal protest against "sucker harvesting".

[tamiO]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
I don't go to In & Out for this very reason; there's bible verses printed on their burger wrappers and the bottom of thier cups.

I have never heard of this chain, LOL. "In & Out" sounds so sexual for a Christian establishment. Weirdness abounds, eh?

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Glory


I know a man who sold cars in Alabama a few years ago. He said that if he had not gone to church every Sunday he would never have sold a single car. His boss told him when he first started that the only way to build trust with the local populace was to go to church with them wether you believed or not.

Glory

This is so true. One of the first questions you get asked here when meeting someone new is "What church do you go to?"

My answer is "right here" (tapping chest like Celine Dion) "God is in my heart. :) Church is everywhere for me."

If they don't know that I am referring to an abstract concept of God and think I believe in their God... oh well.

[Ossai]

Cleopatra
Oh yes abortions.I see what do you mean. The birth control is a serious issue and as ceo_esq mentioned I had the impression that Catholic Hospitals are high in rankings, how can they be if they refuse to talk to their patients about birth control for example. It doesn't stop there though. They deliberately withhold information that might have a direct consequence on the health of the patient.

When my sister was pregnant she was seeing a doctor affiliated with a hospital, halfway through her pregnancy the hospital was purchased and became a catholic hospital. From one visit to the next, she was informed that the doctor could no longer prescribe birth control (she was going on it after the pregnancy was over) or anything else that might keep her from getting pregnant. Even though another pregnancy could damage a woman's health if too soon after a birth. A large number of books were banned from the hospital and nurses weren't allowed to answer some basic questions. <this was only 7 months ago>

I'm currently living in Nashville, the buckle of the bible belt. On my drive to and from work everyday I pass at least 2 business that proclaim their Christianity. This is just from the interstate to my house, and I'm not even counting the 5 churches. I only live 2 1/2 miles from the interstate.

MoeFaux
On the subject...
I've heard, I don't know where from, that you don't want to go to Catholic hospitals if you're a woman of child bearing age. They're discrimanatory against women. Women, don't go to a catholic hospital if you've been raped, because the hospital is forbidden to administer the morning after pill or any other sort of birth control. They will also avoid administering anything that might harm a fetus even if it would save the woman's life or ease pain. (info from the nurses at the now catholic hospital)

Ossai

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ossai
Women, don't go to a catholic hospital if you've been raped, because the hospital is forbidden to administer the morning after pill or any other sort of birth control. They will also avoid administering anything that might harm a fetus even if it would save the woman's life or ease pain. (info from the nurses at the now catholic hospital)I found a link to the official rules for U.S. Catholic hospitals (http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/directives.htm). Here's one of them:Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.Clearly, if saving the mother's life unfortunately requires harming the fetus, Catholic hospitals can do what is necessary.

[Glory]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Except among women who don't want abortions or birth control, maybe? As long as the doctor is up front about it, why not? The doctor could still deliver babies or diagnose ailments. Might even be good at it.

Part of a doctor's obligation is education of his patients. Doctors have a responsibility to disseminate information about patients's health and this includes information about birth control. If they won't discuss or prescribe the pill, what else aren't they telling us? Do they advise patients that the condom is vital for the prevention of disease? What about a patient who has as much use for a child as they have for another hole in their head? It is utterly irresponisble to refuse to share information which can impact the lives of patients so profoundly. If you disapprove of such a sundamental aspect of your profession, find another profession.

If my doctor had decided that I should not use birth control I would have continued on in total ignorance of the benefits of an IUD and under false notions of their being dangerous. It would not have occurred to me to ask about it as I thought that they were dangerous and ineffective. Doctors do not have the right to make these decisions on behalf of their patients. By refusing to perscribe birth control, doctors are forcing their beliefs on to their patients. In a way, I think that any woman who has undergone unwanted pregnancy because her doctor didn't tell her what her options were, before or after she got pregnant, is the victim of violence.

Birth control is not a minor issue. It isn't "just birth control". It is a major factor in the lives of people who use it and in the lives of people who don't. Pregnancy is no longer the default position for women today.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


There is a big difference when it comes to doctors. According to the Hippocratic Oath they cannot choose to whom they will provide their assistance, of course this very oath excludes abortion but I guess that things have changed in our days. The important thing is that the point of this Oath-- at least the way I understand it-- is exactly that; to ensure that doctors won't deny their help to anybody. To put it bluntly I am not sure if doctors are entitled to have beliefs when they exercise their profession.

Oath or no oath, I believe you hit it on the head. Doctors are not entitled to exercise their beliefs while practicing medicine. The two are mutally exclusive. Your patients rights trump your bleiefs. We don't have Christian Scientist's practicing medicine for a reason. Catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pick and choose what parts of their obligations they will fulfill. That's should not be allowed.

I will attempt to contact a friend who has been dealing with medical ethics for years and see what he has to say about this.

Cool! I am curious about that perspective.

Glory

[JSFolk]

I tend to avoid the fish establishments. I also avoid "Sonshine Pets" (the "t" in Pets is a christian cross)

Can religious belief seriously interfere with medical care?
From. http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/genesis.htm#horror

Finally, a (true) horror story. A few years ago there was a little girl, known to the concerned public as "Baby Fae," who needed a heart transplant. Human donors are hard to find, especially for infants, so a daring surgeon convinced the parents to let him implant a baboon's heart. A hopeful world held its breath, while skeptical biologists scratched their heads (a baboon's heart?), but everyone hoped for the best. Sadly, Baby Fae died after a few weeks. Among the contributing factors may have been that her immune system had recognized the heart as something foreign, and attacked it. After the sensational news stories had died down, it was reported that a biologist asked the surgeon why he had chosen a baboon donor, which is a much more distant relative of ours (in evolutionary terms) than a chimpanzee, which is our closest relative (DNA ~99% identical). Wouldn't there have been less danger of rejection with a heart from a closer relative? The surgeon's answer: he hadn't even taken that into consideration, because he didn't believe in evolution! To him, no creatures were related to each other, since they had all been created at once, in their present forms.*

*Response from a gentleman researching this and other creationist craziness for a dissertation:
I tracked this down, to a radio interview given by Bailey to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program "Health Report," hosted by Norman Swan, aired June 3, 1985. I have obtained a copy of the tape. It's true, Bailey says exactly that the concept of homology did not play a role in the selection process of donor species, but it was a case of availability and size. HLA testing was done, and the closest match was used. However, baboons have type A blood, while Baby Fae was type O. The blood antigens caused a severe rejection of not only the heart graft, but also damage to liver and other organs. The doctors thought that blood type immune response would not be sufficiently developed in a neonate to make a difference. Bailey says he's a fundamentalist, he can buy microevolution, but that millions of years of separation of species boggles his mind. Homology of this kind did not count at all!

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I see what you mean, but I'm not sure those are good analogies. Blood transfusions and angioplasty are procedures/treatments that are given under circumstances where they are medically indicated for therapeutic reasons. Isn't prescribing birth control to an otherwise healthy individual different?

Define healthy? Physically healthy or does mental health count? What about a woman who experienced severe post partum depression, or even post partum psychosis, and does not want to have more children for fear of what she may do? What about a family that cannot financially survive another child? Or a marraige that may be threatened by another child? Who gets to decide that a woman's reasons for wanting to prevent pregnancy are sufficient to warrant a perscription? Here's a crazy notion. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, is that not a good reason to refrain from forcing said child to endure a parent that doesn't want him/her?

Of course, the same drugs used for birth control are also used to treat various medical conditions, and I've read that Catholic hospitals will normally prescribe contraceptive treatments if the supposed primary purpose is not contraception (although your IUD would presumably not qualify for this loophole, since it does not have non-contraceptive applications and is, moreover, considered an abortifacient by Catholic doctors).

I am not sure about that. I know that the Church's official position on condoms is that their function as birth control trumps their function as disease preventative. Catholics are still told that they should not use condoms even when their primary reason for doing so is to prevent the transmission of HIV. I consider that position criminal.

Where the only purpose of prescribing, say, birth control pills would be to prevent contraception in a fully healthy person - although I'm all for it under safe conditions - it is difficult to characterize as therapeutic (or even preventive) medicine. Accordingly, I'm not sure why it would be inconsistent with professional medical ethics to decline to prescribe them in that situation.

It depends on what you are trying to prevent. I believe that one of the functions of modern medicine is to help people not ruin their lives with unwanted pregnancy.

Glory

[Glory]

Originally posted by tamiO


I have never heard of this chain, LOL. "In & Out" sounds so sexual for a Christian establishment. Weirdness abounds, eh?

The full name of the restaurant is "In and Out Burger". The in thing at my highschool was to put one of their bumper stickers on one's books which had been altered to read "In and Out urge".

Glory

[Cleopatra]

I think that this issue about Medicine and Religion deserves a thread of its own :)

Shall I start one?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
Part of a doctor's obligation is education of his patients. Doctors have a responsibility to disseminate information about patients's health and this includes information about birth control. If they won't discuss or prescribe the pill, what else aren't they telling us? Do they advise patients that the condom is vital for the prevention of disease? What about a patient who has as much use for a child as they have for another hole in their head? It is utterly irresponisble to refuse to share information which can impact the lives of patients so profoundly. If you disapprove of such a sundamental aspect of your profession, find another profession.It's great to have birth control available, but in the majority of cases in which, for example, birth control pills are prescribed, is it really for medical reasons? As I suggested earlier, the decision to prescribe birth control pills to a woman in a perfectly normal state of health simply doesn't seem to fall within the scope of therapeutic or preventive medicine. The justification for the pills is obviously potentially relevant to the patient's interests, but are those interests of the patient's medical health? I'm not sure.

This goes to the heart of your question about the case of a healthy patient who simply "has as much use for a child as they have for another hole in their head". Interestingly, your simile highlights the very distinction I'm considering here. A patient may find another child and another hole in her head to be equally useless, but holes in one's head are obviously a medical matter whereas unwanted children are not, per se, a core preoccupation of the medical profession. The latter phenomenon is undoubtedly a social ill that should concern everyone, but not an illness that should specifically concern healers.

There are surely many patients and even some physicians who would disagree, but if the medical profession as a whole shared your view of the "fundamental aspects" of that profession, wouldn't the profession probably have developed in such a way that the behavior you're criticizing as irresponsible would be prohibited for doctors?
Originally posted by Glory
If my doctor had decided that I should not use birth control I would have continued on in total ignorance of the benefits of an IUD and under false notions of their being dangerous.I'd be interested to hear from the Forum's medical members whether there are any substantial medical benefits to implanting an IUD in a patient under normal circumstances - that is, cases in which it is a medically indicated therapy. If there aren't any, then the benefits you're speaking of must be non-medical ones, which prompts the question of why a doctor would have any professional obligations in relation thereto.
Originally posted by Glory
Birth control is not a minor issue. It isn't "just birth control".I agree with you. My question is, as what kind of issue can it best be characterized? Is birth control per se necessarily a medical issue (i.e. one relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of bodily disease, damage and injury)? On the face of it, not very often. Is it a health issue? Not normally, unless we define health in a broad way that goes beyond mere medical health to include general individual well-being.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that this issue about Medicine and Religion deserves a thread of its own :)

Shall I start one? Go for it. :cool:

[MoeFaux]

Whoa, ceo_esq. Do you hate women?

There are PLENTY of medical reason for a woman to be on the pill. What about women who are not physically stong enougth to have a child, where a pregnancy would be life-threataning? And what about women who are trying to regulate their periods because they're bleeding constantly? What about hormone control?

I'm going to assume you're male, because if you have to ask if there are real medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy for the pill, then you don't know anything about women or their cycles. You are on a seriously slippery slope here, watch out.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq, you just met our new member Moe Faux :)

Well, don't take her the way I did when I start reading her posts although there is no way for you to react the way I did. This is her writing style :)

[Glory]

Child birth and birth control are health issues. In this society the figures charged with maintaining and our health as individuals are doctors. Children or lack there of effect mental health. Mental health is most definitely part of the doctor's responsibilities. All med. students and residents do a psych. rotation. Psychiatry is a medical discipline. Birth control is medical issue just as is breast enhancement or acne.

Here is another potential complication of the Catholic hospital stance. What do they do about women who are taking drugs which are known to cause serious and catastrophic brth defects? Most doctors require any patient who is taking accutane, for example, to use birth control. The consequences of pregnancy are just to horrible to justify any risk. Do Catholic hospitals simply not prescribe drugs which cause birth defects or do they allow patients to become pregnant and then deal with the consequences?

Glory

[Cleopatra]

Voila! (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27919) :)

[Marc]

"Do you patronize "Christian" establishments?"

well I take a patronizing tone with them, does that count? ;)


been finding as time goes on and I learn more, I have less respect for religion. If I see a place is trying to promote itself by proclaiming it is a 'christian' business then I am likely to find some place else to shop. I would still go there if there were no other convinient options.

Heard about some coalition of 'christian' businesses. If you get certified as a christian business then you get included in a catalog, special promotions, and other deals for the businesses to support one another. Think the story was that Wallmart was joining up with it, but to qualify it had to take some items like Maxim magazine off of its shelves. So you get increased business opportunity, but have to join in their morality by not carying certain products. Just more reason for me to shop elsewhere.

[Glory]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
It's great to have birth control available, but in the majority of cases in which, for example, birth control pills are prescribed, is it really for medical reasons? As I suggested earlier, the decision to prescribe birth control pills to a woman in a perfectly normal state of health simply doesn't seem to fall within the scope of therapeutic or preventive medicine. The justification for the pills is obviously potentially relevant to the patient's interests, but are those interests of the patient's medical health? I'm not sure.

Try being pregnant and then decide if there is a medical reason for birth control. Try giving birth and nursing and bleeding and seeing to the health of your baby and then decide. Try iundergoing surgery to ensure that you and the baby survive the birth. Try giving birth to child who will not live to see his seventh birthday because he inherited a genetic defect and explain how this is not a medical issue.

This goes to the heart of your question about the case of a healthy patient who simply "has as much use for a child as they have for another hole in their head". Interestingly, your simile highlights the very distinction I'm considering here. A patient may find another child and another hole in her head to be equally useless, but holes in one's head are obviously a medical matter whereas unwanted children are not, per se, a core preoccupation of the medical profession. The latter phenomenon is undoubtedly a social ill that should concern everyone, but not an illness that should specifically concern healers.

Because doctors can prevent pregnancy the ball is in their court. If auto mechanics could prevent pregnancy the issue would be of special concern to them.

There are surely many patients and even some physicians who would disagree, but if the medical profession as a whole shared your view of the "fundamental aspects" of that profession, wouldn't the profession probably have developed in such a way that the behavior you're criticizing as irresponsible would be prohibited for doctors?

The medical profession predates birth control. That is part of the problem. The practice of medicine has changed dramatically over the years and each of those changes has brought controversy along with it. There will allways be doctors who are afraid of some of these changes. They are fallible humans who cannot always come to complete agreement over every issue.

I'd be interested to hear from the Forum's medical members whether there are any substantial medical benefits to implanting an IUD in a patient under normal circumstances - that is, cases in which it is a medically indicated therapy. If there aren't any, then the benefits you're speaking of must be non-medical ones, which prompts the question of why a doctor would have any professional obligations in relation thereto.

If this the case than why do we need a doctor to presribe them and insert them? The medically indicated therapy is pregnancy prevention. Why do you need anything else?

I agree with you. My question is, as what kind of issue can it best be characterized? Is birth control per se necessarily a medical issue (i.e. one relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of bodily disease, damage and injury)? On the face of it, not very often.

Pregnancy can do a great deal of damage. Preventing it can spare a woman from kidney failure, liver damage, post partum depression, post partum psychosis, malnutrtion, tooth decay, osteoporosis, blood loss, heart strain, hyper tension, fatigue, tearing of the perineum etc... The list is long. Then of course there is the mental strain of unwanted pregnancy.


Is it a health issue? Not normally, unless we define health in a broad way that goes beyond mere medical health to include general individual well-being.

Define general well being? Most women would not consider an unwanted fetus in their uterous a state of well being.

I have to ask this. Do you have kids? Kids effect your health in ways you an't imagine until you have one.

What about poverty and violence and education? Are they medical issues? They are because of the tremendous effect they have on our health. I really don't understand what you do consider to be health issues if you don't consider pregnancy to be one.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Whoa, ceo_esq. Do you hate women?

There are PLENTY of medical reason for a woman to be on the pill. What about women who are not physically stong enougth to have a child, where a pregnancy would be life-threataning? And what about women who are trying to regulate their periods because they're bleeding constantly? What about hormone control?

I'm going to assume you're male, because if you have to ask if there are real medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy for the pill, then you don't know anything about women or their cycles. You are on a seriously slippery slope here, watch out. Hello MoeFaux - and a belated welcome to the Forum.

If you review what I've said in this thread, I think you'll note my acknowledgment that there are many therapeutic applications for birth control pills. Specifically, I said earlier that "the same drugs used for birth control are also used to treat various medical conditions".

However, in my latest post or two, I was considering the limited (though common) situation of prescribing birth control pills to an otherwise fully healthy patient, who is not suffering from any recognizable hormonal imbalances, endometrial disorders or other abnormal conditions. My apologies for not making this qualification sufficiently clear.

Also, I did not ask whether there are real medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy for prescribing the pill. I queried whether there were non-contraceptive medical benefits associated with implanting an IUD.

Although your question was probably rhetorical, of course I do not hate women. I don't believe I have a reputation for misogyny here, and the prospect of acquiring one (even inadvertently) makes me a little anxious. Hopefully we understand each other better now.