The UK (well okay, Britain; let’s leave Northern Ireland out of this statement) is a relatively secular place to live, with religion kept as largely a personal matter. School children don’t have to swear loyalty to a beard in the sky, and churches aren’t the local-business hub they seem to be in the US. Which makes this news all the stranger: the British General Medical Council (GMC) has decided to review its rules, which currently ban doctors from discussing their religious views with patients during consultations.
::::Ways This Could Go Wrong #1: a Jehovah’s Witness doctor advises his stabbing-victim patient against accepting a blood transfusion because “it would displease the Sky Beard”. ::::
In a decision which we many people (well alright, just us) are calling “absolutely disgraceful why don’t they tell the damn churches they have to discuss evolution during every Sunday service“, the GMC (a select group of clinical boffins who oversee all medically-licensed people and activities) have announced they will look into their rule which bans discussing their religion during patient consultations.
::::Ways This Could Go Wrong #2: a male Muslim doctor refuses to treat a female patient because she is baring her face to him. “It would displease the Sky Beard”. ::::
This comes on the heels of a decision by the GMC earlier this year to give an official warning to Richard Scott, a General Practitioner who suggested to a young patient that perhaps believing in Jesus could relieve his medical condition. The patient’s mother (not present during the consultation) was told, and she lodged a complaint.
Just in case you’re thinking this is atheist propaganda, here is the audio of an interview with Dr Richard Scott, conducted by the BBC. We have transcribed the initial portion of the interview below the video. The transcribed portion fully describes the words used during the medical consultation, as remembered by the clinician.
Selected transcription:
Interviewer: Good morning, Dr Scott.
Dr Scott: Good morning to you.
Interviewer: It’s very nice to have you on the program [DS: Thank you] so we can clarify all this. What did you say to this patient?
Dr Scott: The consultation took place over, initially, twenty minutes, where we looked at the standard medical issues, and I could see that he’d had these things approached in the past by several doctors, and that he was still stuck in a rut. So I followed my normal principle, which is that after doing the standard medicine, I said to him: “look, there is something else that could help you here: if you’d like, we can discuss how faith could be an advantage for you in this case and could help you move forwards and give you some hope for the future“. So at that point we discussed my faith as a Christian, I discussed his faith – which was an alternative faith to Christianity – questions backwards and forwards, and at the end of it he obviously chose not to take up what I suggested. Which is absolutely fine, his right.
What.
A crock.
Of shit.
::::Ways This Could Go Wrong #3: a Catholic doctor advises a child who claims to have been sexually abused that he should talk about it with a priest. “That would please the Sky Beard.”::::
The interview only gets worse. We intend to post a full transcription soon.
Here is the terrifying short version of the interview: I reviewed my patient’s medical history, saw that a few other doctors had not successfully cured him, and so decided that the best treatment would be a good dose of religion. My patient was not a Christian, so I attempted to convert him in the hopes that he may be saved from hell eternal.
This is a terrifying vision of the future: doctors ignoring scientifically proven treatments in favor of prayer, incense burning and goat sacrifices. The head of the GMC, Niall Dickson, should be hanging his head in shame at having announced this decision to review the rules.
Because if we allow religion to gain an officially sanctioned role in medical treatment, where will we end? We’ll show you where. Here: homeopathic Emergency Room. Enjoy!
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Any kind of religion should be banned from patient consultation, including the blind faith in modern medicine. Which “scientifically proven treatments” really cure without side effects?
So doctors paid by the Big Pharma fooling people into taking chemical stuff they don’t even need is OK, isn’t it? Torturing a child with a treatment against cancer that caused her a heart failure, and a judge obliging her by law to undergo a heart transplant against her will is not a religious fanaticism, is it? A doctor telling a patient (a friend of mine) that he should do some research on his medical condition himself on the Internet isn’t disgraceful, is it? People (excluding the rich) infected with HIV, hepatitis B and C (that will eventually kill them) through blood transfusions isn’t disgraceful, is it? What’s the point of replacing one religion with another, other than taking over the power?
I wouldn’t expect you to be so biased.
Ha ha. You still are a good for nothing piece of shit aren’t you. Looking forward to you and your family dying of cancer. X