• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Atheist doctors 'more likely to hasten death'

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ashes

Banned
"Terminally-ill patients would be well advised to find out the religious beliefs of their doctor, according to research showing the effect of faith on a doctor's willingness to make decisions that could hasten death.

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.

Doctors are influenced by their beliefs, just as other people are, said Seale.

"It is easy for clinicians to present themselves as neutral appliers of science, but values do come into it," he said. That is accepted in abortion care, but the issue has not yet been widely discussed in the care of the dying. "I had a GP who was powerfully committed to not legalising euthanasia," said Seale. He has now changed his GP.

Seale's study, published online today in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was based on a survey of doctors in specialisms likely to care for people at the end of life, such as neurology, elderly and palliative care but also general practice. More than 8,500 doctors were contacted and almost 4,000 responded.

The chances of a doctor making an ethically controversial decision expected or partly intended to end life was largely unrelated to the doctor's ethnicity, but was strongly related to his or her specialisation. Specialised doctors in hospitals were almost 10 times as likely to report this than palliative care specialists.

But regardless of their speciality, doctors who described themselves as "extremely" or "very non-religious" were almost twice as likely to report having taken these kinds of decisions as those with a religious belief.


Read more at the links
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/26/doctors-religious-beliefs-terminally-ill
More sources: http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/1024290/Religious-doctors-less-likely-hasten-death/
http://www.physorg.com/news201958338.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...heist-doctors-behave-differently-2061985.html
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publications...ance/DH_118810
 
This was actually the case with my aunt who passed away a few years ago. The first surgeon (atheist) seemed rather... callous.
I'm sure at least some are more compassionate though.
 
It doesn't matter if they were "more likely to hasten death".

What matters is if that was the prudent course of action or not.
 
Terminal patients deserve to be told that they're terminal. Artificially extending the life of terminal patients is nothing more than dirty money-grabbing.
 
Interesting. The doctors refused to discuss the options even when the patient requested to, or the issue simply never came up? 'Likely' leaves a lot of ambiguity about how the doctors actually interacted with their patients.
 
Bizarre. I thought religious people would be so keen to be reward others with the perfect afterlife that they've been working so hard for, that they'd be the ones herding sick people toward the express exit.
 
Fusebox said:
Bizarre. I thought religious people would be so keen to be rewarded with the perfect afterlife that they've been working so hard for, that they'd be the ones heading toward the express exit.
Click to expand...
Huh? We be talking about the doctor's religion here, not the patient's
 
mavs said:
Interesting. The doctors refused to discuss the options even when the patient requested to, or the issue simply never came up? 'Likely' leaves a lot of ambiguity about how the doctors actually interacted with their patients.
Click to expand...

Issue would come up
As part of the study, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, doctors from a wide range of specialities – including those related to end-of-life care – were asked about their religious views and their care of their last patient who died. Doctors who said they were non-religious were more likely than any other group to have given continuous, deep sedation until death, having taken a decision they knew could or would end a paitent's life.

Those who described themselves as "extremely" or "very non-religious" were almost twice as likely to have taken these kinds of decisions as those with a strong religious belief. They were also more likely to have discussed end-of-life decisions with patients.
Click to expand...
 
Sooo, religious doctors are more likely to avoid end-of-life decisions with their patients?

Look how easy it is to make catchy headlines!
 
So non-religious doctors are a little more realistic and honest with their terminally ill patients. That makes sense.
 
danwarb said:
So non-religious doctors are a little more realistic and honest with their terminally ill patients. That makes sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's completely accurate either.
 
One in three GP's 'would refuse to work in surgery that offered abortions'

doctor_1290076c.jpg


And almost two in three, 61 per cent, who responded to the survey, do not believe that practices should be offering them at all. Medical terminations up to nine weeks could be offered in surgeries across the country after pilot studies showed that they were safe. Last month several local healthcare trusts said that they were considering plans to offer the service, in which drugs are used to prompt an abortion, in their area. But the new survey suggests that they could face opposition. The small poll, of 480 family doctors, also shows that more than half of them believe that offering the terminations outside hospitals will increase the overall abortion rate. Almost half of those who took part in the survey also wanted to see the current 24-week limit for abortion lowered. One in 10 called for it to be set at 15 weeks or less, the poll by GP magazine shows.

Some Primary Care Trusts are considering including the terminations in services offered by the new polyclinic that the Department of Health requires them to set up by the end of this year. Dr Sarah Jarvis, from the Royal College of GPs, warned that abortions would be "trivialised" by becoming available in doctors' surgeries. Dr Trevor Stammers, chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship and a GP in south London, said: "Medical abortions are not a harmless procedure. Uterine rupture and bleeding, though rare, will occur and GPs should rightly be reluctant to take on the risk.

"I will play no part in brutalising women in such a way and will do all I can to try and help women to see that abortion may not be the best way out in the long run." But Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said that the terminations should be made as easy as possible for women to access.

The survey also shows that three in four respondents believe that the number of doctors' signatures required for an abortion should remain at two and not be cut to just one, as has been suggested. A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "This is an extremely small survey of 480 GPs out of the 40,000 plus GPs working in the UK and therefore may not be fully representative.

"A much larger survey by Marie Stopes International of more than 7,000 GPs has shown that 82 per cent describe themselves as 'pro-choice'.

"Providing early medical abortion in a community setting is about increasing the choice of method and location as well as improving early access to abortions. Evidence shows that earlier abortions carry less risk of complications – it is not about increasing the number of abortions."​

Source
 
So religious doctors are more likely to extend the suffering of terminal patients? Good to know.
 
Pandaman said:
athiest doctors willing to do whatever it takes to save lives.
Click to expand...
This isn't entirely true either

Sinatar said:
So religious doctors are more likely to extend the suffering of terminal patients? Good to know.
Click to expand...

Neither is..

Oh I give up...

Maybe I'm the one reading it wrong.. Do what you will Gaf... :/
 
Ripclawe said:
Issue would come up
Click to expand...

Right, but the way the article puts it, were also more likely to have discussed, could mean a number of things. Of course that is the conclusion of the study, but I think some anecdotal examples would have been helpful.
 
Yeah, the thread title is bullshit here.

As far as I can tell the study makes no distinction as to whether the patient wants to extend their life as long as possible or to end their suffering as soon as possible. The decision here is the patient's, not the doctor's.

The only thing that can be discerned here is that atheist doctors are more likely to tell you what your options are. That's certainly "more likely to hasten death" if you want to die, compared to a religious doctor not telling you about that option if you want to die, but it's needlessly inflammatory since this is a good thing that sounds like a bad thing without context.
 
Not really, that's two separate issues that are dealt with differently. It's not solely about informing of the options...
 
The article/thread title and all subsequent suggestions have been rather black and white. I live my life in shades of grey.
 
Ashes1396 said:
I don't think that's completely accurate either.
Click to expand...
That's what I got from this:

"Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient."
 
danwarb said:
That's what I got from this:

"Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient."
Click to expand...

That's what I said. There's two separate issues there.

1. Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious

2. Doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient
 
Ashes1396 said:
This isn't entirely true either
Click to expand...
thats what it says though.

if you would die tommorow, an atheist doctor is more likely to perform a dangerous surgery that could give you more time. [or could kill you today if things go wrong], ergo atheist doctors are more willing to take risks to keep you alive for the longest time possible.

Unless you are suggesting that they're filling quota for the morgue.
 
Ashes1396 said:
Why is this seen as a completely and utterly negative thing?
Click to expand...
That is what I am wondering.

Look, if I am terminally ill and some doctor decides not to do some $200K treatment which will maybe extend my life 2 months, I'm fine with that.


If someone has the money and wants absolutely every possible little treatment then find someone that will do that. But I'm not going to bash doctors making reasonable decisions when dealing with expensive medical treatments & terminally ill patients.

Ironically . . . the same people that will scream bloody murder about medicare costs are going to say these doctors are evil murderers.


People need to stop living in fantasyland . . . hard choices need to be made.
 
Pandaman said:
thats what it says though.

if you would die tommorow, an atheist doctor is more likely to perform a dangerous surgery that could give you more time. [or could kill you today if things go wrong], ergo atheist doctors are more willing to take risks to keep you alive for the longest time possible.

Unless you are suggesting that they're filling quota for the morgue.
Click to expand...

No, if you read the other sources you get a clearer idea of what they mean by "hasten end of life". They are talking about the specific decision to hasten their end of life, not other decisions which could possibly have that consequence (like risky surgery). They are talking about things like removing their feeding tube, etc.


At least that is how I interpreted this:
Doctors who described themselves as ‘extremely’ or ‘very non-religious’ were almost twice as likely to report having taken decisions to hasten end of life as those with a religious belief.
Click to expand...

And the OP includes this:
The chances of a doctor making an ethically controversial decision expected or partly intended to end life was largely unrelated to the doctor's ethnicity, but was strongly related to his or her specialisation.
Click to expand...
Notice they aren't talking about religious views in that sentence but one would assume it's the same topic.
 
Ashes1396 said:
That's what I said. There's two separate issues there.

1. Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious

2. Doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient
Click to expand...

Well are they really separate though? Perhaps the atheist doctors discussed the matters with the patient and the patient decided not to have some treatment? (which may 'shorten the life' of the terminally ill patient.
 
I can see the reasoning behind how they arrived at this conclusion.
NEOPARADIGM said:
One would think it'd be the other way around.
Click to expand...
Christian doctors would likely attempt to prolong the patients life so they can make right with God. Doesn't mean just because they think there is an afterlife, they would hurry their patient's death so they can go there.
 
People seem to be falling into camps, Athiest versus Religion. This article says it's grayer then that.

Regardless of what your beliefs or thought processes are, this study seems to to suggest that:
1, if you are of the school of thought, where you want to prolong your life, no matter what, then you are better with a doctor of faith.
2, Whereas if you are of the thought that you could be pursuaded to need an assisted death for whatever reason, you are better of with a non-religious person...

Am I reading this correctly?
 
speculawyer said:
Well are they really separate though? Perhaps the atheist doctors discussed the matters with the patient and the patient decided not to have some treatment? (which may 'shorten the life' of the terminally ill patient.
Click to expand...

I thought they were reporting to be willing to go one step further?

edit: anyone have better/more sources, most welcome..
edit: @below. This.
 
Serenade said:
I can see the reasoning behind how they arrived at this conclusion.
Christian doctors would likely attempt to prolong the patients life so they can make right with God.
Click to expand...

I thought it was commonly accepted that the reason religious doctors were against intentionally letting some die or euthanasia was because they considered life to be sacred or considered such acts sinful. I've never before encountered some of the reasons people are giving in this thread.
 
People seem to be falling into camps, Athiest versus Religion. This article says it's grayer then that.
Regardless of what your beliefs or thought processes are, this study seems to to suggest that:
1, if you are of the school of thought, where you want to prolong your life, no matter what, then you are better with a doctor of faith.
2, Whereas if you are of the thought that you could be pursuaded to need an assisted death for whatever reason, you are better of with a non-religious person...

Am I reading this correctly?
Click to expand...

Definitely not. Nothing in this article suggests that an atheist doctor will be more likely to not prolong your life no matter what, against your wishes.
 
Well, that's fine with me. If there's really nothing that can 'save' me but only something that can 'prolong' me I'd rather say adios.
 
Kettch said:
Definitely not. Nothing in this article suggests that an atheist doctor will not prolong your life no matter what, if that is what you want.
Click to expand...

You're quite correct. But I didn't intend for it to be extrapolated like so. I didn't write a legally binding sentence. How would you put it?
 
NEOPARADIGM said:
One would think it'd be the other way around.
Click to expand...
Why would atheists be more likely to prolong intolerable suffering?

Increasing the dosage of pain relief, which "might” hasten death, is the kind of thing we're talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Doctor Who put out to tender by BBC
2 3
117
1K
WoJ replied
Greece to ban anonymity on social media, likely starting in 2027
News  2
55
990
Bojji replied
Which celebrity’s death would create the biggest public commotion?
2 3
119
1K
John Marston replied
Rob & Michele Reiner stabbed to death in home invasion
2 3 4 5
227
3K
Aesius replied
Michael J Fox reacts to his "Remembrance Obituary" after CNN erroneously posts his death
News Drama Cringe 
25
731
Mr Reasonable replied
Top Bottom