Hospitals wanting to know your religion?

endacl

I must admit, I'd be thinking about the staff. If I was in their shoes I'd like there to be clarity about the wishes of the deceased regarding how their remains were dealt with in case of death. Mine are straightforward. No cleric, into a box, and on to the crematorium. But I wouldn't like to be a nurse on night shift wondering if I should call a priest, a rabbi, a mullah or the press officer from AI. Working with individuals or families in stressful times, especially around end of life affairs, isn't easy at the best of times. A little info to help them react sensitively surely isn't a bad thing?

J C

endacl wrote: »

I must admit, I'd be thinking about the staff. If I was in their shoes I'd like there to be clarity about the wishes of the deceased regarding how their remains were dealt with in case of death. Mine are straightforward. No cleric, into a box, and on to the crematorium. But I wouldn't like to be a nurse on night shift wondering if I should call a priest, a rabbi, a mullah or the press officer from AI. Working with individuals or families in stressful times, especially around end of life affairs, isn't easy at the best of times. A little info to help them react sensitively surely isn't a bad thing?

Your post makes a lot of sense to me.
Bet you never thought you'd ever see me say that!!!:):D

endacl

J C wrote: »

Your post makes a lot of sense to me.

Careful!!! That kinda talk could get me banned offa here!!!

:eek:

shruikan2553

catallus wrote: »

Why would an atheist even want to go to a hospital? I mean, if they're serious about there being no meaning to their lives?

Why would a Christian go to hospital? It is God's will if they live or die and they will be rewarded in heaven. Where do you get the idea that atheists think there is no meaning to their lives?

endacl

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Why would a Christian go to hospital? It is God's will if they live or die and they will be rewarded in heaven.

Ingrown toenail? Itchy bum? Just 'cause they'll be rewarded in heaven, doesn't mean they have to go around with an itchy bum for the rest of their life!

J C

endacl wrote: »

Careful!!! That kinda talk could get me banned offa here!!!

:eek:

My thanks certainly won't do your 'street cred' any good!!:)

Gordon

endacl wrote: »

Ingrown toenail? Itchy bum? Just 'cause they'll be rewarded in heaven, doesn't mean they have to go around with an itchy bum for the rest of their life!

Can't they just pray the itchy bum away?

shruikan2553

endacl wrote: »

Ingrown toenail? Itchy bum? Just 'cause they'll be rewarded in heaven, doesn't mean they have to go around with an itchy bum for the rest of their life!

Its a test from God, he only makes those who he believes are strong enough suffer in life for even greater rewards. Personally I would prefer to be rewarded with winning the loto and not being itchy anywhere but God works in mysterious ways.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by catallus
Why would an atheist even want to go to a hospital? I mean, if they're serious about there being no meaning to their lives?
Why would a Christian go to hospital? It is God's will if they live or die and they will be rewarded in heaven. Where do you get the idea that atheists think there is no meaning to their lives?

shruikan
Why would a Christian go to hospital? It is God's will if they live or die and they will be rewarded in heaven. Where do you get the idea that atheists think there is no meaning to their lives?

I think that neither an Atheist nor a Christian wants (or needs) to be in un-necessary pain ... or to die any earlier than we have to.:)

Gordon wrote: »

Can't they just pray the itchy bum away?

... or they could just scratch it ... on the basis that God helps those who help themselves!!!:)

Waking-Dreams

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if an (adult, mentally competent) patient objects to blood transfusion, a hospital will not force it on them, even if they are likely to die in consequence. No competent adult can be subjected to medical treatment that they don't want. The adult's reasons for not wanting the treatment are irrelevant. They may or may not be religious in nature; it makes no difference.

Unless, it would seem, that as a result of the adult's decision, it would have an impact on the welfare of a child:

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/jehovahs-witness-forced-to-have-lifesaving-transfusion-26366172.html

Judge Abbott said there was a risk to the life of the mother and an imminent threat to the genuine welfare of the child and he felt the court could and should intervene in such circumstances.

"The interests of that child is paramount in this situation," he said.

If Ms K died in the hospital as a result of the hospital authorities standing back and doing nothing the child would also have a potential legal action against the hospital, he said.

The Irish courts have previously made similar orders in respect of children whose parents have refused blood transfusions on their behalf, but this is the first time the High Court has made such an order against an adult who is refusing treatment.

The ruling appears to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision in the 1996 right-to-die case. The case, which allowed a woman in a permanent vegetative state to die, also ruled that an adult of sound mind can refuse life-saving treatment even if their reasons for doing so are irrational or non-existent...

Gerard Hogan, SC, told the court: "I would respectfully say that, faced with the difficulties in which we are in this matter, there is a real risk that unless the court now does intervene the patient will slip into an irreversible coma and the baby will be left with no person in this country, as far as is known, to look after its welfare."

Gordon

J C wrote: »

... or they could just scratch it ... on the basis that God helps those who help themselves!!!:)

Interesting philosophy:
Problem: itchy bum
Resolution: person scratches it
Resolver: person's christian god

So the christian god doesn't help people that don't try to help themselves, I see. Presumably praying isn't defined as an attempt to help oneself, but a crying out for help for those that cannot help themselves. Don't really see the point in praying then, but I'm sure there'll be an accumulation of multiple exclamation marks and a non-answer in the form of a light hearted jocular deflection along soon.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

I think that neither an Atheist nor a Christian wants (or needs) to be in un-necessary pain ... or to die any earlier than we have to.:)

For once, J C's posts aren't the most nonsensical in a thread. Is this a record?

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Interesting philosophy:
Problem: itchy bum
Resolution: person scratches it
Resolver: person's christian god person themselves
... allowing the Christian God to get on with more important things, like Saving Atheists who ask

So the christian god doesn't help people that don't try to help themselves, I see. Presumably praying isn't defined as an attempt to help oneself, but a crying out for help for those that cannot help themselves. Don't really see the point in praying then, but I'm sure there'll be an accumulation of multiple exclamation marks and a non-answer in the form of a light hearted jocular deflection along soon.

Thanks Gordon.:)

Are you claiming to now possess the gift of prophecy?

Gordon

Interesting, so now you claim that the christian god doesn't help people that help themselves, he just lets them get on with it. Now I presume there will be a bolded/exclamation marked/ellipses-filled/smiley filled post in order to make light of my post and attempt a reply, instead of a serious, no nonsense personal belief.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

Interesting, so now you claim that the christian god doesn't help people that help themselves, he just lets them get on with it. Now I presume there will be a bolded/exclamation marked/ellipses-filled/smiley filled post in order to make light of my post and attempt a reply, instead of a serious, no nonsense personal belief.

Barring miracles, God let's things roll along under the laws of the Universe.

God takes a personal interest in each of us, but He has given us free-will ... and if He started behaving like an over-protective 'Nanny-god' He could easily negate our gift of free-will altogether.

Anyway, this has strayed enough off the topic ... so do you share my belief that asking a person what their religion is in Hospital, is a good idea?

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Barring miracles, God let's things roll along under the laws of the Universe.

God takes a personal interest in each of us, but He has given us free-will ... and if He started behaving like an over-protective 'Nanny-god' He could easily negate our gift of free-will altogether.

Anyway, this has strayed enough off the topic ... so do you share my belief that asking a person what their religion is in Hospital, is a good idea?

I wish they didn't have to, but they have to because of (for example) some utter loonbags that may sue them for trying to save their lives by giving them a blood transfusion.

So the christian god doesn't really do much, just watches things happen, always watching, never doing anything. Do you think that's a good thing to have a god just watching you and not doing anything?

J C

Gordon wrote: »

I wish they didn't have to, but they have to because of (for example) some utter loonbags that may sue them for trying to save their lives by giving them a blood transfusion.

I would be more respectful than you in my comments with those who hold a different view to me, such as the Jehovas Witnesses.
I, myself am a Blood Donor, so I have no principled objection to Blood Transfusions ... but I would prefer to have my own blood quite frankly, if I ever needed a transfusion. I know that this is a practical impossibility ... but it was used in America at the height of the blood disease panic in the 1980's when people undergoing planned surgery could donate blood for their own use, in advance of such operations.
I know that blood is now checked for all kinds of diseases and good risk assessments are carried out on Donors ... but there is something visceral within me that recoils at the thoght of having some unknown person's body fluids pumped into my veins.
If it was a choice between dying and receiving a transfusion, of course, I'd take a transfusion ... but I wouldn't do so with much enthusiasm ... and I therefore can empathise, to some degree, with Jehovas Witnesses on this one.

In any event. the issue of recording a persons faith in Hospital is also useful for issues as diverse as meeting dietary preferences (for Jews and Muslims, for example) ... and allowing Hospital Chaplains to be correctly assigned to patients of their own Faith position ... and I understand that there are now Humanist Chaplains operating in British Hospitals ... and I'm sure that Irish Hospitals will 'follow suit'.
http://www.chelwest.nhs.uk/your-visit/chaplaincy

Gordon wrote: »

So the christian god doesn't really do much, just watches things happen, always watching, never doing anything. Do you think that's a good thing to have a god just watching you and not doing anything?

... when the alternative is a meddlesome 'Nanny-god' removing my free-will ... I am quite happy for Him to just watch over me.:)

Gordon

J C wrote: »

I would be

And I would be more respectful in my method of conversing with people, but we are all different.

Well that's nice that you have someone watching you, but the Christian god doesn't do anything as far as you've told me, so they're not watching over you, just watching you.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

And I would be more respectful in my method of conversing with people, but we are all different.

Calling people you disagree with 'loonbags' isn't very respectful and doesn't advance any point you may wish to make ... and I would be remiss if I didn't point this out to you, in the hope that you might reconsider what you have said.

Gordon wrote: »

Well that's nice that you have someone watching you, but the Christian god doesn't do anything as far as you've told me, so they're not watching over you, just watching you.

He is watching over me allright.

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Calling people you disagree with 'loonbags' isn't very respectful ... and I would be remiss if I didn't point this out to you, in the hope that you might reconsider what you have said.

He is watching over me allright.

I would consider people that sue hospitals for giving them a blood transfusion to save their life a loonbag. I'd consider someone that let's their religious views that are in contradiction of medical science override their child's health and potentially kill their child a dangerous loonbag, if not, a murderous loonbag.

This is my opinion, if you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but you don't need to preach your opinion onto me.

J C

Gordon wrote: »

I would consider people that sue hospitals for giving them a blood transfusion to save their life a loonbag. I'd consider someone that let's their religious views that are in contradiction of medical science override their child's health and potentially kill their child a dangerous loonbag, if not, a murderous loonbag.

Many people sue Hospitals for all kinds of things, including situations where medical decisions are taken that turn out to not work as well as anticipated. They are not 'loons' ... just people.
In the particular case of Jehovas Witnesses ... it is usually the other way around ... and it is the Hospital that is usually bringing them to court to enforce a medical care order.

Medical Science isn't an exact science ... and therefore many medical decisions have pluses and minuses to them ... and very serious risks whatever is done. The general way this is resolved is that the pluses and minuses are explained by the Doctor and the patient makes the decision.

Gordon wrote: »

This is my opinion, if you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but you don't need to preach your opinion onto me.

I'm not preaching my opinion ... I'm asking you to reconsider how you express yourself about those with whom you have a difference of opinion, if not for your own sake ... then for the sake of the impression it makes on neutral observers of this forum and by extension, Atheistic Humanism.

Gordon

J C wrote: »

Many people sue Hospitals for all kinds of things, including situations where medical decisions are taken that turn out to not work as well as anticipated. They are not 'loons' ... just people.
In the particular case of Jehovas Witnesses ... it is usually the other way around ... and it is the Hospital that is usually bringing them to court to enforce a medical care order.

Medical Science isn't an exact science ... and therefore many medical decsions have pluses and minuses to them ... and very serious risks whatever is done. The general way this is resolved is that the pluses and minuses are explained by the Doctor and the patient makes the decision.

I'm not preaching my opinion ... I'm asking you to reconsider how you express yourself about those with whom you have a difference of opinion, if not for your own sake ... then for the sake of the impression it makes on neutral observers of this forum and by extension, Atheistic Humanism.

I'm not sure why you're trying to use the impression my posts make on neutral observers as leverage, as if you think that I post my understandings of some people in order to impress upon an observer. And I'm also not sure why you try to place more leverage by mentioning some 'atheistic humanism' group of people. If that's your stance then I'm asking you to reconsider how you express your desire for my posting habit to change by not preaching to me about it, because it sounds an awful lot like preaching to me, if not for the sake of yourself, but for the sake of all other people that believe in a Christian god.

I remember asking you if you would consider changing your posting style in order to read your posts with greater ease, and allowing you to get your point across, but you didn't change your posting style. Maybe I was preaching to you?

J C

Gordon wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're trying to use the impression my posts make on neutral observers as leverage, as if you think that I post my understandings of some people in order to impress upon an observer. And I'm also not sure why you try to place more leverage by mentioning some 'atheistic humanism' group of people. If that's your stance then I'm asking you to reconsider how you express your desire for my posting habit to change by not preaching to me about it, because it sounds an awful lot like preaching to me, if not for the sake of yourself, but for the sake of all other people that believe in a Christian god.

I remember asking you if you would consider changing your posting style in order to read your posts with greater ease, and allowing you to get your point across, but you didn't change your posting style. Maybe I was preaching to you?

Fair enough.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

neutral observers of this forum

Bloody agnostics again.