« What would you do? | Main | What would you do? »

Religion in Health Science

Should faith and the health sciences be separate? Is there a place for chaplains, other clergy, and faith healers? How much of a role should these religious people take in the lives of the hospital patients? Where are the boundaries? Should patients (including children) be able to make their own choices that are in line with their religion but put their health in danger?

Comments

I believe that faith and health sciences should not be seperate for the patient. Faith can play a large role in the recovery of a patient. I think it's ok to have chaplains, clergy, and faith healers in hospitals. They're not hurting anything by being available. I think patients should be informed that religious people are available if they want them, but nothing more than that. In many cases, i think western people don't believe the religious person is going to "heal them" physically, but rather comfort them and support them. A boundary should be that religious people, pastors, etc. shouldn't be allowed to walk around hospitals asking random patients if they can pray for them or anything like that because that could make people uncomfortable. As long as the patient requests to have a chaplain see them, then it's totally ok. I think that adults should be allowed to make choices according to their religion that may put their health in danger. Obviously their religion is very important to them, and all doctors can do is inform them of all the risks. I I think that in the matter of children, it should ultimately be the parents decision, but the doctor should take into account the childs opinion and inform everyone of all the risks.

No, I do not think that religion and health sciences should be separate. I; however, do not think that they should go hand in hand either. I think that an equal medium needs to be reached to ensure the happiness and health of everyone involved. I think that before a doctor takes on a case they should be informed about a patient’s religious background to make sure that they can deal with this issue. If they cannot then they should pass the case onto someone who can deal with the issue of religion. Yes, I think that there is a special place for chaplains, other clergy, and faith healers. Like I stated earlier, I think that they should work with the doctor or medical provider to come up with a diagnosis and “cure? for the patient that makes everyone happy and gets the job done. I think that the boundaries of faith healers etc. should be overstepped by doctors if the patient is in definite need of medical attention and can die without westernized medicine. Other than that they should work together. I think that patients should be able to suggest what they want and bring their religion to the attention of their doctor. Then, they should start a specific healing plan that will get the patient well in the quickest and most efficient way keeping both medicine and religion in an equal balance. I think that children should have say in what happens to them but overall the parents or legal guardians should have the final say (considering the age of the child). After all the parents or guardians should want what is best for their child.

Sara, I agree with you completely. I think that religious “icons? should not be allowed to walk around a hospital suggesting the heal people. This could make some patients uncomfortable and they may feel like they are being pressured by a different religion which can upset them. Considering they are more than likely sick (which is why they are in the hospital) they should not be upset. As a health care provider you want what is best for your patients and a clergyman walking around a hospital praying for people probably isn’t the best way to approach an issue. Like Sara said, “As long as the patient requests to have a chaplain see them, then it’s totally ok.? But the chaplain should definitely be contained to that one patient. I, also, agree with Sara when it comes to the parent and child issue. I think that the final say should be that of the parent; however, the doctor should inform the entire family of the risks involved in either decision.

I am a very very religious person. There are very different healing styles of practice. If someone requests a chaplains or a healer they should be granted their request. Every person in this world believes healing occurs in a different way. One may believe it has to do with medically educated students only and nothing else. Another person may think that a healer may have fully solved the problems of their friend or family. Overall, the beliefs of a person should be respected. If one believes in today's world healing only they should be able to see a doctor who, in their state of mind, can heal them. But if a person is of hmong culture or any other and has a different belief they should be able to carry out that trust as far as it can go. you are innocent until proven guilty. Every form of healing is great until it does not work or does worse on someone. I believe that what happens to you has a reflect on what you believe in and who you believe in. Although I am a very open person and I respect others beliefs and traditions as well as my own, for I have not yet been proven false.

I am a very very religious person. There are very different healing styles of practice. If someone requests a chaplains or a healer they should be granted their request. Every person in this world believes healing occurs in a different way. One may believe it has to do with medically educated students only and nothing else. Another person may think that a healer may have fully solved the problems of their friend or family. Overall, the beliefs of a person should be respected. If one believes in today's world healing only they should be able to see a doctor who, in their state of mind, can heal them. But if a person is of hmong culture or any other and has a different belief they should be able to carry out that trust as far as it can go. you are innocent until proven guilty. Every form of healing is great until it does not work or does worse on someone. I believe that what happens to you has a reflect on what you believe in and who you believe in. Although I am a very open person and I respect others beliefs and traditions as well as my own, for I have not yet been proven false.

Sara and Christy. I do agree. Religious advocates should have an education as well. The may truly believe what they think is right but with out an education who thinks their beliefs are true? Education is the basis of belief. One must have something behind them that proves they may have an idea of what they are talking about. Although some very religious people refuse to go to college because they believe it is a waster of their knowledge. They know what they know and they have been put on this earth to share their knowledge. That is for every person to decide. I guess it is really a topic of belief in God The belief in a greater person. These people are not trying to take over the world. They just want everything to be okay with everyone. In the words on John Lenon..... "It's life and life only..."

For me personally, faith is an important part of my life, and I believe I am not alone in saying that. Faith is a personal choice an can be as simple as believeing or not believing, or perhaps integrateing faith in health sciences or not. Depending on your religious beliefs, situation, comfortability with your faith, the issue of separation is your own decision. Hospitals and other health care facilites are a jambalaya of people, from your docotrs and health care facilitaors, to family members, patients of all mixed races, visitors, janitorial staff, let's face it there is room for everyone, including chaplains, other clergy, and faith healers. The issue is setting the boundaries, and knowing when enough is enough. Choosing to go to a hospital, allows me to make the conclusion that the person there is needing and looking for help. The help needed and received should then only be given by the doctor they are seeing. Their religious leaders, faith healers, or whatever the case may be, shoul dbe allowed to be there and proceed with their normal methods of healing as long as it does not corrupt, the care already in place. Whoever may come for you and your state of being should be there only for you, and not try to get others involved with their methods. I believe the patient has the right to make their own choices regarding their health, but if that includes putting their life in danger, it is for the better of the patient and others helping, to stop the religious healing that is occuring. Children should also have the same right. They should voice their opinions, but they should coincide with the adult guardian present. Life is all about the choices you make, let us not limit them in health care too.

I think that faith and health science should not be separate. A certain treatment could go against a persons religous beliefs and, therefore, doctors need to be aware of every patients religous background. I think that it is necessary to have chaplains, clergy, and other faith healers available at the hospital. There may be some very religous people admited and if they want a chaplain or some other type of religous figure next to them, it should not be an issue. They are not doing anything wrong and are not getting in the way of the doctors when they are doing any medical tests or treatments with the patient. I think the the religous figures will help in comforting the patients but there should be some boundaries. These boundaries should consist of these people not going to random patients. The patient should be the one wanting a chaplain or clergy coming to their room for prayer and support. Also, they should not be interfering with medical treatment. They need to give the doctors some space and the patient some privacy. I think all adult patients should be able to make the decision to put there health in danger for religous beliefs. For children, I think it should be the choice of the parent for they are not eighteen and not considered an adult to make there own decisions.

So I'm going to write again because my previous postings made no sense.... I'm sure you can imagine why..... Faith and health science should not be separate. Faith is part of someone and to use a treatment against ones faith is demeaning to that person. That is pretty much all I wanted to say added to my other blogs which weren't so good.

I think Christy Madison makes some very good points about this issue. I agree with your stance on not having health science and faith separate but not having them go hand in hand. I also agree with your statement that doctors should look at a patients religous background before treating to make sure they can deal with the issue and if they can't then pass it on to someone that can. I also agree with you that chaplains and clergy should be able to be in the hosiptal. Doctors and religous figures should work together to better help a patient and make sure that every one is happy and the issue is treated appropriately. The boundaries of faith healers should be overstepped by doctors in order to treat a patient in an emergency. Patients should be able to make there own choice about recieving medical attention but should consult with there doctor to come up with a plan that keeps both medicine and religion equal. I think that the parents should have the total say in determining if there child recieves medical attention but I think you have it right when saying parents should want whats right for their child.

I think that for the most part faith int the healthcare settings is a good option to provide, but they should be held separately if the patient does not request the presence of a chaplain, etc. I think that hospitals should definitely allow and keep room for different religious leaders. Science is not always the best comfort for patients, many seek spiritual help and it should be available for them in healthcare settings. I also think that a patient has the right to chose whether or not to follow through with what a physician may reccommend if they are a legal adult or have medical emancipation. I think that the adult should decide for his or her child whether or not medical procedures will be carried out even if it does put a child in danger. In many cultures the consequences of allowing your children to undergo some procedures is much worse than following the religion's guidelines.

I completely agree with Brandon Van Amber. I think he does a great job of pointing out that patients may be extremely faithful to their religion and that having chaplains, clergy, and other faith healers is a huge necessity to many people. He also states that having their religious figure is a comfort to certain people. I think that is a great point because comfort is a huge factor in caring for patients. I also agree that in order for a chaplain, etc. to be used, it should be by reguest of the patient or their family. I also agreed that MDs and other health professionals should be able to carry out the medical procedures needed without interuption or interference by a faith healer. I think Brandon's point of view on this issue is very similar to mine.

I do not think that faith and health sciences should be separate. It think that faith and religion can play an important role for people in general, and especially in medicine. It affects decisions on procedures, medications, after care, and therapies. Although, faith is crucial to consider, it can not be the sole deciding factor for a patient. There has to be a happy medium between the two, to accommodate the patient and appease the doctor. It think its totally appropriate to have chaplains, clergy, or other faith healers available to patients. I think that every patient should be given these options ahead of time, so it does not come up later and interfere with treatment of patients. I do not think that these people should be able to roam about the hospital offering services. The most effective way to have these people in the hospital is to make it well known that they are available, and that the patient is told about them once, and has the option to inquire later if needed. I think that the role these people play in patients lives need to be assessed on a case to case basis. Religions are different, people are different, and the level that faith plays in someone's life is always varying. Of course, there needs to be some boundaries in their roles. If a patient is requesting more assistance from a healer, than a doctor, they may want to reconsider why they are in the hospital and not strictly working with a faith healer. I say this because the hospital has to maintain a reputation as a medical based healing facility. The beauty of where we live is that we have to right to make our own choices. Adults should be told the pros and cons of religious healing and traditional western healing, and they have the right to make their decision accordingly. Parents also have a say in the lives of their children. Unfortunately, because we live in such a free country we can't necessarily control how adults choose to parent. I think that if it is a matter of life and death, hopefully the parent would put aside religion to help their child but if not I think that child services should be able to intervene to benefit the child's life.

From my knowledge I think that there is room for faith and health sciences to blend together. I understand that some religions may not accept health care and the method in which we Americans choose to heal people, but I believe that is one thing that they must over come. At the present time many Americans are learning Spanish and other languages because not to long from now the United States majority will not be white. We're trying to open up our boundaries and they should too. I think it is an asset to having clergy and religious doer's in the hospital; they help keep the faith. If the patient asks for a priest of some sort to see them specifically then I think it should be okay. They don't try to take away from the doctors jobs at any means, they just try to give the patient support and comfort. At a child's young age though I do feel that it is right for the parents to step in and make the choice for them. Then at the appropriate time when they become an adult they can make their own choice.

I completely agree with the post by Sara. I think that is important to point out that faith can be helpful in a patients recovery. In western medical culture it is true that faith is believe to be a supplement to procedures, usually like sara said in recovery and is used as a comfort tool. I also completely agree that it would be inappropriate for a chaplain to walk around and ask anybody if they wanted him to pray for them. This could be offensive to some and in turn cause an issue between the hospital and the patient. I think we also share the same views on religion being a decision maker for people. Granted that faith healing is important to many people, they also need to understand that the hospital they are in is 'Western' and that they have alternative options. (ex: Naturopathy, Homeopathy, acupuncture, chinese herbal medicine, sorcery, etc).

I think it is very important to have faith and the health sciences strongly connected. Faith gives patients hope and can have a huge impact on the health and recovery for the patient. It should not be pressured on the patients, but if they were to ask for a healer, they should be given one. With hospitals as big as they are, there is a place for healers, clergy, and chaplains. How would that hurt the hospital to have these types of patients? They should be as involved in the patients lives as much as the patient needs them. Some patients might be more religious than others, or might need more faith depending on the situation. The patients have the right to make their own choices, and hospitals jobs are to make people better, so if a faith healer makes a patient better, than give them a faith healer. If the patient is in severe health, and in a life or death situation, it should be up to the doctors whether or not that patient has time for a healer at that point.

In responds to Alexandra’s post, I agree that faith and the health sciences should be separate. It is so important to have faith in your life, and especially if you are sick or injured. I thought she had a very good point that this issue needs to be a happy medium. You don’t want the patient to feel overwhelmed by their faith, but you also want them to feel it and help it guide them through there problems. The healers and such should not be allowed to roam, as she said, and only to be used when the patient has asked for them. I liked how she said the patient needs to remember where they are, at a hospital, where doctors work, not at a place where healers are always there. I think it is very important that the hospital keeps their reputation as a health facility, because that’s where people in life or death situations need to go.

In responds to Alexandra’s post, I agree that faith and the health sciences should be separate. It is so important to have faith in your life, and especially if you are sick or injured. I thought she had a very good point that this issue needs to be a happy medium. You don’t want the patient to feel overwhelmed by their faith, but you also want them to feel it and help it guide them through there problems. The healers and such should not be allowed to roam, as she said, and only to be used when the patient has asked for them. I liked how she said the patient needs to remember where they are, at a hospital, where doctors work, not at a place where healers are always there. I think it is very important that the hospital keeps their reputation as a health facility, because that’s where people in life or death situations need to go.

Like many of the people who have already posted, I, too, don't believe that faith and the health sciences should be separate. Because faith can sometimes play such a crucial role in someone's recovery, I believe it to be okay and even beneficial for "faith healers" to be available in hospitals. In my opinion, these healers should be able to go as far as a patient would like them to as long as they do not interfere with the work of the health care team. With that said, I don't know if I quite agree with allowing patients, including children, to make decisions based solely on faith while putting their health in steep danger at the same time. I feel strongly about doing the best thing for your body when put in a dangerous situation. While continuing to be respectful to a patient's beliefs, as a doctor, I would simply try to explain why it would be best to do a certain procedure/test/etc.

In response to Brandon's post, I agree with many of the things he mentioned. I definitely think he was right in saying that "faith healers" should be used only when called upon; they should not go room to room looking to heal a patient. I also believe that such religious healers could most definitely offer a sense of comfort in such a scary time. On the contrary, I do believe doctors should be respectful of a person's beliefs, but I do not know if I think that fact should prohibit them from doing something that could be life saving. It's such a hard situation for me to take a stance on, but I guess I'd rather do my job as a doctor and try my best to save someone. At the same time, I can understand someone's argument in saying that an adult person is old enough to make a decision for themselves. I don't know, it's a hard one.

No, I do not think that health sciences and faith should be separate. Faith plays a major role in a persons health often. Certain religions rely on other sources to cure their sickness and I believe those who choice to follow that path are not wrong. Religion has been around for many years and has provided explanation to those who seek it. To take faith out of the picture of health science would be wrong. As for chaplains, clergy and faith healers, I believe that they should be a part of the patients lives within a hospital if they call for it. I think they should be available for them as well as called upon when asked. I do not think it is right for the faith healers to be able to freely walk the hospital and try and pray with any random patients. I believe all patients coming into the hospital are looking for an alternative way to help cure their health issue. I believe they should be able to make their own choices, but then at the same time the doctor is not going to provide you less if you go. Going into the hospital you give the doctor the right to help in any way possible, you are vulnerable. As for children, the parents should be the ultimate decision makers, but both the parents and children should be given enough information about the topic. Then the family itself can decide how they want to handle the situation.

I think that faith and health sciences should be separate in the big picture. A patient is entitled to have faith in anything they believe in. If, however, a patient comes to see a doctor, the faith and the health aspect should be separate. Religious views should not come into play in a hospital unless you are a patient. I believe patients have the right to refuse anything they want. It is their body after all. All doctors can do is inform them and hope they make the best decision. Doctors should never force someone to do something. Doctors, however, should not take any religious views while caring for a patient. They should do whatever is best for the patient's health and take any action with the consent of the patient.

Faith and health sciences should not be seperated. Faith is sometimes a huge part of a person's culture and life. If you force people to separate faith and health sciences, then you are taking away their right of religion, their strength, and their motivation. Many people are so into religion that it can give them an easier recovery and a reason to fight for their life. I, also, think that there is a place for chaplains, clergy, and faith healers. These listed people are at hospitals for moral support and who doesn't need a pick up and support? But they have to make sure that they are only visiting once and a while. It could become a disturbance if these people are in the patient's room all of the time. I think that patients' should not be able to put their religion infront of their health. I think that patients can put religion first if the situation isn't life threatening, but once their life is in danger I believe that the doctor should take over and save their life.

Faith and health sciences should be separate, unless a patient desires that they are combined. As health providers, we are obliged to make a patient feel as comfortable as possible, and sometimes that includes bringing in the hospital chaplain or holding a hand in prayer if so desired. From a personal standpoint, I know faith would not play a role in anything I do as a doctor or health care provider. I also believe that patient's have the right to decide what they want done to them and what they do not want done to them. If a patient does not want a life-saving procedure for religious reasons, I would not perform it. I would of course make sure all of the risks and consequences are understood, but I know that some people believe that the damage it would cause to their body is less than the damage the procedure would cause to their soul, and even as an atheist, I can respect that.

Kate, I am definately agreeing with you. Everything you said, made complete sense. As I said earlier, faith is part of my life, and i believe for other people who have very strong beliefs in faith, their recovery including faith is very crucial. "Faith Healers" should be allowed to 'heal with faith' but only go to the level the patient woul dlike to go. It is very important that these healers separate themselves from people, staff, and whoever wlse would car not to speak to them. In a doctor's point of view, doing the best thing for the patient in the situation is THE policy to follow, and allowing them to make extreme decisions to put their health in danger because of their faith, it is not ok. Let the patient know that you are not dicriminating against their faith, only doing what is best for their wellbeing.

I believe that faith and health sciences should not be separate from the patient. Faith and confidence can play a large role in the recuperation of a patient. I think there should be a place for chaplains, clergy, and faith healers in the hospital setting in order to display many options for the patient. These religious people should play a minor role in the lives of hospital patients because it should be the doctor who is helping the patient. The patient should be informed that religious people are available upon their request. The boundaries of the religious people should be very confined. They should only be able to help a patient if they request it. They should not be able to walk around the hospital asking people if they want religious support. I believe that patients should be able to make choices based on their religion but when it comes to putting their health in danger, doctors should ignore their religious beliefs and help the patient recover. The doctor should take control no matter if the patient is a child or adult. The patient should be more concerned about getting better than worrying about a personal religious belief. In regards to children, they should be able to decide for themselves, not letting the parents decide for them. Overall, religious people should be available at the patient’s request and health should be put before religious beliefs.

In response to Nick Erickson’s post, I completely agree with you. In the scheme of things, a patient is entitled to their own beliefs and faith practices. The story changes once the patient goes to see a doctor. Faith and health science should become separate at that time. Nick is right about letting patients refuse whatever they want. It IS their body. Patients know that by putting their religious beliefs before their health, it could cause some problems. All doctors can do is inform the patient of the potential risks of not following through with certain procedures. Nick is also right about never forcing a patient to do something. If the doctor informs the patient of hazards and they refuse to take the necessary precautions, then the doctor should stop and realize he did everything he could to convince the patient otherwise. Overall, doctors should do whatever is best interest of the patient and take any necessary actions with the consent of the patient.

I believe that faith and the health sciences should not be separate. For many people, their faith is what helps get them through their illness or surgery. For patients who have something to believe, other than just the pure science of medicine, the recovery process seems to go much faster and easier. I also believe that religious figures have a place in hospitals, however, purely for moral support and not medicinal healing. Having the support and encouragement of a religious leader gives patients more confidence and readiness to enter their surgery or medical treatment. The religious leaders should be available upon request. Having religious leaders is not comforting for all patients and may make the situation upsetting. The leaders should only be available to offer insight and hope to those who request it. Religion is only helpful to those who believe in it.

In response to Matt Tracy's post, he makes a great point. As doctors or health care providers, our job is to keep the patients healthy. If the patient desires a religious ceremony prior to medical treatment, it should be provided. However, it is not our place as doctors to suggest it or take part in it unless asked to. I still believe, however, that religion and health science should not be separate and should coincide peacefully without pressure from either side. Doctors should not talk to patients about religion and religious figures should not necessarily give advice about medicine to patients.

I would not consider myself a religious person, but I don't see a problem with an interaction between faith and the health sciences. I think that chaplains, other clergy, and faith healers should be allowed to work in hospitals. Whether it is an act of God or just a coincidence, many people have recovered quickly after getting in touch with their faith. I think that these people can help patients be optimistic, which can aid them in their recovery. I think that they should only be used upon request though. Some people may not want to see any religious healers in a hospital. I also think that patients should be able to make choices that go with their religion, even if it puts their life in danger, as long as it doesn't affect any other lives. Many people take religion very seriously, and they should be able to follow their religion unless other people are affected by their choices.

There is a large problem with religious people who want some kind of faith healing rather than a medical solution. Personally I feel that the best option when this problem arises is to let the religious person have their personal faith healer and also have a doctor. However, I don't think that the hospital should be responsible for providing the faith healers. That should come from the patient and it should be paid for by the patient. This whole process of having a faith healer with the patient will really help because studies have shown that a positive post operation makes for faster and better healing. The faith healers will be able to make the healing process much better for the patient along with putting them at ease. Overall, i believe that there is a place for the faith healers and the doctors to work side by side in the medical field for the better of the patients.

I think this is a problem in the US right now when religion and health care collide. I feel that as health care providers, we should not let faith interfere when we are delivering care to a patient. So, to answer the question I do not think that faith and the health sciences should be kept separate. I think that if a patient requests chaplains, clergy, faith healers etc., they should be able to see them, but hopefully not at the expense of their health. I think religious leaders are a big support system for some people; someone to turn to for moral and social support when times are tough, especially in medical situations. If it came down to a life or death situation and they were refusing treatment because of religious beliefs, I would have to accept that. I would very be unwilling to do so without first explaining the consequences that would come from the decision they would make, but ultimately, it is their choice. I would hope that hospitals provide these services to their patients as the United States population becomes more diverse and there are people with different religious beliefs to attend to.

I feel that religious beliefs and medical care should not be separated. Ultimately it is the patient’s choice to receive medical care or not if it conflicts with their religion. As the health care provider, I would assess all aspects of the situation and explain as clearly as possible to the patient what their options are. For example, if I had a Muslim patient that needed a liver transplant but they refused to receive it because spiritually they didn’t want the foreign substance in their body, I would still advise the patient that if they didn’t get the transplant they could die. I would also try and discover what other options I could offer as the doctor to my patient. In general I feel that doctors should accept all religions and cultures and try to accommodate what each individual’s needs are. If a patient requests a clergy member to be present at the hospital I think they should absolutely be granted their request.

To be honest, I feel that this is a really touchy question. I agree with many other students’ posts and do not feel that religion and medicine should be separated, and don’t really ever see when religion and medicine would be separated. As the doctor, you have the ability to provide the patient with different options that can hopefully accommodate their religious and cultural beliefs. I also agree with many others that ultimately it is the patient’s choice to receive a particular treatment or not, based on their religious beliefs. As the doctor you can only offer so much knowledge to the patient, but the patient has the right to choose what care they receive. The most important thing is that the patient feels comfortable with their situation and decision, even if it means life or death. Religion can be a powerful aspect of healing for some patients, and hopefully they can find the balance between their personal beliefs and receiving medical treatment to make the best ethical choice possible.

I think that there can be a balance between health sciences and religion. Patients can talk to their doctor if they have strong beliefs, but in serious cases doctors should have the final say in their health care. Faith healers should be allowed in the hospital if the patient wishes, but not have any huge influence on the patient’s health care. I think they should be there more as support and helping a patient pray or do any other religious activities. Older patients should be able to inform the doctor of their own beliefs regarding health care so the doctor can try to respect their beliefs as much as possible, but if a treatment is necessary is should be given. Children should not be able to make their own decisions because they are not educated enough to know exactly what is necessary for their care. Their parents can have a say on how they want their child treated matching their beliefs and culture but the doctor should be able to make the final say for what the child needs.

In response to Kate’s post, I definitely agree that faith and health sciences should not be separate. I agree that it is at the patient’s request if they want faith healing because everyone has different views on faith. These faith healers should not get in the way of the medical team trying to get their work done and healing the patient their way. I also strongly believe with Kate that if a person is in potential harm, that they should seek medical attention from doctors to get better. Doctors should try to respect their beliefs but I think if the person is in danger, they should receive medical treatment as soon as possible, even if it may conflict with their beliefs. In not urgent cases patients should be allowed to refuse care because it is their body but doctors should inform them on the benefits if they were to receive certain health treatments.

I do not think that faith and health sciences can ever be completely separate. Ultimately it is important for a doctor to make the best decisions for the patient's health, but to also respect their beliefs and background. Many times faith is necessary for patients to cope with their health issues and having clergy and priests in the hospital can be important. It is also important for doctors to make strong recommendations to patients when it comes to decisions and treatments going against their religion. The patient should be given the choice to refuse this treatment and their beliefs should be respected. The doctor should always be clear on the purpose, importance and details of a procedure or treatment so the patient is able to make a decision based on their beliefs and what they think is best for them. It is also important for the doctor to seek out other treatments or procedures that would be cohesive to the patient’s beliefs in order to give the patient what is best for their health while also making them feel comfortable and respected. Although in the case of children, the doctors should be given preference as to what care the child should receive. The health and life of the child is the most important and parents should be given this explanation, especially if it conflicts with the parents beliefs. It is always difficult in situations with children involving parents with strong beliefs, but the parents and doctor should agree that the health of the child is the priority.

Honestly, if health sciences and religion were separate it would make the world a lot easier, but that's not the case. Of course we usually take the hard route. So I don't think there is a question here. It's just been accepted that religion is going to have a minor effect on health sciences. Sometimes more than others. I don't think that hospitals should have to supply the faith healers. If you want religion to be part of your health experience there should be something that the hospital is not responsible for any mistakes made by anyone who is supplied by the patient. Then the hospital can do whatever they need to on the surgical end or whatever else is needed.

I don't think they should be completly seprate but i think for the most part yes. I think that you have to take into account peoples believes but if they don't want to be treated that is up to them. There is certainly a place for the chaplain, other clergy, and faith healers. If they are able to calm or put someones mental health at rest, that will help the patient cope. Like if you have someone with brain cancer with no faith they my freak out about it were as the person with faith will be more at easy because he or she will precieve that this may not be the end for them. As for the boundry's that is a little unclear. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn because where ever you draw it someone will be unhappy with it. I think that is ultimatly up to the person to choose what they want to do. If they are ok with dieing why try to stop them, i know that sounds terrible but it is their choice. However for children i think that if it is life threating, they should have wath ever done, because they are not able to make their own choice and i don't think it is right for the parent to dicied that the child get to die over getting the treatment.

I agree with you Travis, religion should be separate from health sciences, but the strong conviction people have, and the missing knowledge of medicine, really makes them uneasy about certain procedures. Many situations which would be "unethical" would just be another every day procedure, if not for religion. I think religion really hinders the ability of doctors to treat a patient, which is exactly what you are saying.

In response to Matt's post, I agree that faith and health sciences should be separate unless desired so by the patient. As a doctor, I would not put my religious beliefs into any suggestion or diagnosis I give to a patient. I would give them information on what is best to do regarding their health situation. If they decide to not go through with a procedure because of religious reasons that is their choice. What right to I have to make them do something. This is America, you have the right to practice religion and make decisions regarding your own body. As a doctor, my job is to diagnose and treat patients to the extent that they want to be treated. They come to the hospital on their own for professional advice and a diagnosis. They don't come to be forced to do something. If that were true, I believe there would be a lot less patients in and out of the hospital.

I agree with what Andrea had to say. I think that faith and the health sciences should be held separate unless asked for by the patient. I think that religious leaders should work in hospitals because they can be very comforting to some patients, and they can encourage the patient to get better. I also agree that patients should be able to decide whether or not to go through a procedure, as long as it doesn't affect any other lives. Parents should also be able to make this decision for their children because they are their legal guardians. They should have a good reason for not going through with the procedure though.

In response to Stephanie Payne's post, I think you do a really good job outlining the problems that health care and faith colliding create. I imagine it would be frustrating trying to do your job but there are people out there unwilling to cooperate. It is hard sometimes to respect everyone's beliefs, especially when you know they are harming their own bodies directly with the decisions they are making. In reality, modern medicine is proven to work, faith and prayer are not. There are multiple studies showing that prayer and physical well-being have no correlation. Respecting the beliefs of a patient is a way to improve their mental health and to gain their trust, so if it ever comes to an invasive life-saving procedure, there is a higher chance that the patient will elect to have it performed, because they trust that you will respect them.

I totally agree with Kaitlyn on this. Faith can play a big role in healing someone or helping them cope, so why would you take that away from someone if you're trying to get them better anyways? It's not harming anyone else or bothering anyone else to have religion involved in medicine. I also agree that the patient should be able to refuse treatment because of a religious belief because it would be going against their will. Maybe the doctor doesn't completely understand the patients religion and goes ahead and treats the patient for what they need. Later on they could find out the huge taboo it caused. That is why i feel health care should not completely eliminate religion.

I agree with Kaitlyn that health sciences and religion cannot be seperated. I, also, agree that it is the doctor's job to do what he has to do to help the patient with the patient's beliefs in mind. I, also, believe that the patient's beliefs help their recovery and should be respected by the doctor. I do agree with that it is the patients choice to reject treatment if it is against their religion, but I think that the patients should get the treatment necesary to their life. I strongly agree with Kaitlyn's statement that the doctor should look for other treatments that would not interfere with the patients' beliefs. On the topic of children's rights, the parents should be able to choose what procedures the doctor should be able to do on their child.

I agree with Sara. I do not think that faith and health sciences whould be seperate. Faith plays a big role in many people's lives, and if they believe faith will further their healing, then it should be their choice. A healer or chaplain should not be allowed to roam free around a hospital because it could make some of the patients a little uncomfortable. On-call should be their appropriate duty. Patients should have the choice to make their final decision based on their religion even if it puts them at risk. I think the doctor should try to inform them more about the risk they are taking, but the decision is theirs to do with what they please. If they want just a spiritual healer, then so be it. A child's ultimate decision should be placed in the hands of their parents. A child is too young to know all the effects or benefits of a certain decision.

I agree with what sarah and ryan have to say. There can be a bridge of connection between religion and the health sciences. Everyday there are people that go into the hospital with religious beliefs that differ. Its how we overcome those beliefs thats makes us open to new cultures and new people. I wish I understood the situation more, but I don't because my religion allows me to be treated by the hospital. Hopefully that in the next couple years we will see other cultures adapt like our own.

I agree with what Tom is saying. You can't expect religion and the health sciences to be separated. Personally I grew up with my dad working at a catholic hospital despite the fact that our family is not catholic. He said that seeing the people with either a pastor or priest makes him see that it does have an affect on the way they heal. I also found it nice because my pastor came to see me and checked on me when I was in the hospital. It really put me at ease because his job is to comfort people. I think that they should allow the religious figures into the hospitals to help with healing or recovery.

If you're still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you'll know which is right for you.