Good intentions: a defence against inappropriate acts?

What if it's done in a professional situation such as a doctor trying to push his religion onto his patients?

Is good intention a (logical or moral) defence against what can often be seen as inappropriate advice or behaviour?

Pixie wrote:Have you had any experience personally of having religion shoved in your grid?

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Suppose you hear of someone being harmed by advice from an alt. med.
practitioner or that someone went to their doctor for depression and the
doctor tried to encourage the patient to attend his prayer group.

KitKat wrote:You'd need to more explicit in the definition of 'being harmed' there. Each case on its own merit. Much depends on how you believe and conclude that "someone" is being harmed.(?)

Umberto Cocopop wrote:

KitKat wrote:You'd need to more explicit in the definition of 'being harmed' there. Each case on its own merit. Much depends on how you believe and conclude that "someone" is being harmed.(?)

Not to worry. I just thought it might be a good thought exercise to liven the forum up a bit.

Just forget it.

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Just forget it.

KitKat wrote:Umberto - is that you being stroppy? Why?

Umberto Cocopop wrote:

KitKat wrote:Umberto - is that you being stroppy? Why?

I might have been a bit drunk and I might have just re-read through the thread on defining mediumship on SL, and I might have been reminded of all the silliness on there, and I might have thought that starting a topic like this one (which was inspired by me re-reading a link to a story about a doctor pushing his religion on a patient) might just lead to accusations of an "ulterior motive" and so on.....

But I'm not telling you.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:I might have thought that starting a topic like this one (which was inspired by me re-reading a link to a story about a doctor pushing his religion on a patient)

These professional guidelines seem quite straightforward.
Here are the two relevant paragraphs:

19. You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients
unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient's care. You
must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the
inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other
beliefs or views. Equally, you must not put pressure on patients to
discuss or justify their beliefs (or the absence of them).


33. Youmust not express to your patients your personal beliefs, including
political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their
vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.


Here's where things begin to get interesting. While the guidelines seem to
envisage that any discussion of religion in a clinical setting should be
a rare occurrence, Scott would appear to have been taking the
opportunity to evangelise to his patients on an almost daily basis. In
an interview earlier this year, he stated that he had raised the subject
of Christianity with "literally thousands" of his patients. Not only
that, he often encouraged them to attend evangelical Alpha Courses at
his local church -- and that, out of every ten he asked, eight took up
the offer and two "had their lives changed as a result".

Tibbs wrote:

"When is it justified to defend an action and when does using "they were only trying to help" become a fallacious "appeal to benevolence" used to justify wrong actions?"

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Umberto Cocopop wrote:

KitKat wrote:Umberto - is that you being stroppy? Why?

I might have been a bit drunk and I might have just re-read through the thread on defining mediumship on SL, and I might have been reminded of all the silliness on there, and I might have thought that starting a topic like this one (which was inspired by me re-reading a link to a story about a doctor pushing his religion on a patient) might just lead to accusations of an "ulterior motive" and so on.....

But I'm not telling you.

KitKat wrote:If so, it would appear that it was far more than "good intentions" involved with this particular doc. This individual was blatantly using his trusted position as a practising GP - to entrap patients into his fanatical evangelistic sideline. Very wrong, unprofessional and quite scary, as I see it. I would imagine (hope) that more than one complaint has been filed against this particular individual.

These professional guidelines seem quite straightforward.
Here are the two relevant paragraphs:

19. You should not normally discuss your personal beliefs with patients
unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient's care. You
must not impose your beliefs on patients, or cause distress by the
inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other
beliefs or views. Equally, you must not put pressure on patients to
discuss or justify their beliefs (or the absence of them).


33. Youmust not express to your patients your personal beliefs, including
political, religious or moral beliefs, in ways that exploit their
vulnerability or that are likely to cause them distress.


Here's where things begin to get interesting. While the guidelines seem to
envisage that any discussion of religion in a clinical setting should be
a rare occurrence, Scott would appear to have been taking the
opportunity to evangelise to his patients on an almost daily basis. In
an interview earlier this year, he stated that he had raised the subject
of Christianity with "literally thousands" of his patients. Not only
that, he often encouraged them to attend evangelical Alpha Courses at
his local church -- and that, out of every ten he asked, eight took up
the offer and two "had their lives changed as a result".

Pixie wrote:You skeptics are all the same.

Pixie wrote:Leaving Spiritlove in a flurry of divaness, threatening never ever to darken the portol again. And there you are, pissed up and lurking on the 'Medium' thread, upsetting yourself with the silly woo woos. Why put yourself through it Umberto? Why? Think of your health!

Pixie wrote:Still waiting for UC to comment on the study which shows atheist docs to be quicker with the old jab jab, toe tag, than their religious colleagues.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:I'm not a 'skeptic'

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading SL (although probably not for the reason you'd like) but I just think that trying to debate rationally about the irrational is a waste of time.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:

Pixie wrote:Still waiting for UC to comment on the study which shows atheist docs to be quicker with the old jab jab, toe tag, than their religious colleagues.

Well I think the debate is about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

If someone who's terminally ill is suffering pain then it is probably a good idea to increase their morphine (or whatever) even if it will hasten their demise.

Is it better to keep pain relief to a minimum just to prolong the length of life - particularly when it reduces the quality of life?

I think a lot of religious people have a misguided idea when it comes to the difference between 'life' and 'quality of life'.

As with most non-religious people, I would place the emphasis most strongly on quality of life rather than quantity - although 'both' would be ideal.

Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether the place of death for patients with cancer is associated with patients' quality of life (QoL) at the end of life (EOL) and psychiatric disorders in bereaved caregivers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, longitudinal, multisite study of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers (n = 342 dyads). Patients were followed from enrollment to death, a median of 4.5 months later. Patients' QoL at the EOL was assessed by caregiver report within 2 weeks of death. Bereaved caregivers' mental health was assessed at baseline and 6 months after loss with the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, and the Prolonged Grief Disorder interview.

RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, patients with cancer who died in an intensive care unit (ICU) or hospital experienced more physical and emotional distress and worse QoL at the EOL (all P ≤ .03), compared with patients who died at home with hospice. ICU deaths were associated with a heightened risk for posttraumatic stress disorder, compared with home hospice deaths (21.1% [four of 19] v 4.4% [six of 137]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 5.00; 95% CI, 1.26 to 19.91; P = .02), after adjustment for caregivers' preexisting psychiatric illnesses. Similarly, hospital deaths were associated with a heightened risk for prolonged grief disorder (21.6% [eight of 37] v 5.2% [four of 77], AOR, 8.83; 95% CI, 1.51 to 51.77; P = .02), compared with home hospice deaths.

CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer who die in a hospital or ICU have worse QoL compared with those who die at home, and their bereaved caregivers are at increased risk for developing psychiatric illness. Interventions aimed at decreasing terminal hospitalizations or increasing hospice utilization may enhance patients' QoL at the EOL and minimize bereavement-related distress.