Good intentions: a defence against inappropriate acts?

What do we think about this?

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.

There are more examples, obviously, where people may be giving bad advice or pushing ideologies/religion/beliefs onto others. Such actions or behaviours can be seen as inappropriate (or worse!) but people will often defend such actions with the line, "but they were only trying to help".

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

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

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?

Just a little something to ponder.

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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/26/doctors-religious-beliefs-terminally-ill/print

What if the person who gets an atheist doctor never wanted intervention?

I will make a living will. I'll be damned if I lose my marbles and end up with some atheist doc who wants me jabbed, toe tagged and on me way to the morgue before shift change!

Fabulous Pixie.

How about responding to the point I raised though?

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

Just giving an example of how being a professional who is an atheist can affect the lives of other people. It is in keeping with your original post isn't it? Or have I started talking doughnuts?

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

Personally I don't see the big problem. I get a bit pissed off with the Jovo's trying to flog their religion by ringing my door bell during Stevens nap time but it's no more annoying than people trying to flog me some windows, I should really put a card in the window telling them all to bog off.

When I had Steven, there was a lady there in the hospital (God Squad) She was doing the rounds with her prayer book. She very politely asked if we would like her to say a prayer for Steven. He was born early via an emergency c section because I was beeding internally and his heart rate was through the roof. I was just so happy I had my baby, I was ok with the lady saying her prayer. However, I understand how someone else would not be so accepting but If you don't believe in God or whatever it should be no more of a big deal to send them off than a window salesman should it?

I don't know why the God Squad circulate around the hospitals. Maybe it's because they just want to try and give comfort and they are acting in an unselfish way or maybe it's thier way of gaining points to get themselves to 'heaven' therefore acting selfishly. There are still a lot of people who need this comfort, especially the elderly, some of which may have nobody to care about them who isn't paid to do so. If I was an atheist, I don't see why they should have to miss out on this because I don't want it.

I have never come across a GP who pushed religion on me. Though in my opinion the doctors who were in charge of the medication and treatment for my father-in-law and my own father would have been better off sending them away with a prayer book, they might have had a better chance.

It's not rocket science. If your GP or whoever is acting inappropriately for any reason, you put a complaint in. If the professional isn't pushing anything on you but you don't like the fact that they have a picture of Jesus on the wall, make a complaint or find someone else. My previous GP had all Indian rigmarole on his walls, hadn't a clue what it was all about and didn't really care. I wouldn't care if my GP had a picture of Dawkins as her screensaver (my blood pressure would shoot up) but it wouldn't be a big deal.

I couldn't give a toss if a doctor is Atheist, Christian or Jedi as long as they do their job and give me the correct treatment. (big ask in some cases). Religion or non-religion shouldn't come into the healthcare profession but the above study suggests that it does. I really don't like the idea of a doctor either pro-longing my life or shortening it because of their beliefs. It should be a neutral decision based on my condition with a discussion either with myself or my family if I am unable to communicate my wishes.

Have you had any experience personally of having religion shoved in your grid Bongo?

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

I know that question was directed specifically to Umberto, but I would like to answer if I may as well. I have on various occasions had "religious people" invade my personal space and try to thrust their doctrines and views my way. I simply respond to and deal with those people in the same way that I would any other particular annoyance that inevitably comes my way. I don't think I would ever be driven to official complaints or reporting such to authorities.

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.

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.(?)

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.

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.

LOL - if it's livening up you need, you're in the wrong forum
(but you know that already, don't ya)

"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   

 

[quote="Tibbs"]

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Can't find my translator, but is that something to do with ignorance of the law being no excuse?

What's that got to do with anything? I hope Tibbs will come and explain further.

Umberto Cocopop wrote:Just forget it.

Umberto - is that you being stroppy? Why?

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:

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.

and you might just have been feeling a little bit paranoid.

Then again ... you might just have been doing a little

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)

Is this the case you are referring to?
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2011/09/patients-scott-christian

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".

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

Whut de hell is you rappin about Tibbs?

Might as well start talking Jive.

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.

You skeptics are all the same. 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!

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.

I agree KK. A one comment can be forgiven for being said with good intention but there is a huge difference between that and pimping religion as a sideline to being a GP (or any other professional). He has crossed the line and abused his position. Simple.

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".

The relevant word being 'guidelines' so what's Tibbs on about with 'law' even if it is in Latin!

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.

Pixie wrote:You skeptics are all the same.

I'm not a 'skeptic'.

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!

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.

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.

Speaking for myself, I'd not want my life to continue regardless of quality. My family wouldn't want that for me either. There's no point in it.

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

One thousand apologies

A non-believer then

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.

I bet you read it just to feel closer to us because you really miss us?

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.

Is it the right thing to be making a decision to end a life based on your own belief?

I think there will be many people who will say 'bring it on, the sooner the better' of that I have no doubt. I am convinced that my dad was 'helped' on his way. It was fairly obvious. He had been with us for hours and then a doctor did his rounds, consulted with the nurse and within minutes she was giving him something to make him more comfortable. Almost immediately, his BP started to decrease, the nurse said, 'it won't be long now'. I am not going to say that I resent it. dad was terminally ill, he was dying and I didn't want him to suffer any longer than he had to but we were never consulted, not even mum. We would most probably have made the descision to end dads suffering had we been consulted. A vet wouldn't just jab a dog without consulting with the owner as a general rule.

I really don't like the idea of someone who knows nothing about me except for what is written on a medical chart, to be taking the decision to end my life (or not) based on their life view. Religion or non-religion shouldn't come into it. In the case of the terminally ill, it should always be with the permission of the patient or their family after having discussed the options with the doctor.

I quite like the fact that I came into this world without any medical intervention. I hope I get to go out without any.

I think that maybe the way to go is for people to make living wills. That way they are carrying out the wishes of that person to the end, as they wanted.

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837950

I know that my dad wanted to die at home. He was at home on Christmas Day and didn't actually go to hospital until the afternoon. It was his doctor who told him it would give him 'dignity' to die in hospital!!! To be honest it makes me angry now. Where was the dignity in a man dying in a cold hard hospital bed surrounded by nurses in party hats, party food etc in a ward full of men with broken limbs. I will never forget the face of the man opposite who had just watched a man die. It was a joke!

My dads end of life quality was shite. His doctor was to blame and so were we for allowing it. Was he really concerned about my dads 'dignity'? Or was it a case him not wanting to be spending christmas day looking after a dying man? If so....he was in the wrong profession. Mum regretted it till she died. We will regret it till we die. As the above study shows.