Prayer and EMS

[akflightmedic]

That is one of the best quotes ever.

Thanks but I can only claim the insecure part, it was the Bible which told me he was a jealous god...his words. For one to be a jealous god, indicates to me that there must be other gods...no?

 

[emt835]

screwed up my reply. I was never trained to give prayers. i was trainied to provide medical care and emotional support

 

[Veneficus]

Crossing the threshold from expressions of empathy and compassion into the infinitely complex world of religion and religious incompatibility is not something I would risk as a medical professional and not something I would appreciate as a patient.

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I do not offer to pray for patients, or unilaterally decide what may help. Nor do I randomly just try different things until one actually works.

But if the patient asks me to pray with them, then I just follow their lead. If they ask for a priest (minister, shamen, Rabbi, or whatever) I make every effort to provide what they request.

If they ask me to take part in some basic ritual like leaving the "sick rag" on their head or bowing my head or a moment of silence, if it doesn't interefere with actual intervention then I make every effort to honor their request.

What if you were a patient of faith and your EMT was atheist? Would you want to hear his/her religious views then?

Understanding the true nature of religion, I really don't care what people believe or don't.

I sat in a class my first year of undergrad called "mysteries of evil." Of the required reading was a satanic publication. I wondered the significance of it. The prof later lectured that all Christians are Satanists and vice versa. You cannot have a protagonist without an antagonist. So I ask: Can you have an athiest without a religion to be against?

The dangerous extension of allowing religious intrusion into medical professions is the potential for selective application of one's medical knowledge on the basis of religious criteria; i.e. the potential unwillingness of an EMT to perform his/her duty on a patient who is part of any group with whom the EMT's religion disagrees or actively condemns.

Rest assured, nobody will ever accuse me of that. I am not biased by extreinsic beliefs, and I have learned the hard way about the conflicts of absolute morality.

But there are healthcare institutions (they probably try to reconsecrate the grounds after I walk on it) who can and do discriminate in their medical care. Probably not a successful trip to Show up at "St. Mary's" looking for an abortion. Nor at a Jehova's Witness facility looking for a massive blood transfusion. How about a Muslim hospital that only permit same sex doctors to see a patient? You could literally die "with your dignity" on the table waiting?

This is taking shape in the form of "conscience clauses" advocated by religious extremists who assume that when their MVA happens, the responding medic will be a member of their congregation. If they happen to be from a "rival" denomination/sect, the patient could be fatally screwed. All because religion was injected where it never belonged in the first place.

You really should seek out a medical ethics class. It is considerably complex. Ultimately the individual has to make a determination if they are going to follow the tenents of their faith, objectivity, the patients faith, or yet another option.

Look at the recent shooting of the OB/GYN performing abortions in a Christian church. Talk about conflicting... But yet he somehow managed to reconcile for himself the discrepency. Not being religious myself, I cannot even begin to explain that one.

But it is my belief that any provider who puts their religious convictions over that of a patient is not properly serving the patient. But the only person who I can convince of that is me. You may agree or disagree, but not from my opinion.

 

[usafmedic45]

Double post

 

[usafmedic45]

Yes there is evidence and study on the topic

Not that supports your beliefs and is credible, reliable and without massive overarching bias. You have to realize that simply because you agree with the results of a study does not mean it constitutes "evidence", at least of anything other than gullibility and a poor grasp on how to read and assess research. If you believe the half-*** studies on prayer, I have a few studies from the 1930s and 1940s about the genetic predisposition of various cultural traits you'd probably fascinated to read. They have about the same level of credibility and scientific validity.

You can't praise a deity for the unexpectedly positive events without likewise attributing blame for the exponentially more frequent negative outcomes

What he said.

and there are MEDICAL miracles... we talk about but give the credit to NOTHING and/or NO ONE.

You know....except for the medical professionals who worked very hard to deliver the care that resulted in a lucky outcome. Just because we can't explain something with the evidence we have now doesn't mean an invisible man in the sky is responsible for it. The only reason they are called "miracles" is because of the old times when the Catholic Church controlled everything and if they couldn't explain it it had to be a "miracle". Pay attention to the origin of words, their use and how it has changed over time and a lot of the voodoo-like mystery you are eluding to goes away.

Could there be a bias... one that is against the patient?

Nope. You're using a strawman argument to defend something that is frankly indefensible. I can't prove you wrong (at least not to the point of destroying your faith) and you can't prove yourself correct to any reasonable burden of proof. Such is the nature of faith versus science. You choose to put your faith in something you can't see and I choose to accept the limitations of human knowledge and expertise such as they are and do not feel the need to have an imaginary friend to explain those things we simply haven't figured out yet. You need to learn to separate your faith and your profession; it is OK if your faith drives you to do great things for others in a selfless manner, it is completely separate if your faith is used to remove credit from yourself, your colleagues and the wonderous capability of the human body to survive and recover from crap we think should be lethal.

not only is the god jealous but he is insecure..

I agree with Veneficus on this one.

Would you want a Muslim to offer prayers to Allah if you were a Pentecostal adherent?

I have no problems with it. That's their call.

But yet he somehow managed to reconcile for himself the discrepency. Not being religious myself, I cannot even begin to explain that one.

Simple, when religion is taken to an extreme it begins to constitute a form of mental illness just like anything else. It tends to bring out both the best and worst in humanity, often hand in hand. One need look no further than the sundry "Christian" charities that offer medical care to third world peoples simply as a way of forcing them to "convert".

Oh, and didn't you know, that "Thou shalt not commit murder" apparently only applies if the person is the same faith as you (at least according to some sects).

But if the patient asks me to pray with them, then I just follow their lead. If they ask for a priest (minister, shamen, Rabbi, or whatever) I make every effort to provide what they request.

If they ask me to take part in some basic ritual like leaving the "sick rag" on their head or bowing my head or a moment of silence, if it doesn't interefere with actual intervention then I make every effort to honor their request.

Same here...I'll pray over someone if asked to so long as it does interfere with patient care. I may have little to no faith myself (although I base most of my ethical standards on various religious teachings), I figure if it keeps the patient calmer and more willing to comply with what needs to be done it's a good idea. After all, religion is one of the best ways to control people.

 

[rjw225]

I have no problems with it. That's their call.

What I was attempting to describe (unsuccessfully, it seems ) is a situation wherein the EMT, who is of a faith doctrinally and/or culturally controverted by the faith of the patient, initiates and/or leads what he/she perceives as welcome and appropriate spiritual ritual that inadvertently creates unnecessary conflict that could jeopardize the patient's outcome and the EMT's professional standing and personal livelihood.

Basically, the potential for harm implicit in mixing myth with medicine in the pre-hospital environment is infinitely greater than the unpredictable, unverifiable and unquantifiable assumed "benefits".

 

[Veneficus]

Simple, when religion is taken to an extreme it begins to constitute a form of mental illness just like anything else. It tends to bring out both the best and worst in humanity, often hand in hand. One need look no further than the sundry "Christian" charities that offer medical care to third world peoples simply as a way of forcing them to "convert". .

Don't get me started on that... It also creates famine on an epic proportion resulting in not only a complete breakdown of economy and resources, but perpetuates the very poverty that makes people suseptible to this trash labeled as "help."

 

[usafmedic45]

What I was attempting to describe (unsuccessfully, it seems ) is a situation wherein the EMT, who is of a faith doctrinally and/or culturally controverted by the faith of the patient, initiates and/or leads what he/she perceives as welcome and appropriate spiritual ritual that inadvertently creates unnecessary conflict that could jeopardize the patient's outcome and the EMT's professional standing and personal livelihood.

I understand...and that is why I keep my beliefs and profession separate.

 

[firecoins]

I sat in a class my first year of undergrad called "mysteries of evil." Of the required reading was a satanic publication. I wondered the significance of it. The prof later lectured that all Christians are Satanists and vice versa. You cannot have a protagonist without an antagonist. So I ask: Can you have an athiest without a religion to be against?

atheist is not agaist religion or in opposition to religion. They are without religion. The "a" stands for without theism. The correct opposite of a theist is an antitheist. You can not have antitheist without a theist.

 

[Veneficus]

atheist is not agaist religion or in opposition to religion. They are without religion. The "a" stands for without theism. The correct opposite of a theist is an antitheist. You can not have antitheist without a theist.

cool.

But it does seem like a lot of people identifying as atheist are really the antitheist in their pursuits.

 

[firecoins]

cool.

But it does seem like a lot of people identifying as atheist are really the antitheist in their pursuits.

People who are atheist are skeptical of ALL supernatural claims. We require evidence.

 

[Veneficus]

People who are atheist are skeptical of ALL supernatural claims. We require evidence.

I thought that was agnostic?

I doubt many will produce supernatural evidence. Seems kind of hard to have evidence of that which is beyong the understanding of man.

 

[usafmedic45]

People who are atheist are skeptical of ALL supernatural claims. We require evidence.

Hell, I'm skeptical of all claims, supernatural or otherwise.

I thought that was agnostic?

I could be argued that way. The best term for someone who is skeptical by nature is "scientist".

 

[eveningsky339]

I'm an extremely spiritual person, but I do not pray on a call. Too busy being "on the edge," so to speak.

I do pray, however, after a call.

If I can recall correctly, according to some studies, prayer does seem to have a positive effect on patients (even when the patients don't know that they are being prayed for). No links or solid data, however.

EDIT: And allow me to clarify what many seem to have missed... this thread was about prayer, not Christianity. Prayer has been around much longer than Christianity.

 

[firecoins]

I thought that was agnostic?

I doubt many will produce supernatural evidence. Seems kind of hard to have evidence of that which is beyong the understanding of man.

I don't consider it agnostic but we are playing with semantics. I view the agnostic position as someone who might consider religious claims or part of it with out evidence. They just don't know.

The "beyond the understanding" assumes man can not find out. I don't make that assumption. I assume we can find out.