to all those who are in medical profession or have keenly observed the medical practice, what is that one strongly held religious belief that annoys doctors or other people in medical or paramedical profession, makes practice difficult for them (even if they are theist themselves)?
well in india, applying cowdung to the umbilical cord stump of neonates (resulting in increasing neonatal tetanus incidence) is such a practice stil prevailing despite rampant measures
This is a fascinating question. I'm just a manager in the medical field, but I've never heard the providers talk about being irritated by the religious beliefs of patients... They've talked about certain magical beliefs, like when the patients want some magical pill for their obesity that doesn't involve any sort of exercise and eating less. My providers are two catholics, one "agnostic", one unknown and one secular humanist.
One belief that drives me nuts is related to my research directly. I don't get it a lot, but for some reason when I tell some Christians that I do biomedical science and research the area of aging they say its unnatural and against gods will to prolong life. I immediately ask them if its unnatural to treat cancer in any way, because doing so would prolong the lifespan of individuals that have it. Or perhaps it is unnatural to treat someone with Alzheimer? Should I just sit back idly as I watch a family slowly lose a loved one to age induced dementia? Even after explaining that all I'm doing is trying to make them maintain the healthy state of their body for a few more years, prevent dementia, and slow the increase in the risk of cancer associated with age, they still say 'it's unnatural.' On a related note, I find even 'non-religious' people seem to treat 'nature' as a replacement for god as if it has some kind of narrative and will. They promptly make the same aforementioned argument, replacing 'its against gods will' with 'that goes against what nature designed.' Nature does not design; traits are selected for based on the ability to survive pressures exerted by the environment, via competition with other organisms, and predation/parasites. If these pressures do not kill the organism or prevent it from mating, the traits that it had are passed on. The trait 'non-aging' is not something selected for, it is very non-competitive considering a stable population is an easy target for parasites (red queen hypothesis explains that well). So perhaps I'm going 'against nature' by trying to support traits that were not 'naturally selected for.' But this is the real world and I'm not going to sit idly by as I see my loved ones get ill without lifting a finger.
I'm so glad that I'm on the back likes of medicine so I don't have to directly deal with this that often. Usually when surrounded by other medical personal its more of an issue of defeatism, which I can deal with easily.
RJ, yeah, we know these people are hypocrites. i guess u should tell them their existence is unnatural because its with interference of man that they have lived that longer, giving the improved life expectancy. ask them if its not against the will of god to allow their own popes be so old and healthy. ask them if their pope wil allow himself to die without medical assistance to be along the guidelines of god of non-intereference. But sooner or later they wil themselves bring their loved old ones or their old self with a common geriatric ailment to the hospital and know at the back of their minds that they are hypocrites. but they wil stil do what tey have done all their lives, covering up their shortcomings in the name of god, and wil cook up another argument to support their approach to medical faculty at an age where should be dying commonly of the age. they may go so lo as exactly reversing their argument and saying that its god's wil again.
and about the natural selection, well its quite clear that if natural selection (the rule itself) operated in a way that humans rule the world, its directly responsible for the human tendancies of not respecting the rule itself. whether we do or not is an extended logic, its the mere arousal of the thought in human mind that is sufficient to make us realise that natural selection is ultimately responsible for its own invalidation by humans