Should students who reject evolution be allowed to become doctors?

[Complexity]

This reminds me of the pharmacists who refuse to assist patients that they don't approve of.

 

[slingblade]

Will have to very strongly disagree here. I know a few dozen transgender people, several of them have turned away, giving inadequate care, or had their "lifestyle" outright maligned by these types of doctors. There are tons of gay people who have been denied services by these doctors.

In my own personal experience, several years ago I was seeking a psychologist for some counseling. I was referred to one practicing with Allegent Health Psychiatric. I did not know it was a Christian organization. I saw a Psychologist who had several books on the "healing" homosexuality, leaflets by Focus on the Family, several titles by anti-LGBT authors. Within 5 minutes of talking to the guy, I learned that they don't help LGBT people. It was a very short visit.

All of that is, in my opinion, morally and professionally wrong.

However, I relate it to bigotry more than I would competency, in that the doctors to whom you refer could be giving perfectly competent care, skill-wise, to those patients of whom they "approve." In other words, they might be good doctors, but they certainly sound like lousy human beings.

 

[slingblade]

This reminds me of the pharmacists who refuse to assist patients that they don't approve of.

Oh, that pisses me off, too!

I don't care what you believe; this isn't about you! It's my body, my doctor, and my medication, so spare me the the sermon, do your job, and dispense it!

 

[Complexity]

All of that is, in my opinion, morally and professionally wrong.

However, I relate it to bigotry more than I would competency, in that the doctors to whom you refer could be giving perfectly competent care, skill-wise, to those patients of whom they "approve." In other words, they might be good doctors, but they certainly sound like lousy human beings.

I must disagree.

I don't think there is any way that the doctors being referred to are good doctors.

 

[slingblade]

I think the op has been badly worded, but it raises very serious questions.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much a disbelief in evolution, but a refusal to attend lectures or even learn about it. Should medical students get to pick and choose which parts of their course are religiously acceptable, boycott the rest and still expect to pass?

What happens when this is not only stuff relating to evolution, what about opting out of classes on reproductive biology and women's health, should they still pass then? (this is not a hypothetical question)

Maybe that's it, and I'm opining about the wrong thing.

I don't agree with opting out of studies, again in general, just because they clash with your belief system. If what you're trying to do is so anathema to your beliefs, maybe it'd be better if you do something else.

But all I can do is speak in general; there are too many variables and exceptions to the topic to be too specific about it.

I've been the theist who felt evolution was legitimate, and who's to say it isn't something god uses? Maybe god created life to evolve.

To outright refuse to attend certain classes because they're too conflicting or you don't "believe in it"....well, you don't "believe" in science! It's not a religion. That's a pretty lame excuse, IMO.

A person who refuses to attend the full course of study for whatever reason probably shouldn't be licensed, no.

 

[Cleon]

Will have to very strongly disagree here. I know a few dozen transgender people, several of them have turned away, giving inadequate care, or had their "lifestyle" outright maligned by these types of doctors. There are tons of gay people who have been denied services by these doctors.

In my own personal experience, several years ago I was seeking a psychologist for some counseling. I was referred to one practicing with Allegent Health Psychiatric. I did not know it was a Christian organization. I saw a Psychologist who had several books on the "healing" homosexuality, leaflets by Focus on the Family, several titles by anti-LGBT authors. Within 5 minutes of talking to the guy, I learned that they don't help LGBT people. It was a very short visit.

Those are all fair points, Dessi (though I agree with Slingbade's assertion that the problem there is not that they're incompetent doctors, they're just awful human beings).

I admit, I was not thinking in terms of bigotry against LGBTQ patients, I was thinking purely in terms of the creation/evolution issue.

 

[slingblade]

I must disagree.

I don't think there is any way that the doctors being referred to are good doctors.

For certain meanings of "good." I only meant their practice of medicine is competent.

 

[Cleon]

I think the op has been badly worded, but it raises very serious questions.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much a disbelief in evolution, but a refusal to attend lectures or even learn about it. Should medical students get to pick and choose which parts of their course are religiously acceptable, boycott the rest and still expect to pass?

What happens when this is not only stuff relating to evolution, what about opting out of classes on reproductive biology and women's health, should they still pass then? (this is not a hypothetical question)

A local friend of mine (also happens to be co-host of a popular skeptical podcast), was telling me the other day about a geologist that works for his company who is a born-again six-thousand-year-old-earth creationist. He didn't get his degree from a diploma mill, he went to a real university (I forget which one), passed all his classes, the whole nine yards. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, it seems.

That, to me, is perfectly acceptable when it comes to medical students. If you don't want to believe it, you don't have to, but you damn well have to take the classes and pass the exams even if you don't believe it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religious Christians, sure. But AFAIK "born-again" Christians specifically believe in Biblical literalism.

Not a requirement for the ones I know. Some are, some aren't believers in "God set evolution in action."

Not at all like that, actually.

Yes, quite a bit like that. If they let their faith get in the way of their training, people could die. If a drunk falls off the wagon, people could die.

 

[Cleon]

Yes, quite a bit like that. If they let their faith get in the way of their training, people could die. If a drunk falls off the wagon, people could die.

In what possible way could an otherwise-competent physician believing the world was created six thousand years ago kill a patient?

 

[cwalner]

I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious doctors who are homophobic. Just like I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who are racist.

They might not be good people, but they might still at least be good doctors.

1. I am aware of that and agree that there are likely many doctors that are homophobic but not religious. However most that deeply religious tend to have anti-gay positions based on their religion.

2. The issue was not the quality of medical care that the person offers, but that I would be uncomfortable being completely honest with such a person. I don't want to put myself in a position where I am withholding possibly relevant information from my doctor because I don't trust him enough to reveal it.

Therefore the issue for me is that I know that I would not be comfortable being completely honest with a doctor who espoused ideas that I associate with religiosity, and evolution denial is one of those ideas.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I think the op has been badly worded, but it raises very serious questions.
The problem, as I see it, is not so much a disbelief in evolution, but a refusal to attend lectures or even learn about it. Should medical students get to pick and choose which parts of their course are religiously acceptable, boycott the rest and still expect to pass?

What happens when this is not only stuff relating to evolution, what about opting out of classes on reproductive biology and women's health, should they still pass then? (this is not a hypothetical question)

Like I posted earlier, if the school has attendance standards, then then need to met those standards. For individual classes, the school needs to make sure the scholarship standards are met. (including the scores in any pop quizes that might be given during a particular lecture).

The students do not have the right to impose their veiwpoints on the curiculum.

 

[Complexity]

For certain meanings of "good." I only meant their practice of medicine is competent.

That is sort of like saying that a man is a good parent even though he will only feed his sons.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In what possible way could an otherwise-competent physician believing the world was created six thousand years ago kill a patient?

Wrong question.

 

[slingblade]

That is sort of like saying that a man is a good parent even though he will only feed his sons.

No, my friend, we're still talking about different meanings of "good."

I don't mean morally good. I mean it only in the sense of competence at medicine. The two are distinguishable.

 

[Freddy]

Their beliefs are indicative of problems with critical thinking.

I think that critical thinking is important for medical professionals.

I think that they are less competent in medicine for holding these beliefs.

What an embarrassingly simplistic syllogism. I would say that this post demonstrates a problem with critical thinking. The sort of cognitive dissonance exhibited by a doctor who does not believe in evolution would not necessarily prevent one from being an excellent doctor, let alone a good enough doctor to merit a license.

I do think that refusing to even attend the classes is unprofessional, as others have pointed out. One can learn a theory without accepting it, and that refusal indicates a deficiency that is actually relevant.

And since it has been brought up, if such a doctor also refuses to treat patients who live alternative lifestyles, that is also altogether different, and a sufficient reason to deny a license. You can believe such lifestyles are sinful if you want, but it does not follow that it is therefore your duty (or even your right) not to treat anyone who needs care you are qualified to provide.

 

[sadhatter]

Oh, that pisses me off, too!

I don't care what you believe; this isn't about you! It's my body, my doctor, and my medication, so spare me the the sermon, do your job, and dispense it!

Its weird as someone who is going school to become a pharmacist, i both dislike, and would probably have to take advantage of the policy.

To explain.

I feel if you don't like giving out real medication, don't be a pharmacist. Don't want to give the morning after pill, pick a different job.

On the other hand i can say if someone came to me in 6 or so years when i am a pharmacist, and asked me for consulting in regards to homeopathic preparations, or the like, i would have to refer them to a different pharmacist. As the value of Veracity, would come into conflict with the value of Nonmaleficence, ( in the sense that giving the facts in regards to these medication could cause undue stress to the patient. ).

I don't know if i am being hypocritical or what, but the key difference to me seems to be proven medicine, versus magic tricks and sugar pills. If it was my opinion or belief , i would either pick a different job, or suck it up. But these are facts.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People who deny the fundamental basis of modern biology, including medicine, should not be doing medicine.

 

[TheAnachronism]

I think I'd rather visit Dr. Princess.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Should students who reject the idea of a round Earth be allowed to become astronomers?

In other words, do we want medical professionals who lack understanding of the most basic relevant concepts? Should such students even be allowed to continue studying at the institution, or should we just throw them out head-first?