Should students who reject evolution be allowed to become doctors?

[Zelenius]

My position is still that students who reject evolution should not be allowed to become doctors but with several caveats, since not all students who reject evolution are equal. There should not be an outright ban on evolution-deniers. Luckily this is a minor problem that mostly solves itself since most people with anti-science views are very rarely interested in becoming doctors.

Also, I think homophobia among doctors is irrelevant to this discussion, even if it does correlate with creationist views. I occasionally meet homophobic atheists.

One of the reasons I started this thread was because of the existence of Deepak Chopra. Of course, it isn't just his creationism that destroys his credibility in my eyes, but his quantum woo approach to health that is probably even more wacky.

I don't think it is his creationism that causes him to believe in quantum healing nonsense, but rather they may both be caused by his deeply irrational, magical thinking. Or more cynically, he doesn't believe any of this nonsense but uses it to promote himself to the new age crowd. So it is being deeply irrational versus dishonesty. Both are very disturbing for a doctor.

 

[Freddy]

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

Evolution, at least in the sense the creationists reject ("macro"-evolution, as they call it), has no real bearing on the actual practice of medicine. If someone believes that drug resistant bacteria exist, and that they exist as a result of bacteria adapting to the widespread use of antibiotics, then they have all the belief in and understanding of evolution they need to be highly competent doctors. If you aren't comfortable with such a doctor, then don't go to one. But a belief that such doctors are ipso facto incompetent to practice medicine is itself an irrational belief not based in evidence.

Perhaps a detailed understanding of evolutionary biology is necessary for certain research endeavors within the medical field, but the doctors who do that kind of research work usually aren't practicing medicine on patients anyway. Understanding of anatomy, physiology, and chemistry are fundamental to the practice of medicine. Evolutionary biology is a very distant fourth (if not further down the line than that). It is hardly the fundamental basis of the practice of medicine, except perhaps in a very "meta" sort of way. Not irrelevant, but tangential at best.

 

[Freddy]

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?

I don't think this analogy is apt. I agree that anyone who refuses to learn about evolution should fail whatever classes require one to have such knowledge, but I don't see how believing it is necessary or even particularly relevant to the actual practice of medicine on patients. As long as a doctor believes that bacteria become drug resistant over generations due to widespread use of antibiotics (something creationists don't deny AFAIK), then he (or she) can be as competent at treating patients as an atheist doctor. And that is without even bringing up the concepts of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance, at which human beings excel. There may be some specialists that require more knowledge of and belief in evolution, but general practice doctors don't. And we are experiencing a worsening shortage of GPs, so it seems rather unwise, and perhaps even (dare I say it?) irrational to disqualify what is (sadly) a significant chunk of the polulation who could do the job just fine.

 

[sgtbaker]

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)

This is pretty much how I feel. I don't care if a doctor believes in the most literal interpretation of the bible or if he or she believes he/she was Joan of Arc in their past life. I do care if their personal beliefs get in the way of them performing their job. It may not mean much to me because I live in a busy area with a choice of doctors to see. What about that person who is low income and lives in a small town where the only doctor refuses to do necessary procedures, because it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evolution, at least in the sense the creationists reject ("macro"-evolution, as they call it), has no real bearing on the actual practice of medicine. If someone believes that drug resistant bacteria exist, and that they exist as a result of bacteria adapting to the widespread use of antibiotics, then they have all the belief in and understanding of evolution they need to be highly competent doctors. If you aren't comfortable with such a doctor, then don't go to one. But a belief that such doctors are ipso facto incompetent to practice medicine is itself an irrational belief not based in evidence.

Perhaps a detailed understanding of evolutionary biology is necessary for certain research endeavors within the medical field, but the doctors who do that kind of research work usually aren't practicing medicine on patients anyway. Understanding of anatomy, physiology, and chemistry are fundamental to the practice of medicine. Evolutionary biology is a very distant fourth (if not further down the line than that). It is hardly the fundamental basis of the practice of medicine, except perhaps in a very "meta" sort of way. Not irrelevant, but tangential at best.

We get next year's flu vaccine from figuring out how this year's flu will evolve. We study hereditary diseases to understand how they will affect the new borns. Etc.

But most important is the idea that rejecting the very basis of biology and medicine is most likely a symptom of some problem deeper than that.

 

[Freddy]

We get next year's flu vaccine from figuring out how this year's flu will evolve. We study hereditary diseases to understand how they will affect the new borns. Etc.

But most important is the idea that rejecting the very basis of biology and medicine is most likely a symptom of some problem deeper than that.

The number of creationist doctors who recommend and give flu shots every year would tend to discredit your concerns. Again, creationists, even the hardcore ones, do not deny natural selection or adaptation. The thing the anti-evolutionists deny is that one species can evolve into a new, different species. None of the things you've mentioned are things creationists reject. At least not any creationists I know, or whose thoughts on such matters I am aware of. Granted, I don't spend much of my time seeking out creationist views, since I find them to be wholly without merit. But I do know several reasonably intelligent creationists, and none of them reject flu shots or hereditary disease, or the means of studying or combating either the flu or hereditary disease. If anything, they would just have some rationalization of how that doesn't disprove their creationist views. Rationalization is how they deal with any apparent contradictions between their profession and their religious beliefs. They rationalize that what they reject is not also what they assume to be true in their every day work. That may be wrong, but it renders their false beliefs innocuous as far as any potential danger to patients is concerned.

As for your more general point, I think you greatly underestimate both the power and the ubiquity of compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance. Those things are not in themselves indicative of abnormal psychology. If anything, their absence is abnormal, at least if normal is taken as a synonym of "common." In fact, their complete absence in a person is closer to "unheard of" than it is to "normal," and might even be detrimental to a person's well-being. I may develop an opinion on that if I ever meet someone who does not exhibit both to at least some degree.

 

[slingblade]

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.

Asking you for a consult is one thing.

But when my doctor writes me a scrip, and I present it at my pharmacy, I'm not at all interested in what the person behind the counter thinks about my taking it, as regards their beliefs.

I do want to hear things like, "I see from our records that you also take Dammitol. Dammitol is known to conflict with this new prescription, and may cause serious side effects. I'll need to call your doctor to confirm this, for your safety."

I do not want to hear, "Oh, this medication is an abortifacient, and I'm not comfortable dispensing that to you."

That person is in entirely the wrong job.

 

[yomero]

I am a physician, with nearly 40 years of experience. I accept the theory of evolution with no reservations. Knowing about evolution was a great aid in understanding biology and later anatomy, physiology, embryology, etc. However, I can't remember of any case where diagnosis and treatment were decided based on evolutionary principles. Of course when faced with a bacterial disease that was not responding to the usual antibiotics, the possibility of mutation by the bacteria was immediately considered. But even in those instances, the theory of evolution stayed at the back of my mind.

 

[Jono]

For me, it's a bit like asking if you would approve of psychologists who believe Freud's work gives them the best appliable method.

 

[sarge]

Whactard belief's do not necessarily impact on a doctor's competence - after all, there are competent (choose one: liberal/conservative) doctors.

A belief in a creator does not interfere with the study of biology. That a doctor is able to successfuly delude himself would not concern me greatly.

 

[ZirconBlue]

A belief in a creator does not interfere with the study of biology.

Refusing to actually study biology does, though.

 

[JJM 777]

Some religious tolerance, are you guys saying that a faith prayer healer homeopath scam pill profiteer should not be allowed to become a medical doctor?

 

[AvalonXQ]

As others have said, no special treatment either way.

Don't make evolution some sort of shibboleth for competence, but also don't waive any requirements/courses based on someone's personal beliefs. In other words, each student gets to pass if they meet the same requirements as every other student.

 

[Cleon]

As others have said, no special treatment either way.

Don't make evolution some sort of shibboleth for competence, but also don't waive any requirements/courses based on someone's personal beliefs. In other words, each student gets to pass if they meet the same requirements as every other student.

This.

 

[slingblade]

This.

Another "this" from me.

 

[epepke]

The idea that one gets to decide whether to accept something without even knowing what it is, and based on that decision gets to avoid learning what it is, is quite inappropriate for any field involving academia.

That this is about evolution is secondary. It could as easily be about the Axiom of Choice in set theory, or one's particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I can quite easily read Mein Kampf or The Republic and understand them without agreeing in any way. I can even understand the Phlogiston theory of heat or your average conspiracy theory and come to the conclusion that it's dead wrong.

But not exposing oneself to an idea, having a preconceived notion of whether it's right or wrong, is the very essence of prejudice. This is not something I want people to value when they become doctors. Let them go into critical theory or politics.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

We get next year's flu vaccine from figuring out how this year's flu will evolve.

{creationist}

Micro-evolution!
It's still a virus! It didn't turn into a beetle!

{/creationist}

We study hereditary diseases to understand how they will affect the new borns. Etc.

{creationist}

The Fall!
DNA is Intelligently Designed!
They're still human! They didn't turn into a emu!

{/creationist}

 

[JJM 777]

Someone suggests that anti-blood transfusion Jehovah´s Witnesses should not serve alone the night shift in the first aid unit of hospitals? That is outright discrimination based on harmful religion.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Someone suggests that anti-blood transfusion Jehovah´s Witnesses should not serve alone the night shift in the first aid unit of hospitals? That is outright discrimination based on harmful religion equal treatment based on the fact that they won't do their job.

FTFY.

I don't care if you will refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion because a) you're lazy, b) you feint at the sight of blood, c) your religion forbids it, or d) you hate poor people and would rather they die. If I know ahead of time that you won't give a blood transfusion, I don't want you working a job where giving blood transfusions will likely be needed to save lives.

As I mentioned above, it's not about discriminating on the basis of religion; the religion is irrelevant. It's the person's behavior that we need to focus on.

To put it another way -- you can tell it's not religious based discrimination because I can make a decision about how to treat the person without knowing the person's religion. "Will the person willingly perform any emergency services necessary to save a patient's life, including [list of emergency services, including blood transfusion]? No? Fire them."

 

[pgwenthold]

I think my only concern would be that they are boycotting it because it conflicts with their religious texts. It concerns me because it forces me to ask what other things might conflict with their religious texts. When I go to a doctor I do not want to have to worry about what religion they are and whether they will have a problem proscribing certain treatments (such as birth control pills for painful menstrual cycles or emergency abortion when a mother's life is at risk). A doctor should be someone you can trust to be impartial and to do the right thing regardless of their religion.

This hits it on the head.

I, like Weak Kitten, do not want a doctor who refuses to face reality if it conflicts with his/her religion.

Note the people in the OP are not simply "learning it but not believing in it." They are boycotting the entire subject.

That means that they refuse to even learn about it.