Should students who reject evolution be allowed to become doctors?

[shadron]

The first question that comes to my mind is, why do these people even want to be doctors?

The reason, I think, is that, in general, being a physician has not been viewed historically as a scientific profession, but rather as a humanitarian one. Being a doctor has been viewed (at least in American culture) as a rather exalted profession that almost anyone can aspire to by only wanting to be helpful, friendly and willing to shoulder responsibility for the patients. The scientific knowledge base requirement is late in coming (like, about a hundred years ago, or even slightly less) and has always been secondary to a crusty empathy, a good bedside manner and the ability to take long buggy rides in the rain and snow to see patients. Even today research meds and those who emphasize scientific reasoning are more likely than not portrayed as cold, aloof people.

 

[Cleon]

Born-again doesn't automatically mean anti-evolution of course.

It doesn't? It sure does in my experience.

But rejecting evolutionary theory is like rejecting germ theory.

As long as their cognitive dissonance keeps it in check, I don't care.

 

[Zelenius]

There are plenty of born-again Christian doctors around. AFAIK, they are just as competent as any other doctors.

This was actually brought up in the OP. Just because a doctor is religious doesn't mean they reject evolution, so the question is not about banning religious people from medical school. There are plenty of great doctors out there who are deeply religious.

So the question isn't about religion per se. In fact, there are atheists who either reject science or have bizarre views of science. If a doctor was one of these atheists, I'd stay away from them too.

 

[Cleon]

This was actually brought up in the OP. Just because a doctor is religious doesn't mean they reject evolution, so the question is not about banning religious people from medical school. There are plenty of great doctors out there who are deeply religious.

So the question isn't about religion per se. In fact, there are atheists who either reject science or have bizarre views of science. If a doctor was one of these atheists, I'd stay away from them too.

When I say, "born-again Christian," I don't mean "religious Christian." I've known quite a few religious Christians I would never describe as "born-again" (nor would they be appreciative of the label).

I mean fundamentalist, Biblical-literalist, creationist Christian. "Born-again," as far as I know, has never been a synonym for "religious." It's a specific, fundamentalist, Protestant phenomenon.

 

[ZirconBlue]

They need to take - and pass - the required courses, including those that cover Evolution. They don't have to believe it, but they need to understand it.

 

[citizenzen]

They need to take - and pass - the required courses, including those that cover Evolution. They don't have to believe it, but they need to understand it.

You should not get to opt out of required classes.

But I don't believe one needs to accept evolution to be a doctor ... even an excellent one.

 

[Zelenius]

How can you pass exams if you refuse to learn or accept the knowledge? Surely this must stop people from getting qualifications.

Luckily it is largely a self-selecting process, so medical schools may not necessarily have to weed out the students who are hostile to evolution to the point that they refuse to take certain classes. They'll drop out or fail anyway due to their lack of scientific knowledge. But if they still show up in class and argue a lot with their professors or send angry emails, I think the professor should tell them to consider another career. I don't believe that creationists should be banned outright, however. If they are good students and attend class, maybe their science education will even convince them otherwise.

When I was at university it was a requirement that I attend something like 95% of the lectures and tutorials or I would automatically fail the course. I suppose now that these "students" pay such high fees they can pick and choose what they attend.

I certainly would not want to be treated by a doctor who didn't hadn't studied evolution and/or doesn't believe in it. How can you trust someone to diagnose and treat you if they are that blinded by ideology? Where does it stop?

How about a doctor who's religious views start creeping into matters such as family planning or teenage pregnancy. Imho once they believe in the woo rather than the science then they are untrustable.

Exactly. I admit I am strongly biased against creationists due to my interactions with them on this board and in real life. They are(the ones who are argumentative anyway), with rare exceptions, dishonest and/or deluded people, almost to the point that it mimics a kind of mental disorder.

That's why it scares me when I think of some of these people becoming doctors. Just imagine Kent Hovind MD.

If creationist medical students show up for every class, don't call attention to themselves and get good grades, show they are fully competent and are able to compartmentalize, I suppose it's okay for them to become doctors. But the ones who boycott classes because evolution conflicts with their religious dogma or argue endlessly with professors about basic science should not be allowed to pass the course or should be encouraged to find another career.

 

[cwalner]

For me rejection of evolution is not the issue, as long as they are competent doctors. However, it does signal a fundamentalist religious bias in the person. As a gay man, I would have difficulty being completely honest with a doctor that I thought might disapprove of my sexuality and to my mind rejection of evolution would have a high correlation with such a bias. Therefore personally I would not want to see a doctor that rejected evolution.

 

[billydkid]

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.

Except that all of us have irrational conceits of one sort or another. I accept evolution as a fact, but I don't assume people who don't are stupid. There are certainly certain things that am not inclined to apply critical thinking to. That doesn't mean that I think uncritically about everything. One the smartest guys I know is a PhD chemist and he is also a devout Christian of some sort and believes things like God helps him find his lost keys and such. Nevertheless, he is a brilliant chemist and a gifted manager of people.

 

[slingblade]

I have to agree with those who don't really see the huge problem here.

Denying someone the right to choose their profession based on their holding a certain belief sounds very thought-police-y to me, in general.

Yes, yes, I imagine we could all think of some beliefs that would indicate a serious problem, but I don't think this, in and of itself, is one of those things.

If the various educators, licensing boards, and testing requirements all indicate this person is competent in the practice of medicine, that's my primary concern.

Try this one on for size (personal experience warning):

Should an Education student, performing at the top of her class, be denied Teacher Certification because she's atheist?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It doesn't? It sure does in my experience.

Oh, there are those who believe God created the Universe way back then and is using evolution to "work his will".

As long as their cognitive dissonance keeps it in check, I don't care.

Rather like a drunk who is depended on to be sober when he's needed to be so.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

They need to take - and pass - the required courses, including those that cover Evolution. They don't have to believe it, but they need to understand it.

This.

The school should just crack down on the testing requirments for these subjects.

 

[LandR]

For me rejection of evolution is not the issue, as long as they are competent doctors. However, it does signal a fundamentalist religious bias in the person. As a gay man, I would have difficulty being completely honest with a doctor that I thought might disapprove of my sexuality and to my mind rejection of evolution would have a high correlation with such a bias. Therefore personally I would not want to see a doctor that rejected evolution.

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.

 

[Cleon]

Oh, there are those who believe God created the Universe way back then and is using evolution to "work his will".

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

Rather like a drunk who is depended on to be sober when he's needed to be so.

Not at all like that, actually.

 

[ZirconBlue]

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

I think you're using an overly-restrictive definition of "born-again".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Since human belief is selective, it is possible to be a perfectly professional and critical thinker in a field, while maintaining beliefs not based on evidence in a different field. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of doctors and scientists who are perfectly competent at their work, while having religious beliefs.

The important question for anyone performing any work is: Can they do it competently? The rest is irrelevant.

 

[Dessi]

There are plenty of born-again Christian doctors around. AFAIK, they are just as competent as any other doctors.

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.

 

[Belz...]

They should fail units about evolution if they don't show they understand it, and not turning up to class shows unprofessionalism.

Indeed. If your job clashes with your beliefs, think of another line of work.

 

[brodski]

I have to agree with those who don't really see the huge problem here.

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)

 

[Weak Kitten]

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.