| Author |
Message |
    
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 4:10 pm: |     |
I wasn't sure where to put this but it needs arguing out. I am appalled that (a) a medical doctor would exclaim to the press that "it's a miracle", (b) that mainstream new organisations like AP and CNN would bother to repeat this and (c) that a Dad would explain a normal (albeit rare) event in terms of God and miracles. Is this the 21st century or the middle ages?
This doctor should be fired IMO - maybe he would prefer working in a church and society could spend its resources on training someone who wants to practice real medicine!
quote:Walker's cardiac surgeons said they could not account for the young man's recovery.
"It's a miracle," Mangi said. "There's really no other way to put it."
Boy's heart stops beating for 4 days
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 887
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 11:47 pm: | |
This doctor should be fired IMO
I agree, Anyone, qualified or whatever, who calls an unexplained situation by a non PC term should immediatly give up their right to be in the human race.
Certainly all those unenlightened who still believe in God should be forbidden to speak of such in public.
What is this world coming to. People speaking freely of their thoughts and beleifs and thinking they might get away with it.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 12:07 am: | |
I am glad you agree. 
This isn't about PC this is about spouting falsehoods in a forum where you represent science, logic and it is incumbent upon you to uphold those tenets not give people false hopes and delusions. "Do no harm". Giving people false hopes and ideas is just the opposite.
What next doctors telling us no, we have decided against a course in antibiotics, prayer should work better in this case? I suspect the state would step in. Well maybe not. Our state regularly steps in when people put kids in danger by refusing them medicine or blood because of magical beliefs.
Claiming the supernatural as an explanation is below the professionalism of the title.
What is wrong with stating the truth: "We have never seen a case like this, we have no explanation at this time, but we are simply glad for his recovery." instead of claiming the intervention of God or some other make believe entity? Because as you know, there is no proof, so let's not make stuff up, or are you for DOCTORS making stuff up?
Note, I am not saying that a doctor cannot hold a belief in God or the Pink Squid for that matter - that is personal, but telling people that the unexplained is a miracle is misleading at best.
As for the father, that is simply misleading his kid. His right to do so I guess. That's why we have people growing up believing it is ok to kill abortion doctors, elect presidents that believe God told them to go into Iraq, have nations that believe that nukes are ok because even if they are retaliated against, they are going to heaven.
Sigh.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 659
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 5:59 am: | |
Recently I had a parishoner who experienced a remarkable recovery (and yes, I was praying for her recovery). I don't know whether her recovery was due to divine intervention or just the result of a strong constitution and excellent medical care. As I told her husband, I don't know if this is a miracle or not, but as far as I am concerned it will do until the real thing comes along.
I am very hesitant to pronounce any event a miracle. I think that calling something a miracle, just because you have no other explanation, is just plain sloppy thinking. Having said that, I see no reason why a doctor should not be allowed to express his opinion, just so long as having that opinion does not stop him from delivering quality medical care. If a doctor's belief in the possibility of miracles causes him to start relying on divine intervention, in preference to quality medical care, then he should probably quit the practice of medicine.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 888
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 1:22 pm: | |
Angukuk: I see no reason why a doctor should not be allowed to express his opinion, just so long as having that opinion does not stop him from delivering quality medical care.
There is a simple reason: People who wish to stamp out religious expression want "those people" to not be allowed to use certain words. When we start banning certain words, we are in big trouble.
I can see supporting a joyous father in the miraculous" aka statistically unlikely event of his son's death should be considered a firable offense. After all, anyone who uses the word God or Miracle in thier vocabulary must be an ignorant incompetent. Perhaps the government should fire anyone who, in a moment of anger says "god damn", after all, that is calling on a diety to punish something. Fire them immediatly, before it can spread.
I call it prejudicial, and bigoted. As Scott IMO, is neither, He is pushing my, and others, buttons to get a response. Got it.
Scott: That's why we have people growing up believing it is ok to kill abortion doctors, elect presidents that believe God told them to go into Iraq, have nations that believe that nukes are ok because even if they are retaliated against, they are going to heaven.
That is bigoted, and prejudicial. Lumping anyone who has religous beliefs into a criminal group.
Have a nice day.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 7:17 pm: | |
I have a problem with a medical doctor expressing the conclusion that a cure was effected by the super-natural. This is my main point.
I have no desire to stamp out religious expression. Words aren't so much the problem as intent. If miracle = statistically unlikely event, then I have no problem here. But we know this is not what the doctor was saying - because he is quite able (and educated enough to have the vocabulary) to phrase it in clear, defined language, especially juxtaposed to the father claiming divine intervention.
Bear, you are aware of the difference in using religious language because it has become part of the secular lexicon and using religious language because it is religious to justify a particular stance with regard to religious belief.
quote:"It's a miracle," Mangi said. "There's really no other way to put it."
No other way to put it? Yes there is, and without the religious overtones!
All I am saying is that a doctor should not put him/herself into a situation where it can be misread and if they are expounding religious belief that God cures people, then they should be fired and not allowed to practice because that is not real medicine. I have no problem with a doctor holding religious beliefs. Mine is devoutly religious. But I have a huge problem when they attribute medical results, intervention, cures and/or recoveries to God or any other supernatural event or phenomenon. That is malpractice at best. And since we, as a society, generally look up to doctors and hold them in the highest esteem, go to them for life and death advice, it is incumbent upon them not to put themselves into a situation where confusion might occur. Claiming that someone recovered due to supernatural interference is just that!
And yes, I am pushing buttons, but not for the mere sake of pushing buttons.
I am not claiming that all people that grow up in loving Christian (or other religious traditions) homes kill abortion doctors - but wanton indoctrination does lead to this and the other two examples I gave - there are many examples of self-professed Christians killing or attempting to kill abortion doctors - in both Canada and the USA. Telling your child that he was cured by God is the start of the slippery slope IMO without a balance of information. If I was misleading I apologise to anyone who was offended.
Angakuk, I have no problem with doctors having opinions or being religious and I applaud your reluctance to attribute astounding recoveries to the intervention of God. If, however, there is ever proof that God did intervene, hence proof of God, I will be the first one to line up and say you were right.
But, an opinion from a doctor on a medical matter weighs more than an opinion from say a science teacher, car salesman or accountant. If that doctor is stating in any way that a supernatural being (unproven) has any weight in a cure, possible cure or recovery plan, then s/he is misleading and guilty of malpractice IMO. I have no problem with doctors believing in God. As I said, mine does and she is an excellent physician.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Annie
storyteller
Username: Annie
Post Number: 2005
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 7:55 pm: | |
Bear, on first reading, the doctor's choice of words didn't seem like such a big deal to me either. But on further consideration... Scott has a point, this statement was made under conditions that qualify it as a professional statement. It's not like Mangi was accidentally overheard by the reporter saying this to his left door neighbor on his way home; this was his direct statement to the reporter, knowing that it would go on public record. Nor was he asked his opinion just because he happened to be passing by in the corridor, and had a nice smile. He was specifically asked for a statement as the boy's doctor. All of this makes his statement a considered, professional one, and under these circumstances it was decidedly unprofessional of him to present his personal beliefs WRT an unexplained event as "the expert opinion".
Chess is the purest form of debate, unadulterated by a topic. |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 889
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 2:18 am: | |
All I am saying is that a doctor should not put him/herself into a situation where it can be misread and if they are expounding religious belief that God cures people, then they should be fired and not allowed to practice because that is not real medicine.
Again, bull. People use the words God and miracle in their every day language. If you would fire someone for saying a statistically impossible to survive situation was survived, then god forbid, oops, just got fired for using the forbidden words, anyone should be allowed to work.
If your beleifs, religious or otherwise, do not at least obliquely show up in your daily life, particularly in an emotional time like saving a boy whom all had presumed to be dying, then you simply do not have any beleifs worth holding.
Furthermore, as Annie put it, until one analyzed the statement in the most PC terms, no one gave the statement a moments thought. And they shouldn't have. Except for those straining desperately for an excuse to persecute anyone who does not carefully analyze their statements a week before saying them, to elude the PC police.
I am willing to bet large sums of money this doctor is not going to suddenly put down his scapel and tell his patients to go him, pray for a miracle.
Record your words all day long on a typical week. Let me carefully analyze them for possible subversion of a beleif system being promoted in a work environment. If I can find a shred, please be ready to immediatly shut your business down, as it is a hostile, unprofessional non PC environment.
Can many people live up to that standard??
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 660
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 2:46 am: | |
Scott:But I have a huge problem when they attribute medical results, intervention, cures and/or recoveries to God or any other supernatural event or phenomenon. That is malpractice at best.
Just how is this malpractice? He is expressing an opinion to a reporter, not practicing medicine. Malpractice applies only to the actual practice of medicine, including the giving of medical advice. The doctor is not giving advice, medical or otherwise. He is simply stating an opinion of an event, after the fact. An opinion which was given to a reporter, not to a patient soliciting a medical opinion. At the very worst it may be unprofessional conduct. No way does it rise to the level of malpractice.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:03 am: | |
This has nothing to do with a belief system being promoted in a work environment, it has everything to do with total unprofessionalism, equating a medical recovery to a non-existent super natural being by someone that is looked upon to save lives. My job doesn't involve saving lives and neither does yours so it is apples and oranges to compare our daily life and words.
And he didn't *just* say it was a miracle, he stated that there was no other possibility, except it being a miracle. Total complete garbage to claim he was not promoting a religious viewpoint here. I didn't have to parse his words or examine his statement in the most PC terms, it was completely obvious and shocking to me when I read the news headlines - and my first thought was to condemn the reporting until I read that they were reporting the doctor's words.
As for it being an emotional time, sorry but this is this doctor's work - he is exposed to this sort of pressure and "emotional" time all the time and is trained to put it aside. You and I are not, and so of course our belief systems come out in daily life. This isn't the argument. I hold a doctor to a high standard - as s/he should be, and they should not be claiming divine intervention.
If the doctor has stated that his patients had a "miraculous recovery" I wouldn't have a problem. But he didn't say that, did he?
Using God or the word miracle again isn't the issue. I never said that it was the issue. But even if it was, a doctor is smart enough to refrain from using confusing language. Do you use the word "fuck" in front of your class? No. Have you used it in your life, outside of class? I suspect you have. So have I. I don't use it in mixed company. I can refrain. To claim that a doctor can't is absurd! Similarly, a doctor should know better. If I used the above word in class, I would be fired, unless it was context appropriate, such as a play in English class, but I don't teach English.
This was not context appropriate. He was acting in his professional capacity, explaining to the world through a news organisation that he had nothing to do with the recovery, that there was no other explanation except the intervention of a supernatural being. If that doesn't disturb you, I don't know what will - as last time I checked even most religious people acknowledge that there is no proof of God.
My mother sent me a newspaper clipping the other day of a reporter that went to her church because a young boy was miraculously given his sight back (from God) through the laying on of hands. I smiled and suggested there might be another explanation. But I am not offended - this was in a church context. Now, if her doctor had claimed that God healed the boy in his hospital in the same paper, I would be outraged. Different context, different actors. I don't rely on the church for my life. I do rely on the medical profession. See the difference?
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:18 am: | |
He was making a statement as to the recovery of a patient. In that statement he seemed quite comfortable claiming that there was no other explanation except that a super-natural event had occurred.
That is mis-representing the events that led to a recovery. Misrepresentation of that sort is malpractice where I come from. Someone seeing this may then come to the conclusion that medicine isn't the answer, that God will cure them next time they are sick - after all, a doctor just said it worked for this kid he was treating and was powerless to help. Not everyone is as smart (or dumb) as you and I to realise that the doctor was obviously out to lunch and promoting an individually held religious point of view.
But, having said that malpractice may be too strong a word, just as firing might be too strong an action for a first time offense. A reprimand might better serve both the public and the doctor but if this sort of crap happens again then stronger action could be taken.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 890
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:18 am: | |
My job doesn't involve saving lives and neither does yours so it is apples and oranges to compare our daily life and words.
As long as you don't have to live up to the standards you hold others to, that makes life a bit easier.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:57 am: | |
Absolutely it does in those terms but we are not talking about making my life easier. I would not want the responsibility that a doctor has, hence I consciously chose not to be a doctor. If I was a doctor, I would expect to be held to these standards and more.
But this is not about me, or you. Different standards of conduct apply to different people in different situations all the time.
That being said, I don't make a habit of misleading people as to the cause of events around me that I was involved in and neither do you, so why should you condone someone who does?
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 891
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 3:30 pm: | |
That being said, I don't make a habit of misleading people as to the cause of events around me that I was involved in and neither do you, so why should you condone someone who does?
Its not misleading, except to those who wish to forbid the use of certain words.
As the man has definitely shown to be competent in restoring the function of the heart after the miracle restart, then you want to deny the public services of a highly trained professional caregiver based on a single choice of words.
It must be amazing to live in a country where there are so many trained medical professionals of high competence that you can find threadbare excuses to ruin their lives and deny the public their services.
I was not aware of an excess of such.
I might add that 99% of the public understood the intent of his words and/or took no offense and only found joy at the saving of this young man's life.
Bigoted, prejudiced, nit picked to support such, and totally beneath the standard you normally hold yourself to.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 6:06 pm: | |
Perhaps Canadian medical professionals are held to a higher standard? I don't know. I happen to think the US medical system is, in general far better than ours. But you don't hear about our doctors claiming that God healed their patients in the media or otherwise. I am sure that there are some that would privately claim this to be so, and that is fine to hold a private belief, but not to publicly exclaim that you did nothing to help your patient but some unproven super-natural intervention did.
As I pointed out in a previous post, perhaps firing is a bit over the top. Censure though would most likely be more appropriate, but if this doctor continued to make such outrageous claims, then yes, the public is better served without him.
I don't know where you get the 99% from - is that a figure pulled out of the air or do you have a reference for it? And how do you claim to understand the intent? All I see is that he irrefutably is claiming that the boy was cured by the supernatural. I don't take offense, I am outraged at not only the doctor but the news organisations for putting the slant on the super-natural, as opposed to the fact that the boy, joyously so, recovered!
There is nothing bigoted or prejudiced in my views. I am not persecuting anyone here and I don't have a word list that is taboo. I live in a country where separation of church and state is real (current Government notwithstanding), that the medical professions has a code of ethics that they actually believe in and strive to meet (though not always successful. I think the US is the same - but stuff like this, the "God cured me" stuff that is promoted mainstream instead of the real story, and now seemingly by medical professionals, leaves me uneasy at best.
You seem to want to lump my opinion into an anti-religious/fanatic PC group - this is simply not my point or the case in this instance. You know I am not for PC anything. For example, I don't have a problem with prayer in school. Simply give equal time to everyone, all creeds with the opportunity to opt out. Flag burning? Go ahead, just refrain from doing so on my property as I think it is disgraceful. Grace at home - we do that all the time and I would participate in anyone else's home. All I am asking for is some professionalism and standards so that when we access the medical system, we are not put into the hands of people that think God cures their patients when they don't know what to do.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 661
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 - 11:07 pm: | |
Scott:All I am asking for is some professionalism and standards so that when we access the medical system, we are not put into the hands of people that think God cures their patients when they don't know what to do.
If that is all you are asking for, then you should probably be applauding the doctor's forthrightness. Now, because he made that statement, current and potential patients know that he believes in the possibility of miracles. Had he kept silent his poor deluded patients might just have gone on believing that he was a genuine practitioner of medicine and not some sort of bone rattling shaman.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 12:47 am: | |
What's wrong with bone rattling shamans? 
If a doctor thinks that God cures their patients and not they, I would expect that they would have enough professionalism to pursue a career in the church as opposed to medicine. My doctor informs her patients her beliefs and the code of ethics that she adheres to, set out by her profession and inquired as to my beliefs before she took me on as a patient - just so we understand each other. Apparently this is rather common. I looked at her references - she is a great doctor. She doesn't ascribe cures and recoveries, however rare or improbable they might be at the time, to the almighty.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 662
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 5:00 am: | |
Scott:If a doctor thinks that God cures their patients and not they, I would expect that they would have enough professionalism to pursue a career in the church as opposed to medicine.
If they are reasonably sure that their medical efforts were not responsible for the patient's recovery, what is wrong with them ascribing it to divine intervention, or even Dame Fortune? It's not like they are giving a professional medical opinion. The moment a doctor says "It's a miracle", he (or she) has rather explicitly stepped outside of his professional persona. It is a tacit admission that, as a doctor, he cannot provide a medical explanation for the recovery. Offering the explanation that it is a miracle is clearly outside his purview as a physician and ought to be given just as much credence as his opinions on politics or sports. Which is to say that he has every right to express that opinion, and we have every right to accept or reject it.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 663
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 5:20 am: | |
Scott:What's wrong with bone rattling shamans?
Medical advice from a Witch Doctor:Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Da_bear
flint knapper
Username: Da_bear
Post Number: 892
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 1:12 pm: | |
I don't know where you get the 99% from - is that a figure pulled out of the air or do you have a reference for it? And how do you claim to understand the intent?
I got that reference from the same source you got the Idea that the use of the word miracle equates to 1) medical incompetence and 2) the collapse of the medical profession into voodooism and faith healing.
Must be an almighty powerful word. (oops, that is probably forbidden also )
Please show a reference to the causative actions you predict for using that singular word, and I will search for one for mine.
Where to I get intent? The definition of miracle:
A miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning 'something wonderful', In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even to anything which is regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth.
Are you saying only your definition is acceptable? Are you saying this event does not suffice to satisfy the criteria? Or, are you saying the father's words must somehow be inserted into the Doctor's mouth, thus causing the Doctor to be a danger to the medical universe as we know it?
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 8:21 pm: | |
Ascribing supernatural intervention to have someone healed by a doctor is a scientific claim (that is unsupported by any evidence) as much as IDers make a scientific claim. In the case of medicine this is unethical, for the doctor is suggesting a medical treatment that is unsupported by evidence and research, and untested. Medical staff can get barred from their profession by trying to apply a treatment that has not passed certain levels of testing. The good doctor ought not to be barred, because he did not try to apply a miracle treatment, but he is claiming it to be the reason for the cure. And that cannot go unchallenged.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Annie
storyteller
Username: Annie
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:24 pm: | |
Crediting supernatural intervention for a medical achievement would be way out of line indeed, however that doesn't seem to be the case here. It appears that there were no medical actions taken during this 4-day period to attempt to improve the boy's condition - the article says he was at the hospital "waiting for a heart transplant, attached to the bypass machine". So he was just being kept on standby, and his condition improved on its own. This is a Good Thing, though not necessarily "a miracle", and the doc's additional "there's really no other way to put it" IS more than just an exclamation, or an accidentally applied word; it's unprofessional, and borders on proselytizing. Still, he wasn't practicing any superstitious healing rites, he was just keeping the boy alive with a mundane bypass machine in expectation of a non-miraculous heart transplant.
BUT, all that said, there IS something very disturbing about this article, after all (you were waiting for this, weren't you?), and even if I hadn't read the article with an eye to Scott's complaint about it, I still would have noticed that - at least, as soon as I realized that the page linked to wasn't Podunk Daily Publications, but the US section of CNN International.
I'm not much of a news junkie,  and I read US internal news articles rarely enough that when I do, I am sometimes struck by what are obviously trends that must have been growing for some time, and the regular readers may have grown too accustomed to, to even notice. I had one of these "hey, what the heck has been going on here?" moments reading this article.
So whyzdat...? Because I would have expected to see a very different article from a major news service, based on the same facts. I would have expected to see the story presented structured around some highlights from the boy's life, a more thorough explanation of the rare medical condition he suffers from, perhaps a few words about his eventual surgery and recovery from a personal and medical POV. IOW, I would expect the article's focus to be on the boy, and the disease he suffered from. But what do I see here? A quick and superficial recap of events, just so we can finally get to the main song-and-dance theme about how everybody is soooo grateful to God, hallelujah.
And this is why I don't particularly hold the doctor responsible for his unprofessional statement. He is clearly only a symptom of the problem, just getting with the times.
Sorry folks, but this isn't quality reporting. This is a reactionary celebration of "Yay, We Are All So Religious Here And Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now, Got A Problem With It?" in-your-face-ness, with zero educational value. Well, somebody hand me an antiemetic, quick, willya Brothers and Sisters. 
Chess is the purest form of debate, unadulterated by a topic. |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 12:48 am: | |
I see your point, Annie... But if I change the order of my words of the first sentence then it fits this case
"A doctor ascribing supernatural intervention to have someone healed is a scientific claim..."
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 2:07 am: | |
Nice definition. But that is not what it means in modern US usage for a huge segment of the population, at least not to most of the 90% people that claim to believe in God in the US, is it?
quote:American Heritage Dictionary
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary. 2007.
Something which man is not normally capable of making happen and which is therefore thought to be done by a god or God
In the top five dictionaries I have sourced, we get listings like that, and note they are always the first definition. Your definition usually comes well after - which doesn't negate it, but it is not the majority or most common usage of the word. You and I both know the common usage and meaning - we grew up with it - Jesus and his miracles.
But if you want to get picky, let's look at your Latin. Miraculum simply does not mean something wonderful. The common English usage derives from the church, and specifically Church Latin, where it means: "marvelous event caused by God" and miraculous isn't used in English until 1502, in a bible translation from the Church Latin miraculum.
It got its link to 'wonders' from terata in the Greek translations of the Bible meaning: wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God, see Acts 2:19, 2:22, which was then translated as the latin mirari or miraculum. and finally into English in the 1500's.
da bear: Are you saying only your definition is acceptable? Are you saying this event does not suffice to satisfy the criteria? Or, are you saying the father's words must somehow be inserted into the Doctor's mouth, thus causing the Doctor to be a danger to the medical universe as we know it?
No, my definition is not the only acceptable one, but it is the most common in N. America, and especially the USA. And the father's words are inserted by the news organisations - as Annie has saliently pointed out - and in that, I feel sorry for the doctor.
It is not the medical universe I am worried about. It is people that may not understand or be mislead by this doctor's statement. He could have easily said the same thing without the potential confusion (assuming he doesn't believe that God cured the kid) and by the very ethics that surround his chosen profession, it is incumbent upon him to strive to do so.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Angakuk
flint knapper
Username: Angakuk
Post Number: 664
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 4:54 am: | |
Scott:He could have easily said the same thing without the potential confusion (assuming he doesn't believe that God cured the kid) and by the very ethics that surround his chosen profession, it is incumbent upon him to strive to do so.
Seems to me that the only things that are incumbent on a doctor are that he provide the very best medical care and advice of which he is capable, that he refrain from practices and behaviors which would tend to reduce that capability, that he respect patient confidentiality and that he engage in honest billing practices. Everything else is pretty much adiaphora.
To dare is to lose one's footing momentarily; not to dare is to lose oneself.
- Soren Kierkegaard
|
Doctorlady
bear cub
Username: Doctorlady
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:30 am: | |
Medicine is part science - we do not claim to know everything. We do what we can in this profession and it often takes a strong mind in order to deal with the frustrating areas of uncertainty (EG providing the best medical care, and a patient still dies - or in much rarer cases, patient survives when the odds are against him). Let people express their belief in a higher spiritual power - it's what we have, hope, to carry us in an age of uncertainty and you mob want to take it away as well. That makes you more uncivilised than animals if you think about it. What would you do in the doctor's position (I have not read the article - the link is missing)? |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 3:08 am: | |
Here is the original article - CNN seems to have pulled it.
quote:http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/miracle.heart.ap/index.html
Miracle' -- teen's heart, stopped for 4 days, beats again
POSTED: 9:39 a.m. EST, February 12, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- Daniel Walker was on his final lap jogging in his high school gym class when he collapsed, his flawed heart giving out on him.
More than four days later, his heart at a standstill, kept alive by a bypass machine, it began beating again. The 17-year-old's parents called it divine intervention. His physicians were no less amazed.
"I've been a surgeon for 10 years, and this is probably one of the most incredible things I've ever seen," said Dr. Abeel Mangi, one of Walker's cardiac surgeons at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia.
Walker's father described his son's recovery in spiritual terms. "God turned around, put His hand on my son, and recharged him," said William Walker, 58, a retired sanitation worker.
His son's ordeal began January 19 when he collapsed in gym class. The younger Walker suffered from a rare congenital heart flaw that left his coronary artery pinched, giving him only 10 percent of normal heart capacity. He was shuttled to two hospitals before finding himself at Columbia, waiting for a heart transplant, attached to the bypass machine.
Walker's cardiac surgeons said they could not account for the young man's recovery.
"It's a miracle," Mangi said. "There's really no other way to put it."
Two days after it began to beat on its own, surgeons were able to fix the flaw in Walker's heart, increasing its capacity to 60 percent.
The issue was with the doctor proclaiming it to be a miracle with religious overtones - that it could not have been anything else, such as good care etc. I suspect that if my doctor was on TV proclaiming that she did nothing to save my life, but that instead it was a miracle, divine intervention, that the College of Physicians might be having a word with her.
In the doctor's position I would have stated that we don't know how or why the boy's heart started beating again, but we were quite pleased for him - and leave it at that, lest our patients start thinking that doctor's have God in their black bag as well, to pull out at will.
Scott
PS: Welcome to the board and the discussion Doctorlady!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
|
Head-Clash-In