Take two Jesus, and call me in the morning...

[Gob]

MARGATE, England -- A Christian doctor in England has been threatened with an official warning from his professional body for discussing Jesus with a patient, The (London) Sunday Times reported.

Richard Scott, a doctor for 28 years, is under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) and faces disciplinary action after he suggested to a 24-year-old man that he might find solace in Christianity.

Scott, who practices at a medical center in Margate, east of London, well known for having Christian doctors, insists he only raised his spiritual beliefs after carrying out a thorough and lengthy consultation, during which medical checks and referrals for further care were arranged.

When the man's mother inquired of the consultation, however, her son apparently replied, "He just said I need Jesus." This prompted his mother to refer Scott to the GMC, claiming that he had not offered medical advice during the consultation but instead talked about Jesus.

The young man, who has been described as "in a rut and in need of help" grew up in a different religion but his faith had lapsed. He has continued to seek treatment from the practice despite the complaint filed by his mother.

The GMC has written to Scott suggesting he accept an official warning but the GP (family doctor), who has an unblemished record as a medic, has decided to fight the allegations and stand up to what he believes is a politically correct trend in Britain to persecute Christians for expressing their faith in the workplace.

Scott fears that if he accepts the warning, and discusses his Christian beliefs with other patients, he could be struck off.

He maintains he acted professionally and says the complaint was made against him in the knowledge that professional bodies are nervous about claims of a religious nature.

Scott said, "I only discussed my faith at the end of a lengthy medical consultation after exploring the various interventions that the patient had previously tried, and after promising to follow up the patient's request for an appointment with other medical professionals.

"I only discussed mutual faith after obtaining the patient's permission. In our conversation, I said that, personally, I had found having faith in Jesus helped me and could help the patient. At no time did the patient indicate that they were offended, or that they wanted to stop the discussion. If that had been the case, I would have immediately ended the conversation.

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/offbea ... 2_13318742

[Lord Jim]

the GP (family doctor), who has an unblemished record as a medic, has decided to fight the allegations and stand up to what he believes is a politically correct trend in Britain to persecute Christians for expressing their faith in the workplace.

Gee, ya think?

[Scooter]

Uh, sorry, if he had been Buddhist, Shinto, Aztec, Wiccan or Satanist, it would not have even occured to him to tell a patient that the solution to his medical problem would have been to follow his doctor's religious practices. Only the deep seated arrogance that comes from being a member of a majority faith would make it appear to be even remotely acceptable to substitute science with superstition when dealing with patients.

[Lord Jim]

tell a patient that the solution to his medical problem would have been to follow his doctor's religious practices.

I'm sorry Scooter...

I missed the part where he did that...

He has continued to seek treatment from the practice despite the complaint filed by his mother.

The guy's 24 years old....When does junior start to get to make his own decisions? Mummy sounds like a meddlesome control freak of major proportions, (not to mention a publicity seeking attention whore)

With a smothering parental presence like that, no wonder he's ""in a rut and in need of help".....

[Scooter]

tell a patient that the solution to his medical problem would have been to follow his doctor's religious practices.

I'm sorry Scooter...

I missed the part where he did that...

By his own admission:

I said that, personally, I had found having faith in Jesus helped me and could help the patient.

He's a physician, not a spiritual advisor. He can proselytize on his own time, not on the NHS's or a private health insurance carrier's dime.

He has continued to seek treatment from the practice despite the complaint filed by his mother.

Yes, and...?

The practice comprises far more than this one doctor.

[Rick]

Luke was a physician...

[Scooter]

His medical school diploma can no doubt be found with the veil of Veronica...

[Lord Jim]

The more I think about this, the more I wonder why in the hell the General Medical Council (which I assume is the equivalent of the AMA) is issuing "warning letters" based on complaints filed by people who weren't present and have absolutely no legal custodianship for the person who was?

Why wasn't the appropriate response when this over protective biddy filed her complaint, to politely tell her to fuck off, that it was none of her business, and if the person involved wanted to file a complaint that then they would look into it?

Why would this be any different than if the guy had related this account to a total stranger in a bar and that stranger had decided to file a complaint? Would that complaint have been taken seriously by the GMC? I really see no substantive difference between that and this case.

This looks to me like a case of a fanatical anti-religionist trying to use her adult son as stick to beat her ideological drum with, and draw attention to herself and her cause.

[Scooter]

The more I think about this, the more I wonder why in the hell the General Medical Council (which I assume is the equivalent of the AMA) is issuing "warning letters" based on complaints filed by people who weren't present and have absolutely no legal custodianship for the person who was?

Perhaps because the doctor's own words (as evidenced by his public admissions to the press) betrayed behaviour that was inappropriate, irrespective of any allegations the mother might have made.

[Crackpot]

I don't see the inappropriateness here. The paitient afterall gave prior approval. Sounds like one of Gobs "meddlesome ratbags" to me.

[Scooter]

And if the patient gave "prior approval" for sexual relations with the doctor, would that also have been appropriate? Just because the patient says OK doesn't absolve the doctor from engaging in behaviour that has no place in a patient care setting. And proselytizing is definitely in that category.

[Crackpot]

It really depends on the flow of the conversation. Paitient docotor communication is a good thing and if the subject is broached by the paitent while building rapport I don't see a problem with it. (as the paitent appantly didn't) That is a far cry from the Rep from one of my former contract houses giving me a lecture when he brought the subject up and then preceeded to lecture me when I informed him I was a lapsed Catholic. (I still regret not reporting his ass as I strongly suspect that was a major reason why I failed to advance in title or pay while the coustomer raved about my work)


edited to add a absent "the"

[Lord Jim]

I'm with CP on this one...

Scooter it seems to me that based on the known facts here, that your characterizations and comparisons seem somewhat exaggerated....

And I come back again to the question of what standing did this woman have to make this complaint?

Sounds like one of Gobs "meddlesome ratbags" to me.

I'd call that a bingo....

[rubato]

I don't see any reason that a physician should be forbidden from discussing religion with a patient.

Doing so is disrespectful of the patient as an adult; a being capable of making his/her own decisions and responsible for the consequences.

And why is this assholes MOTHER making the complaint?

yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

Me Jim and Rubato are in agreement..... Maybe Harold Camping is right.....

[Scooter]

I don't see any reason that a physician should be forbidden from discussing religion with a patient.

"Discussing" religion is one thing. Using the fact that a patient is asking for medical help to steer him/her towards the doctor's own faith is something else entirely.

I see little difference between that and prescribing a drug, not because it is the best fit for the patient, but because the doctor has an interest in the company that makes it.

[rubato]

So you are saying that a doctor can only discuss religion with those patients who are NOT there to see him/her for, ah medical reasons.

And that it would be alright in some universe where religious adherents were known to steer people AWAY from their own faiths?

I don't think you have a real objection.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

If you say so. Lord knows I have ALWAYS formulated my opinion based on whether or not you believed my position to be a valid one

[Lord Jim]

Me Jim and Rubato are in agreement..... Maybe Harold Camping is right.....

So rubato agrees, eh?

Well that certainly validates a point I made over at the CSB several weeks ago...


No matter how hard one may try, it's very difficult to manage to be wrong all the time....

[Crackpot]

Have you been reading dgs' posts?