|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:01:40 AM
|
|
|
Crevidence
Posts: 138
Joined: November 16, 2007
Status: offline
|
SJ,
Notice my language in the below two quotes which you form your assumptions from.
“It is my understanding that many people who believe in the lord also believe in virgin births, resurrections etc.. This seems like a gateway to detecting acupuncture meridians and palpating FRS lumbar segments“.
“Supernatural events are not based on evidence. Virgin births and resurrections have no evidence. Those who believe in things with no evidence may be likely to believe in other things without evidence. An example of those things are acupuncture meridians and FRS lumbar segments. This is not off base and conceivable. Look at the wording in this post and the other“.
This does certainly not translate to
quote:
ORIGINAL: SJBird55
....Christians, in particular physical therapist Christians, will believe anything, in particular the specific examples of accupuncture meridians and FRS lumbar segments.
I simply assert that those who believe in virgin births and resurections (things with no evidence) may be more likely to believe in assessment techniques which have no evidence such as acupuncture meridians and FRS lumbar segments.
You demonstrated faulty logic and you made a ridiculous assumption. Namely, the assumption that I believe physical therapist Christians will believe anything.
Jon Newman,
For a man of such refined tastes. May I suggest “The Four Horsemen” which can be found on Google Video.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=four+horsemen&sitesearch=
It includes the man who wrote the research paper you quoted Sam Harris as well as Daniel Dennet and my two personal favorite thinkers Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
The videos are very educational to all and may clarify further where my posts are coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:10:09 AM
|
|
|
TexasOrtho
Posts: 338
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: offline
|
Alles klar Bas.
Crev. This would be a great discussion over a beer, but I think we've all sufficiently blown our loads all over this thread regarding our faiths. I have no desire to understand your faith system any more than you want to here about Catholic apologetics. Let's move on.
_____________________________
Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:13:45 AM
|
|
|
Crevidence
Posts: 138
Joined: November 16, 2007
Status: offline
|
You can stop posting if you would like. I hope others will not and I hope to hear SJ's response.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:29:00 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2243
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Crevidence, yes, you are right. I did take the liberty to alter what you wrote and did put it into a succinct statement of what you appeared to be conveying. I made the language stronger, yes. You used a softer language. I took it to the full black and white level.
I do believe that you believe that religious faith does play in how physical therapists analyze or choose interventions. If you didn't believe it, why would you have even brought it up?
I don't believe that religious orientation is a major factor with how therapists make clinical decisions or analyze evidence. As I've said before, I believe apathy is a much bigger factor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 12:43:58 PM
|
|
|
Crevidence
Posts: 138
Joined: November 16, 2007
Status: offline
|
Thank you Sebastian.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 1:46:29 PM
|
|
|
TexasOrtho
Posts: 338
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: offline
|
Damn...I can't stand it. I'm back in this. Took a look through Ovid over lunch on the topic of spirituality and medicine. You may or may not be amazed at the literature out there on this topic. It was eye opening and had me thinking...first time all day.
If the author's spirituality would be a cause for concern, what about the spirituality of the subjects in the study? Would their backgrounds (pain behavior, health care utilization, culture, values) also potentially influence the results of the study? Should these be factored into our evaluations of the literature?
_____________________________
Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 4:14:05 PM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1062
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Rod, nice try.
Their religion may have an influence on the effects of whatever it is they are subjected to. It could influence outcomes, and thus could be interesting to study.
But at least THEN it would be a clear and up front variable of the study, not a bias of the researchers.
And that is a whole different issue.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 7:15:01 PM
|
|
|
TexasOrtho
Posts: 338
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: offline
|
Bas (Is that really short for Sebastian - I had no idea)
There is no may or could to it. Spirituality most certainly is and always has been a variable in any study published on human beings regardless if it was openly acknowledged or not. Religiosity and spiritual belief systems are such a fundamental part of our fabric that there is absolutely no way (outside of a nominal measure) it could be a "clear" or "up front variable".
Acknowledging religion and spirituality is one thing. We all should have an understanding of how it may affect a specific patient's health and behaviors. However, somehow weaving these issues into the standards by which we assess peer-reviewed research seems to be an obtuse exercise. If you want to do it...good on ya. I can just imagine better uses of your time.
By the way this article out of Duke University really jumped out at me during my Ovid search earier. I have the pdf and it's a very interesting read.
Koenig HG. Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: Research Findings and Implications for Clinical Practice. The Southern Medical Association. 2004.
< Message edited by TexasOrtho -- May 15, 2008 7:26:46 PM >
_____________________________
Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:18:21 PM
|
|
|
TexasOrtho
Posts: 338
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sebastian Asselbergs
Rod, I like the way you are so absolutely certain. A bit scary, but clear. And how do you know there is no may or could? Is that a rock solid belief? 
Rock hard baby. To a greater or lesser degree they certainly are. Seriously though. That "scares" you? I'm starting to develop a mental image of you that I hope isn't accurate. ;)
quote:
I am NOT weaving these issues into research and standards - I am a bit (A BIT) concerned when they are so front and centre, that they may supercede professional standards of practice.
You make this statement as if someone is arguing the point. Who the hell would make a statement to the contrary? Are we welcoming studies that include such bias? I'm looking forward to seeing where this has become a problem in our literature.
quote:
I just have to think about the doctor who practices family medicine in Ontario. He is registered in a Province where getting a birth control prescription is an established right. For teenagers 14 years and older too. He posted a notice that he would not do that because it clashed with his faith.
Here is an example of someone practising under a standard of practice and code of ethics - clear and well-taught AND repeated at receiving Licence to practice - but the good Dr. let his religious tenets supercede the standards.
He was finally slapped on the wrist, but is still trying to "talk" patients out of it.
Here we have a very strong separation of science and religion - you will be hard pressed to find any University with such religious connections as that Baptist one. I guess I am just too suspicious of the ability to balance the rights of the individuals with the overly public beliefs of the religious. (NOT all Christians)
I think you are right to be suspicous of maintaining this balance. I also think those with strong faith beliefs should advocate for their side of the debate. Could these young ladies desperate for birth control pills (that's a really a right in Canada?) not find another doctor across the street willing to dish them out? They most certainly can and do here...frequently.
quote:
The article you link to makes it abundantly clear that any religious focus (in medicine) is patient need driven - NOT practitioner or researcher.
Agreed, but these belief systems do not exist in a vacuum Bas. Like it or not...your doctor has beliefs. Whether they be strong, neutral, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, consistent or inconsistent with your world view...they do believe in something and these beliefs do provide some framework for their clinical decision-making process.
The question is how much do you need to know about their beliefs before you will trust or distrust their clinical reasoning or research? It is within your right as a patient to be distrustful, wary, or even paranoid about whether this balance is being met to your satisfaction. Just keep in mind that providers are not automatons capable of making completely unbiased decisions regarding you or your family's health...
I saw a Muslim urologist a few years ago for a hernia repair and err...transmission check. I was fairly confident that he and I would see many many things differently in our world view. However, I still permitted the gentleman to make important decisions about my health care. Why? Because what he does five times a day has nothing do with why his finger was in my yoo-hoo. 
< Message edited by TexasOrtho -- May 15, 2008 10:23:42 PM >
_____________________________
Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 10:38:33 PM
|
|
|
Jon Newman
Posts: 1665
Joined: April 24, 2004
From: Amherst, WI
Status: offline
|
Rod, I don't have access to the full text of the article you're citing. How does the author define spirituality? Whether spirituality (whatever that is) is important or not would depend upon the question you're trying to answer and the prior probablility that spirituality will influence the outcome of interest.
Bas offered up an example of religion affecting the working end of the practice stick versus how religious belief might influence the types of things that get to be researched in the first place. For an example of the latter, consider this piece (<--click on the phrase "this piece" to link to the article) by Steven Pinker. If, at this high level of power and influence, health care research is hindered by faith why is it so hard to think that such decisions don't occur at lower levels of research decision making and official/authoratative discussions of theory in PT?
Crevidence, I definately have a taste for refined sugars anyway. Thanks for the video recommendation. I'm listening to it now.
< Message edited by Jon Newman -- May 15, 2008 10:44:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 15, 2008 11:21:39 PM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1062
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
"Could these young ladies desperate for birth control pills (that's a really a right in Canada?) not find another doctor across the street willing to dish them out? They most certainly can and do here...frequently. "
Not easy here. Shortage of doctors. But That is not the point - the point is that the population and the doctors have an agreed-upon set of standards that define practice and control ethics - monitored by the College of Surgeons and Physicians.
" Like it or not...your doctor has beliefs. Whether they be strong, neutral, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, consistent or inconsistent with your world view...they do believe in something and these beliefs do provide some framework for their clinical decision-making process."
No argument. However, they SHOULD NOT do more than provide a framework - when they become too much front-and-centre - they could influence actual practice decisions to the point I alluded to in my example.
"The question is how much do you need to know about their beliefs before you will trust or distrust their clinical reasoning or research?"
Well, if I have to see a doctor who has his religion publicly displayed in his office, or when I see his waiting room materials belonging to a specific religious group, or when his research or publications have religious quotes...I say: Bye Bye. Won' t trust his complete adherence to the code of ethics as I understand it.
As far as you are concerned, if the specialist with his index finger roto-rooting was saying: ""Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
Colossians 3:23, NASB" , you wouldn't mind would you......
Jon, very interesting and scary article. And very apropos to this thread.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 16, 2008 7:45:16 AM
|
|
|
TexasOrtho
Posts: 338
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: offline
|
Jon just finished the article. It took a lot for me to make it though an article from the "New Republic", a fairly leftist publication. While there were a few complete inaccuracies regarding Catholic church, I found it an interesting and thoughtful article. I will say that the clear bias in the author's tone throughout the piece made it difficult to distil some of his more salient points. Although I appreciate the transparency of such an editorial, you always read them with the notion that this is one persons interpretation.
Bas. If not knowing your provider's spiritual belief system helps you sleep better, than more power to you. Just because the doctor's beliefs aren't spoken during an exam, doesn't make them any less relevant to that physician...they are still there. Although I can see where health care and religous beliefs are sometimes (albeit very very VERY rarely) incongruous with our oath as providers, these are rare cicumstances that are given too much weight in this particular discussion among physical therapists.
I'll stick to my statement that theology or atheism is an undercurrent of our interactions regardless of how transparent. The fact that some folks find this "worrisome" or "scary" is silly to me, but ultimately has to be worked out by the ones with this misguided anxiety. Ironically, I bet a historical study of the Hippocratic oath would reveal some theological underpinnings as well. I hope this doesn't scare you.  Keep in mind I respect your opinion Bas, but respectfully disagree.
_____________________________
Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 16, 2008 8:13:48 AM
|
|
|
Jon Newman
Posts: 1665
Joined: April 24, 2004
From: Amherst, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jon just finished the article. It took a lot for me to make it though an article from the "New Republic", a fairly leftist publication.
Sacrifice is what's all about Rod. Good for you.
quote:
While there were a few complete inaccuracies regarding Catholic church, I found it an interesting and thoughtful article.
I'm interested in accuracy. What were the inaccuracies (because I don't know enough to know what they are)?
quote:
I will say that the clear bias in the author's tone throughout the piece made it difficult to distil some of his more salient points. Although I appreciate the transparency of such an editorial, you always read them with the notion that this is one persons interpretation.
What was the author's bias? He clearly had a point he was arguing but I'm unsure of the bias aspect that you note.
Here is some more commentary on the article from the Neurocritic
The indignity of ice cream cones
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 16, 2008 8:29:03 AM
|
|
|
Shill
Posts: 1044
Joined: February 13, 2003
From: Madison WI USA
Status: offline
|
This is actually quite a nice discussion/exercise towards the Ethics and Jurisprudence license renewal requirements that some states have. Culture, religion, ethics of marketing are all discussed. It might be nicely reorganized into a different thread. These topics, as John Duffy mentioned early on, are not those that people love jumping into, as they cause the hairs along the spine to raise, claws to be unsheathed, etc,etc. However, they are quite important.
In my reflection on life, religion, clinical practice patterns, I find myself gravitating back towards the idea that no one person can be completely free of thoughts, practices, ideas that somewhat contradict their other thoughts, practices, or ideas. I think if someone is completely without self contradiction, without some slight hypocrisy in some ways, then this is when ideas start to become a bit scary, perhaps even radical. That said, too much self contradiction, is not so hot either, as we then all dine on milk toast. Its about balance. Recognizing when one's thoughts are falling towards the side of imbalance, recognizing when a provider is too far to one side than the other is what we all need to be able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 16, 2008 8:57:20 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2243
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
I glanced through that Pinker document, Jon. All I can say is that one man's view of a 555 page document really doesn't have strength. I haven't seen or read the original paper on dignity, but I know that I'm not going to trust that Pinker is 100% accurate in his view. That document wasn't "science."
The Horsemen thing... you know, I don't have any issues with discussing religion. I think it is okay to disagree or argue or not appreciate Christian views. What I didn't appreciate was a "soft" blanket statement that basically indicated Christians may have a weakness in believing anything.
Our nation was built on Christian principles. Obviously there has to be value within those principles for the founding fathers of this nation to actually use Christian principles.
Generally, with physical therapy, our interventions aren't at a level that impact the crossroads of life. We aren't creating lives... we aren't terminating lives... we aren't genetically altering lives. We work with the life that is presented to us and we attempt to improve the quality of life or in the case of hospice, palliative care.
From a Christian perspective, I know I would have a very, very difficult time providing care to a male who sexually abused kids; to a murderer; to a mom who killed her kids; to a kid who killed parents; to someone who preyed upon the older population and swindled millions from them... 1) forgiving that person would not be easy 2) why would I want to provide services to improve their quality of life when what they did with their lives goes so much against my Christian beliefs? 3) what if I did provide services and goals were met and the person returned to function and performed a heinous crime? 4) Can I really be a Christian in that kind of situation? I honestly don't know. I have never been in that kind of situation. Granted, I can only speak for my perspective of when Christian beliefs have an impact with provision of physical therapy services. For me, the described situation would be so very much more challenging because of the beliefs of Christians than interpreting research or implementing research. In all honesty, our research isn't at some crossroad of morals. I don't know if that makes sense... but from a religious perspective, in our field, we aren't put into a religious dilemma of certain interventions being "right" or "wrong" morally. I don't think that just because I can generally believe what is in the Bible easily translates that little proof is required to believe much of anything. I also don't think that it is an accurate assumption to assume that Christians easily and readily believe what is written in the Bible. I know I struggle, challenge and question certain aspects of the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Self-policing opportunity - May 16, 2008 9:58:08 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1062
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
I have a hard time understanding your last post, SJ, with regards to treating people on the wrong side of society`s laws.
I have worked in a psych hospital with murderers, have seen thieves and abusers from our local prison, and have very likely treated very bad people along the way who just haven`t been caught yet.
That is the duty I have as a practising PT under the local laws and under our local standards of practise. These also seems to fit with the christian examples Jesus is said to have set for us.
So, you seem to be saying you do not do well with that...
And with regards to the soft blanket statement - it must have really hit a tender spot, because there was no mention of the whole group of christians, there was JUST a suspicion that because certain people believe in all kinds of unproven and scientifically unlikely events, that it seem to make some of those people possibly more likely to be vulnerable to other unrealistic issues. And I still agree with that. Do I see this in all people of any faith - of course not.
That is an unfair assumption - it is like saying : `You say rapists are mainly men - thus you are saying all men are rapists` .
The Pinker article is a personal piece - no-one said anything different. Still makes you think, and that is a good thing. (especially in my case - I need all the help I can get!)
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.219
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> RE: Self-policing opportunity 
