Would this be the same tabloids that spew hate speech about immigrants and those on benefits, and are now salivating at the prospect of being able to expose legions of footballers committing adultery?

Wow, “aggressive”?! Can you please, in your incredible fervour, let me know how offering to pray for someone, or suggesting something to do with the Christian faith, is aggressive?! Get real.

The fact is that many people, Christian and otherwise, cannot run businesses and get on with their jobs in line with their consciences nowadays with the Equalities Bill. Now that is remarkably illiberal, and to bleat on about how Christians are playing the victim card is simply bizarre.

The only fundamentalists on show here are people like you and your NSS friends.

@James Reade #2:

The inability to persecute is not an indicator of being persecuted.

Would it have been any better if the GP had instead told his patient to have “faith in the Big Society”?

Or had a National Vigil for the NHS?

I don’t think many people who have religious views really understand how offensive it is for them to assume that everyone else shares them.

@2, Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no connection with the NSS, and nor do I know anyone there.

A good piece of background is the Telegraph video, and I would commend it to anyone wanting to figure out this story.

There is a difference between being a person of faith, and conducting a recruitment campaign, which Richard Scott appears, in his own words, to be doing.

The use of the term “aggressive” does of course not refer to the idea of praying for someone, but the manner of the defence of not only Richard Scott, but also Colin Atkinson. Both have hyped up the danger to them, and bodies like the Christian Legal Centre have gone on the offensive, painting the affairs as “Christianity under attack”, which it isn’t.

What it is, is more attention grabbing, and there is a constituency in the Fourth Estate willing to accommodate them. Whether that is good, bad or otherwise I leave to others to judge.

@ OP

It’s obviously inappropriate for him to use his position as a GP to push his religious views. If atheists went around telling patients with terminal illnesses things like “there’s no such thing as heaven, so you may as well have a blast while you can”, we’d never hear the end of it, and rightly so. GPs are there to help and treat patients, not disseminate their views on non-medical issues.

On the other hand, I don’t think it’s a particularly big deal, and I hope he isn’t struck off. Assuming the story above is accurate, I think it was rather foolish of him to refuse the appropriate slap on the wrist he was offered.

To state the bloody obvious, the Mail would be taking the opposite stance if a Muslim GP had made a comment like this, and the same probably goes for an atheist one.

@ 3

“The inability to persecute is not an indicator of being persecuted.”

Hah! Well put.

I love this opening scene of the movie of Elmer Gantry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amznbi0lFaU

@ 2 James Reade

“The fact is that many people, Christian and otherwise, cannot run businesses and get on with their jobs in line with their consciences nowadays with the Equalities Bill.”

Please explain why it is necessary to promote God to be able to prescribe drugs. Other GPs seem to manage.

“Now that is remarkably illiberal, and to bleat on about how Christians are playing the victim card is simply bizarre.”

Differs from case to case, but you’re taking a ridiculously simplistic view. We’ve had a few news stories recently where Christians have tried to treat others illiberally, have been prosecuted for it, have tried to use their faith to get off in a case of special pleading, and have failed. The B&B that banned gays was a case in point.

The idea that it’s illiberal to outlaw bigoted business practices is truly bizarre, plus a little hilarious.

…and the same probably goes for an atheist one…

“I always find that knowledge of the soulless chaos of the universe is comforting to me in times of hardship…“

Quote:

“Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven

In earlier centuries, he would have been burned at the stake for saying that.

David Hume took care to ensure that his: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, were published posthumously in 1779:
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/humedial.pdf

If the patient wanted god they would’ve gone to a preist.

Chaise Guevara

Please explain why it is necessary to promote God to be able to prescribe drugs. Other GPs seem to manage.

Please explain to me why, in a free country, where freedom of expression is supposedly valued, a self-employed professional should be prevented from saying whatever he likes about God, religion… or politics or football, come to that.

Besides, look closely at the words complained of:

faith in Jesus could give comfort and strength

I’m not a Christian, but I wouldn’t dispute that. It’s a truism. Millions – maybe billions – across the world and down the years have reported that their faith in Jesus did give them comfort and strength. So, it’s simply a statement of observed fact.

He did not say “will give” but could…. i.e. it might or it might not. I really cannot see how anyone could take exception to that.

@ 8 Chaise:

“To state the bloody obvious, the Mail would be taking the opposite stance if a Muslim GP had made a comment like this, and the same probably goes for an atheist one.”

At the risk of *re*stating the bloody obvious: quite. If this GP had told his patient that submission to the will of Allah could give comfort and strength, I’ve a feeling the Mail might have had something “aggressively secular” to say about it.

Which just goes to show that what we have here is not a defence of religious freedom, but rather a demand for religious privilege on behalf of one particular religion.

Something doesn’t smell right about the Daily Mail’s story. I find it difficult to believe that the GMC would even entertain a complaint brought by the mother of a fully adult man of full capacity on his behalf. Patient confidentiality (and the DPA) alone would prevent this.

So the likely positions are: either the man himself brought the complaint, or he is not of full capacity. In the first case, the Mail has simply misrepresented the author of the complaint for effect; if the latter, far more serious questions as to the doctor’s conduct arise. The doctor’s own comment that “‘The[ GMC] said that by speaking about my faith I had abused my position and potentially exploited vulnerable patients” suggests that that was indeed the position.

@ 14 Flowerpower

“Please explain to me why, in a free country, where freedom of expression is supposedly valued, a self-employed professional should be prevented from saying whatever he likes about God, religion… or politics or football, come to that.”

Because it’s inappropriate and unprofessional, that’s why. He’s supposed to prescribe treatments, not religious conversions. And freedom of expression doesn’t mean you can say what you like during office hours. If you don’t believe me, try spending a day at work screaming swearwords at the top of your voice and see how far you get with the unfair dismissal case.

Take it a step further. Would you still be arguing that this was ok if he’d said “You’ve brought this illness on yourself, it’s a punishment for rejecting Jesus”? I know that’s not what he said, but I want to see how far you’ll go to support people’s right to disseminate their views at work.

“Besides, look closely at the words complained of:

faith in Jesus could give comfort and strength

I’m not a Christian, but I wouldn’t dispute that. It’s a truism. Millions – maybe billions – across the world and down the years have reported that their faith in Jesus did give them comfort and strength. So, it’s simply a statement of observed fact.”

If he wanted to prescribe a placebo, he could have used sugar pills and avoided this fuss. The issue isn’t whether faith can provide comfort – you’re right, it can – but that he took advantage of his patient’s illness (I presume the patient was unwell from the context) to push his personal beliefs when he was supposed to be doing his job as a public employee.

If he’d expressed the views while off-duty, or if the patient brought the subject up, then I’d have no problem. Also, as I hope I made clear above, this isn’t an anti-Christian or even anti-religious thing; I’d feel the same about a GP pushing atheism.

Just read the original Mail article and there is rather more going on here than just one GP making one comment to one patient:

“Dr Scott is one of six Christian partners at Bethesda medical centre in Margate, which is named after a biblical pool of healing.

It states on the official NHS Choices website that spiritual matters are likely to be discussed with patients during consultations.”

I had no idea this sort of thing was going on. When did we get “faith GP practices” in addition to “faith schools”?

@ 11 BenSix

“I always find that knowledge of the soulless chaos of the universe is comforting to me in times of hardship”

Heh. Although atheism could be a genuine comfort to someone with a guilty conscience who believed in Hell.

@ G.O.

“Which just goes to show that what we have here is not a defence of religious freedom, but rather a demand for religious privilege on behalf of one particular religion.”

Yup. Like the “you’re bigoted against bigots*” argument that James Reade appears to be using above.

*And no, I’m saying that Christianity means bigotry.

@ Chaise: Thankfully Flowerpower put you in your place with your OTT opening gambit. No forcing ever goes on, and the statement is factually accurate.

On your latter stuff, what exactly was bigoted about the B&B owners? They had a policy regarding their double rooms: For married people only. Nothing about gay people – it discriminated against non-married straight couples also. Only they didn’t bother going along to the hotel to test it out (the policy was stated clearly on the B&B website). Yes – it’s discrimination, but everybody discriminates every moment of every day – companies and insurers do it everyday and offer a better product and service as a result (e.g. insurance for women drivers – for the time being at any rate) – what makes some cases acceptable and others not?

The Johns provided a service in a particular niche of a market. It may not be a profitable one in “this day and age” – but let’s let the market determine that. The more the law legislates for every minor thing, the less ability firms have to set up to offer a broad range of service to willing, peaceful buyers.

The only aggressor in that case was the LGBT folk. So, when Christians “bleat” on about being persecuted, perhaps now you’re getting a slight inkling as to why.

@ Robin Levett – I’m not talking about the inability to persecute, and neither would I ever want the ability to persecute to be bestowed upon anyone, let alone Christians.

@ Bob B – so what? Totally irrelevant. Yes people acting in the name of God have done terrible things in the past, but so have people acting against God (e.g. Stalin). What’s the point exactly? Making a statement about Christ in a doctor’s surgery is not persecuting someone, it’s not aggressive, and it certainly should not bother the GMC’s time.

@ G.O. It’s not a demand for religious priveledge for one particular group. Hard as it is for you to believe, groups that “bleat” on matters like this, such as CCFON, are defending the simple right to religious freedom and expression – for ALL religions. The simple fact is, provided you accord to the prevailing liberal agenda you are fine, but the moment you step outside of it (talk about a taboo), there’s the Equalities Bill that carries out the persecution. So back to Robin – I won’t moan that Christians can’t persecute any more (in fact I’ll give thanks), but I’ll moan that they are being persecuted by many of a liberal predisposition in this country and around the world.

@Sim-O – what’s your point exactly? The doctor said something – the patient can just ignore it and get on with his life. But why does such a hoo-ha have to be created? If he’d said “watch the Champions League Final on Saturday – you may find comfort there”, would there have been any complaints? What is the difference exactly? In your words, he should have gone to a sports pundit or Sky Sports saleman – but he didn’t, so what?

It might help if you ditched the word ‘aggressive’ in favour of the more accurate ‘proselytizing’ becuse otherwise you are just as guilty of playing the ‘victim’ card.

‘It states on the official NHS Choices website that spiritual matters are likely to be discussed with patients during consultations.”

I thought the Doctor’s behaviour was unacceptable in a professional but if the surgery is explicitly advertising itself as Christian rather than as medical what do patients expect? If someone wants family planning information I wouldn’t direct them to a clinic with a cross on the door.

For those of us who believe in science & not faries at the end of the garden this is a terrible thing to say.

I have to laugh at the religious lot though, they don’t like it that science has all but proved their gods are make believe but they want science to keep them alive with drugs that would have never been brought about if it wasn’t for science that religion has ALWAYS tryed to stop by many differnt means.

Religion is a backward belief that many uneducated people believe in, religion shouldn’t have ANY place in a modern society.

“For those of us who believe in science & not faries at the end of the garden this is a terrible thing to say.”

Not really. What he said was the simple truth. It just wasn’t an appropriate place or time to say it.

@21 The gay couple in question were in a civil partnership. Effectively “married” in the eyes of the state.

“What he said was the simple truth”

I don’t think so but………….
COULD give comfort, might, maybe!
And so might going on a holiday for a week or two to make a change but it wouldn’t be right to go on holiday for the rest of your life would it? And as for a holiday, what sort of holiday should they go on? There are many that COULD help but choosing the right one!

Simo “If the patient wanted god they would’ve gone to a preist”.

No, if they wanted a dog they would have gone to a preist!

@James Reade #21:

“On your latter stuff, what exactly was bigoted about the B&B owners? They had a policy regarding their double rooms: For married people only. Nothing about gay people – it discriminated against non-married straight couples also.”

The website said:

“We have few rules but please note that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only.”

Preddy & Hall were civil partners; they were as married as English law allows. In the eyes of the law, the only difference between them and a married couple is that marriage is for mixed sex couples, civil partnerships are for same-sex couples.

One could argue that the Bulls added the word hetersexual to the website notice just in case some smart-aleck argued that civil partnership = marriage…

“I’m not talking about the inability to persecute, and neither would I ever want the ability to persecute to be bestowed upon anyone, let alone Christians.”

You want the ability for Christians to prevent groups of people defined by their sexuality from accessing services on an equal footing with those the Christians approve. Try swapping the words “Christians” and “sexuality” with “whites” and “race” and see how it reads. That is far closer to persecution than anything Christians, with their representation ex officio in Parliament and pervasive influence generally in Government, suffer by being forced to follow a law which applies in its rigour (or lack of) to everybody whatever their race, religion, sexuality etc.

They had a policy regarding their double rooms: For married people only. Nothing about gay people

Such a policy only stops being about gay people when gay people are allowed to get married. Denying the option of marriage and instead offering “separate-but-equal” civil partnerships is only justified because it’s meant to be legally equivalent to marriage. As long as people are allowed to provide services to married couples and then refuse the same services to civil partners, they’re *not* equivalent, and the same discrimination keeps on happening.

but everybody discriminates every moment of every day

Even if that’s true, it doesn’t make it alright.

@ James Read

“Thankfully Flowerpower put you in your place with your OTT opening gambit. No forcing ever goes on, and the statement is factually accurate.”

No he didn’t. And “OTT”? From Mr “The only fundamentalists on show here are people like you and your NSS friends”? That’s like the pot calling the washing machine black.

“On your latter stuff, what exactly was bigoted about the B&B owners? They had a policy regarding their double rooms: For married people only. Nothing about gay people – it discriminated against non-married straight couples also.”

Which would have been a clever slight of hand (using “married” to keep gays out) had they not stupidly put “heterosexual” on their website.

“Only they didn’t bother going along to the hotel to test it out (the policy was stated clearly on the B&B website).”

Oh, they didn’t bother going to a B&B that had an explicit no-gays policy? How lazy of them. Does the term “victim blaming” mean anything to you?

“Yes – it’s discrimination, but everybody discriminates every moment of every day – companies and insurers do it everyday and offer a better product and service as a result (e.g. insurance for women drivers – for the time being at any rate) – what makes some cases acceptable and others not?”

Cheaper insurance for women drivers is wrong, and we’ve banned it. Likewise businesses that refuse to serve gays. I’m sure other forms of discrimination are still legal that shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t provide an excuse to the bigots.

I have two questions for you:

1) What, specifically, was OTT about my opening post?
2) Why haven’t you explained why it’s necessary to promote Christianity to be able to prescribe drugs competently?

@ James Reade

It’s desperately hard to know what to say to someone like you. If a B&B owner were to be prosecuted for refusing to rent a room to a black couple (for ideological reasons), I’m sure you’d be able to see that it was the couple who were the victims of persecution and not the B&B owner. If your GP were to be reprimanded for suggesting to you, while you were at your most vulnerable, that converting to Islam might be a good way to make a fresh start, I’m sure you’d be able to see that your GP was not the *victim* of a failure to respect religious freedom, but the person *responsible* for such a failure. But something about these “Christian persecution” cases seems to strike you as different. What is it?

I’m afraid that there’s little point in arguing with James as his head is obviously so far up his own arse that he’s won’t listen to anything you have to say, but for those willing to take an objective view of this issue…

A few years ago, I was approached for help by the members of a local self-help group for mental health service users. This was part of my day job and I’d previously helped the sort out a consitution and get a bit of small grant funding from the lottery to run arts therapy sessions for the members.

What they wanted was help with finding a new venue for their meetings. They had been meeting a local community centre for a couple of years without any problems but responsibility for the management of the centre had changed hands and it was now being run by an evangelical Christian organisation.

This wouldn’t have been a problem were it not for the fact that the group’s new ‘landlords’ were constantly trying to proselytise the mental health group’s members and wouldn’t take no for an answer from either the group or its individual members. Every single time any one of them set foot in the place, they’d be approached by a the centre’s staff and hassled about attending some sort of religious activity to the extent that over half the group were now refusing to attend its meetings because they were sick of the attention and the staff’s inability to take no for an answer.

I managed to talk the group down off the ceiling and persuade them to stick with it for bit longer while I found them somewhere else to meet only to end up trying to mediate an extremely fraught meeting after one of the group’s members had to be readmitted to a psychiatric unit following yet another unsolicited attempt to proselytise him, even though I’d actually written to centre with specific instructions to leave the guy alone.

James may not realise this, but religiosity is amongst the diagnostic criteria for several recognised psychiatric conditions, which isn’t to say that religious believers are necessary mad but rather that uncontrolled and excessive relgiosity can be extremely problematic in vulnerable individuals with a history of mental health problems – and this particular group member had just such a history – as I recall he’d een caught up in the Jesus Army cult at one point and genuine did need to stay aware from relgious environment for his own well-being.

With this guy’s permission, I’d notified the centre manager that there staff must lesve him alone and not approach him because of his history and vulnerabilty and they complete ignored me and carried on regardless, and even when I met with after he’d been hospitalised they still wouldn’t accept that they’d done anything wrong. In their eyes they mean’t well and we entire justified in disregarding his feelings because they were only doing what they believe in, so it came as total shock to them when, after about an hour listen to this self serving crap, I went entirely ballistic and told them that I;d have them and their funding up in front of a council scrutiny committee in less than a fortnight if they didn’t back off – knowing the chair of the committee has its advantages.

Luckily, the story had a happy ending as later the same week I found myself at a meeting with the Vicar of a nearby Anglican Church and he offered the group a regular afternoon slot in his church hall for a peppercorn rent with no strings attached and no hassles guaranteed. His attitude was that his door was always open to anyone who wanted to talk, but it was for them to come to him not for him to push them. The group moved venue, and everything returned to normal – actually better than normal as the Vicar took a genuine pastoral interest in the group and provided them with a considerable amount of support without expecting anything in return.

People can believe what they like, no matter how ridiculous I find their beliefs, but incidents like this have given me a deep and abiding loathing of proselytisers who operate in the firm and unshakable belief that they’re entitled to push their beliefs on others without any regard for the feelings and views of people they’re preaching at, and in particular for those who specifically target vulnerable individuals for attention.

Now, if James can’t see why unsolicited proselytising is a problem, after reading that, then there’s no prospect of getting through to him at any rational level.

If the GP is being paid by the state to provide healthcare, he should not be seeking to use the experience to attract converts to his religion (technically if he is an Anglican, I suppose he could – but this does not sound very CofE to me). Quite simple really.

If it is a private practice, up to him – unless he did try and take advantage of a vulnerable patient as Robin suggests the evidence allows, which is clearly a disciplinary offence.

Anyone got any problems with that as a simple statement (other than the slight problem of an established church?).

Chaise @ 30

Why haven’t you explained why it’s necessary to promote Christianity to be able to prescribe drugs competently?

Unusually for you …(and I mean that) .. you have resorted to a straw man argument here.

No one is arguing that it is necessary for the doctor to talk about God in order to prescribe. Only that a doctor shouldn’t be prevented from doing so if he wants to.

If the patient doesn’t like it, he/she can make that clear – and the doctor should (out of good manners as much as professional ethics) desist.

You say the doctor’s action was “inappropriate”. But doctors are encouraged to take a holistic view of their patients and often allude to things outside the narrow realm of prescriptions or treatments.

Had he said “have you considered taking up a hobby?” or even “perhaps you should get out more?”, I doubt you (or the secularist fundamentalists at the GMC) would be making such a fuss.

Maybe some would make a fuss if he said “have you thought about trying psychoanalysis?” but, frankly, shouldn’t he be free to offer the suggestion?

Sidebar: After a minor condition of mine had defeated the conventional pharmaceutical industry, my doc once…… through gritted teeth and in an agony of despair, actually ventured the suggestion I try homeopathy. At first, I was shocked (though I never dreamed of grassing to the GMC). Then I took him up on it.

It worked.

I have no idea HOW and all reason is against it…. but it just did.

Watchman

NHS GPs are self-employed.

@34

“I have no idea HOW and all reason is against it…. but it just did.”

The placebo affect is amazing.

@ Flowerpower

“Unusually for you …(and I mean that) .. you have resorted to a straw man argument here.

No one is arguing that it is necessary for the doctor to talk about God in order to prescribe. Only that a doctor shouldn’t be prevented from doing so if he wants to.”

The question wasn’t aimed at you (though you’re welcome to address it). James said “The fact is that many people, Christian and otherwise, cannot run businesses and get on with their jobs in line with their consciences nowadays with the Equalities Bill. ”

He didn’t directly claim that he was referring to this story, but it’s a pretty fair guess, and if he wasn’t I don’t see how it’s a relevant comment. I don’t see why a religious doctor would be unable to practice without preaching (ho ho).

“If the patient doesn’t like it, he/she can make that clear – and the doctor should (out of good manners as much as professional ethics) desist.”

I really don’t think it’s appropriate for the doctor – somebody in a position of some authority, with a duty of care, representing the state – to push their personal religious values on their patients during working hours. We shouldn’t have to object.

“You say the doctor’s action was “inappropriate”. But doctors are encouraged to take a holistic view of their patients and often allude to things outside the narrow realm of prescriptions or treatments.

Had he said “have you considered taking up a hobby?” or even “perhaps you should get out more?”, I doubt you (or the secularist fundamentalists at the GMC) would be making such a fuss.”

Of course, but he should be recommending something with an actual medical benefit. The only (demonstrated) thing that God can do is provide a placebo – and aren’t there plenty of other placebos to choose from?

You know as well as I do that he wasn’t advocating Christianity as a placebo, he was advocating it as a religion. Unless you reckon he suggested Hinduism to the next patient, for balance.

“Maybe some would make a fuss if he said “have you thought about trying psychoanalysis?” but, frankly, shouldn’t he be free to offer the suggestion?”

That’s medical.

“Sidebar: After a minor condition of mine had defeated the conventional pharmaceutical industry, my doc once…… through gritted teeth and in an agony of despair, actually ventured the suggestion I try homeopathy. At first, I was shocked (though I never dreamed of grassing to the GMC). Then I took him up on it.

It worked.

I have no idea HOW and all reason is against it…. but it just did.”

I’ve had that experience too. Could have been fluke, could have been a treatment that needs more serious attention from researchers. But God isn’t homeopathy.

@ 33 Watchman

“Anyone got any problems with that as a simple statement (other than the slight problem of an established church?).”

None.

@ Flowerpower

Just realised I conflated “homeopathy” with “unconventional medicine” in my last post to you… did you mean the “dilution = strength” thing?

Flowerpower,

NHS GPs are self-employed.

True. But they are paid by the state, and therefore should adhere to standards of behaviour set by parliament. Hence my distinction between normal and fully private practices.

‘“Maybe some would make a fuss if he said “have you thought about trying psychoanalysis?” but, frankly, shouldn’t he be free to offer the suggestion?”

‘That’s medical.’

No, it isn’t – its confession dressed up as science.

@ 39 Chaiese

yep…..’fraid so.

Why does this arsewipe want to become a doctor in the first place? Did he question things in his medical training? Did he sit exams and when asked what was the cure for a particular illness did he say the imaginary cloud man will fly over and cure you?

If he wants to promote his religion then he should go into the church. If he wants to be a doctor he should STFU.

And that applies to all religions. STFU.

I’ve some sympathy for the said doctor with all the NHS pressures to save on treatments and medications but feel sure he would have found himself in much less trouble had he recommended faith in Big Soc or some auspicious homeopathic remedy to the patient.

Elmer Gantry is a great movie. As these many impressive brief biographical histories show, life really does imitate art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

I use to have a GP who was also a Baptist lay preacher. He would frequently offer me Christian advice. It didn’t matter. He was never too pushy about it and was the best GP, in both medical skill and bedside manner, I’ve ever had. He retired to Cornwall to play golf several years ago. I expect he is still missed by most of his former patients.

Wow – LC does so often get heated arguing that a Christian victim – may actually not be a victim. I’ve never seen LC get interested in a story the other way round.

Todays news that some folk can be victims, for the simple reason that they have the cheek to not be Muslims…

This teacher, we don’t know his faith, badly assaulted by Muslims in the UK for the offence of teaching Islam in amongst the other major faiths in RE:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390082/Muslim-gang-launched-horrific-attack-religious-studies-teacher-did-want-teaching-girls.html

Sally 43

> And that applies to all religions. STFU.

It’s funny – you say ‘all religions’.

But it’s always the threads criticising christians you weigh into.
So not sure you mean ‘all’ ?
Do you really just mean that Christians shold STFU ?

I don’t recall you on LC taking your customary aggressive hard line with those of non-christian faiths.

@32 Unity: An interesting narrative. There is a difference between “aggressive” proselytising and religious-based compassion, and the two extremes are exemplified.

The Daily Mail story is worth a read. The article describes a “Christian-orientated practice”; “It states on the official NHS Choices website that spiritual matters are likely to be discussed with patients during consultations”.

I must confess that I had no idea previously that Christian-orientated practices existed in the UK. I have met dozens of doctors who have discussed faith (not necessarily Christian) as a motivation for their career. The same motivation applies for many local government councillors, social workers, teachers etc, and for most the religious consideration is internal, malleable, respectful.

The Mail story reports the patient’s mother describing him as “in a rut and in need of help”. Which is where the scenario becomes clear. It was about the wrong doctor at the wrong time.

Dr Scott’s religious words may have suited a patient suffering from a terminal physical illness. Probably the wrong words to deliver to a depression sufferer. Perhaps Dr Scott might consider attending a few training sessions about listening to patients.

There is a liberal concern here, however. What is the role of religion-orientated GP surgeries? Can a practice where all practitioners follow narrow beliefs (religious, political, clinical practice) be trusted to treat all patients?

I understand the Mail’s concerns. I really do. At a time like this, the last thing the Mail wants to see are challenges to the teachings of the church:

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Matthew 25:29
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-25-29/

@Just Visiting #47:

“Wow – LC does so often get heated arguing that a Christian victim – may actually not be a victim. I’ve never seen LC get interested in a story the other way round.”

When any other religion gets 26 members ex officio in the Lords and privileged influence in society and Government, as the Church of England has, and then claims from that position of privilege that it is being persecuted because it’s members aren’t being allowed to persecute others who don’t follow its teachings, then you can expect me at least to be saying the same things about that religion as I have said in this thread. If you can find me one Muslim leader in a nationally responsible position defending the rights of the 4 men in the Daily Mail story to do what they did, give us the details so he can be howled down by LC.

@43. sally

Thank you, Sally. You have made many things clear to me about tolerance.

I have never liked doctors much. But the ones that I have liked, I like a lot. If you don’t understand that, ask a nurse to explain it. And no fecking innuendo, please.

“Why does this arsewipe want to become a doctor in the first place?”

Arsewipe? On the basis of a single allegation, you hit the man with an expletive.

“Did he question things in his medical training? Did he sit exams and when asked what was the cure for a particular illness did he say the imaginary cloud man will fly over and cure you?”

I presume that he thought about things. Dr Scott would have spent one third of his life in medical training before he entered GP practice. One third of his life. Dr Scott does not appear to practice homeopathy, and we can assume that he tries to fix sniffles and flu, to identify minor broken bones and to point patients with other problems in the direction of an expert.

Dr Scott is a middle aged man, a GP for many years, assessed occasionally by fellow practitioners; so any suggestion about non-belief in conventional medicine seems misguided. Dr Scott is/was a GP with wacky religious beliefs. All the same, so fecking what?

It is possible that Dr Scott fecked up a patient. In a world of perfect beings, that is something that we cannot tolerate. That world does not exist.

“If he wants to promote his religion then he should go into the church. If he wants to be a doctor he should STFU.”

I am loosing the will to live.

Robin

> because it’s members aren’t being allowed to persecute others who don’t follow its teachings

So you interpret what the doctor did to the patient as ‘persecution’ ?

Maybe a lack of balance there?

Surely a more worthy target of your ire over persecution, are things like the brutal attack on the RE teacher I mentioned above?

My doctor recommended a faith-based pseudoscience as well…

But I didn’t take the cognitive behavioural therapy.

(Joke. Joke. Joke.)

@Just Visiting #52:

“So you interpret what the doctor did to the patient as ‘persecution’ ?”

No

How did this country, Europe the US and indeed the world get to this point compared to the optimism of the nineties.

All I ever here is some religious lobby or other spouting out about how they are not given enough say, an obvious contradiction since we here about religion all the time.

@ 41 Shatterface

“No, it isn’t – its confession dressed up as science.”

Source please. To the best of my knowlege, psychoanalysis can be very effective for some patients, and its remit goes far beyond cathartic confession of guilt.

@ Just Visiting

“Todays news that some folk can be victims, for the simple reason that they have the cheek to not be Muslims…”

OMG, you mean people do bad things in a way unrelated to this story? Quick guys, we’re wasting time discussing this issue when we should be helping Just Visiting in HATING TEH MUZZLIMZ!!!!1111

I can’t recall any thread about any subject on here where Just Visiting has not tried to divert it to Muslims. I think he is just a wee bit obsessed.

sorry hear rather than here

Robin

> claims from that position of privilege that it is being persecuted because it’s members aren’t being allowed to persecute others who don’t follow its teachings

So, that comment I guess wasn’t about the doctor into his thread then based on your 55

Chaise 58

> OMG, you mean people do bad things in a way unrelated to this story? Quick guys, we’re wasting time discussing this issue when we should be helping Just Visiting in HATING TEH MUZZLIMZ!!!!1111

It’s hard to hold up a mirror to you LC guys who love to bash christians.

You’re so keen to do it, that you’re willing to put aside your hatred of the Mail – and start a thread purely because of an article they publish!

So that suggests that your desire to bash christians trumps your hatred of the mail.

But you guys don’t treat any other religion that way.
So I held up a mirror, making that comparison.

Whch you then turn into an attack on my obessions!
Well, I didn’t start this thread – you guys who like to bash christians did.

It’s your obession.

Just do the sums – see how often LC has threads that bash christians/christianty: and then count the threads that bash other religions.

@flowerpower

”Please explain to me why, in a free country, where freedom of expression is supposedly valued, a self-employed professional should be prevented from saying whatever he likes about God, religion… or politics or football, come to that.”

When I was in college teaching I was heavily prescribed in what I could and could say- it appears however it is OK for doctors who are fundamentalist Christians.

I suspect it wouldn’t be OK for an atheist doctor to say- hey mate don’t worry you would know about it when you are dead. No these fundamentalists want special laws for themselves and they can’t have them.

Pete

> When I was in college teaching I was heavily prescribed in what I could and could say

What were the rules they put on you?

@ 62 Just Visiting

“It’s hard to hold up a mirror to you LC guys who love to bash christians.

You’re so keen to do it, that you’re willing to put aside your hatred of the Mail – and start a thread purely because of an article they publish!”

Um, “you”? Second person? I’m not LC any more than you are. Have you mixed me up with Sunny or something?

So instead of blaming me for this site’s practices, why not show some evidence of me treating Christians in an unreasonable way?

“Well, I didn’t start this thread – you guys who like to bash christians did.

It’s your obession.”

Ha ha ha. Someone that you’ve categorised with me writes a thread, and that makes it MY obsession. Dear me, try to think rationally for a moment.

You’re raising a non-sequitur because you get a sulk on if ten minutes passes without someone slagging off Muslims. You’re the obsessive, JV. Your main function seems to be spamming anecdote designed to encourage Islamaphobia.

Chaise

I’d prefer it if you keep the emotional level down.

Even your asides are rather black+white where shades of grey arguably apply:
> Cheaper insurance for women drivers is wrong.