Reply to comment

 I found yesterday’s class both very interesting but also a bit frustrating as well. I say that I also found it a frustrating class because of the nature of our debate. I admitted in class that I am quick to judge and form opinions, and that is exactly what happened when the following question was posed: Is biology/science "objective", value-free, culture-independent, universal? Should it be?

I immediately answered that “yes” it is and “yes” it should be. However, as the discussion evolved, I realized just how unclear the answer to this question really is. An example was made of a patient refusing treatment for fear of upsetting their gods. The notion of the gods being a “fact” in this person’s life as opposed to an opinion is an interesting one. If it is a “fact” for the patient that their god would disapprove of the treatment, what/who is to say that that “fact” is not as relevant as any of the medical facts presented by the physician?

Another question that someone asked yesterday was: "should there be transparency on the part of the doctor concerning things like religious/non-religious beliefs?". I think this is a tricky question because on the one hand, it might seem like a great idea because then at least all players have a full understanding of where other involved individuals stand with regard to certain things. On the other hand, I think a physician bluntly stating that he is an atheist and that he will disregard any religious concerns of the patient is not exactly conducive to a healthy and respectful doctor/patient relationship.