Atheist and agnostic doctors twice more likely to end a patient's life

A new British study reveals that atheist and agnostic doctors are twice more likely than religious doctors to end the life of a patient.

Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are almost twice as likely as their religious counterparts to make medical choices that can end a terminally ill patient's life more quickly, a new British study reveals.

"The religious beliefs of British doctors influence how they provide care for dying people," concludes study author Clive Seale, a professor of medical sociology at the Centre for Health Sciences in Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry at Queen Mary University of London.

For example, "religious doctors are less likely to report having taken decisions which they expected or partly intended to shorten patients' lives, such as withdrawing life-sustaining treatments," Seale noted. "[And] in the few times they do take such decisions, they are less likely to say they discussed this with the patient."

What are your thoughts on this? This doesn't surprise me, as most atheists I know online are for ending an individual's life when they feel it is necessary.

Might the same statement be spun to say "Atheist and agnostic doctors twice less likely to prolong their patients suffering"?

It seemed like a large portion of that article was talking about how atheist and agnostic doctors are more likely to discuss assisted suicide/death with the patient, which suggests to me that this is about consenting euthanasia as opposed to, say, irresponsible practices which inadvertantly lead to patients dying.

As for euthanasia, I support it. The sanctity of life at the expense of quality of life is most often well intended ultimately, I think, immoral. Of course consent is vital which is why discussion with the patient is important.

I don't support euthanasia. I believe one should fight until the end rather than take the coward's way out. Suicide should never be an option under any circumstance. SpinoRaptor24

Not even in Jihad, or does that also fall under the exclusion clause that pork gets?

What does suicide have to do with it anyway? - the story isn't about doctors killing themselves. One interesting view I got was that most UK doctors are not religious.

The promise of healing through faith has been in strong decline ever since the advent of scientific medical research. I'd say that a doctor's responsibility is to minimise suffering, but primarily to preserve life. Terminally ill people can be kept alive artificially quite easily today, so the instruction as to when to turn life-support systems off would be taken when no further recovery is possible and the patient has no quality of life left.

So its not really about doctors killing people - its about the withdrawal of life support for terminal patients. I know from experience that family considerations are taken into account here, so the UK has got the policy right , with some of the best and most rational doctors in a well supported (for now) national health system.

What about religious conflicts with medical treatment, like some Islamic reluctance for transplant surgery, the Jehovas Witness rejection of blood donations, or the Scientologists rejection (somewhat understandably) of psychology. Those religious views may ensure more people die through not getting the medical treatment they deserve.

Not even in Jihad. Suicide is strictly out of the question in Islam, and so are "Mercy Killings" if you will. Of course we don't reject Medicine at all, the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged us to visit and help cure the sick, but that doesn't mean we should end their life when all hope seems lost. SpinoRaptor24

What about honour killings? Are they allowed? I thought there was some established Islamic issue and division over organ donation. There is certainly a huge lack of organ donations form Islamic people, making it more difficult to transplant for Islamic cultures in the UK.

What about prolonging life? For example, someone with no respiratory function could be kept alive on a ventilator. The longer a person uses a ventilator to make them breathe, the less likely they'll be able to come off it. If it were not for the intervention of doctors, the lives you consider "mercy killings" would already have been lost.

Or did Genetic's link take you to a different article?

If it were not for the intervention of doctors, the lives you consider "mercy killings" would already have been lost.

RationalAtheist

I find this study ironic actually because I think that atheists would be more likely not to end a patient's life, because life is all there is to the atheist, no matter how much suffering it may hold. Whereas the theist, who believes in the afterlife, wouldn't mind ending a life, because doing so would pass that person to the afterlife, which in most religions is much more peaceful than this life.Genetic_Code

What about honour killings? Are they allowed? I thought there was some established Islamic issue and division over organ donation. There is certainly a huge lack of organ donations form Islamic people, making it more difficult to transplant for Islamic cultures in the UK.

What about prolonging life? For example, someone with no respiratory function could be kept alive on a ventilator. The longer a person uses a ventilator to make them breathe, the less likely they'll be able to come off it. If it were not for the intervention of doctors, the lives you consider "mercy killings" would already have been lost.

Or did Genetic's link take you to a different article?

RationalAtheist

Honour killings are not allowed either. I don't know much about organ donation in Islam. I do know that there has been some heated debates between Muslim Scholars regarding this issue. Some allow it under strict conditions. Prolonging life is fine. But you shouldn't go around ending the life of those whose situation you deem to be hopeless. I mean, would you approve of someone killing all the starving children in Africa to end their suffering? You wouldn't, so why approve of these mercy killings? 

Islam teaches to endure patiently in times of hardship to attain success in the afterlife. Allah promises that everyone will be tested with some form of pain. Stated in the Quran:
"We will test you until We know the true fighters among you and those who are steadfast and test what is reported of you." (Noble Quran 47:31)
"And we will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient." (Noble Quran 2:155)
"Or did you suppose that you would enter Paradise without facing the same as those who came before you? Poverty and illness afflicted them and they were shaken to the point that the Messenger and those who believed with him said, 'When is Allah's help coming?' Be assured that Allah's help is very near. (Noble Quran 2:214)

There is a bit of a spin in the title that makes it seem like they are actually twice as likely to just kill you. The study was about discussing the option of assisted suicide with the patient/patient's family. And if I remember and correctly interpreted what I read last night the study only refered to the most recent death of a patient under their care, not their practice in general.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

What about honour killings? Are they allowed? I thought there was some established Islamic issue and division over organ donation. There is certainly a huge lack of organ donations form Islamic people, making it more difficult to transplant for Islamic cultures in the UK.

What about prolonging life? For example, someone with no respiratory function could be kept alive on a ventilator. The longer a person uses a ventilator to make them breathe, the less likely they'll be able to come off it. If it were not for the intervention of doctors, the lives you consider "mercy killings" would already have been lost.

Or did Genetic's link take you to a different article?

SpinoRaptor24

Honour killings are not allowed either. I don't know much about organ donation in Islam. I do know that there has been some heated debates between Muslim Scholars regarding this issue. Some allow it under strict conditions. Prolonging life is fine. But you shouldn't go around ending the life of those whose situation you deem to be hopeless. I mean, would you approve of someone killing all the starving children in Africa to end their suffering? You wouldn't, so why approve of these mercy killings?

Starving children can eat food to make them better. A person being kept alive on a life support machine that has a terminal illness can not be made better. Conversely, their "natural" demise is only being prolonged. Can't you understand that? How long should you prolong someone's life? Many comatose brain-dead patients can be preserved alive in that state indefinately. Wouldn't that be cruel?

The verses you wrote seemed to have little to do with anything being discussed here. Why not state what you think as a person instead, or should I go and start quoting my atheist journals back at you?

Those verses I listed have much to do with this discussion, as they teach someone to be patient in times of hardship, pain, suffering etc. My opinion on this matter remains unchanged (not that it matters).

You can't prove that. People have woken up from Comas after being in them for years. And hundreds of thousands of children die of malnutrition every year, though you certainly wouldn't approve of anyone going around killing them to end their suffering. I still strongly believe you shouldn't kill someone to end their hardship, even if they are comatose brain-dead. Though of course any suffering person has his sins expiated according to Islam.

Those verses I listed have much to do with this discussion, as they teach someone to be patient in times of hardship, pain, suffering etc. My opinion on this matter remains unchanged (not that it matters).

SpinoRaptor24

Eh?

Sure, people have woken up from comas, but they perhaps were not on artificial respiration, or had some brain activity. There is a measurable difference between comatose states where there are chances of recovery and terminal states with coma and no brain activity. The typical state people end up in once they are in an emergency or "Intensive Care Unit" and are dying is that their bodily functions start shutting down. The body's functions can and are replicated by machines to try and save or prolong life.

For your proof, I could point you to medical practice for emergency rooms, where brain activity, heart activity, blood pressure, breathing, urology and many other functions are all monitored and can be controlled medically. but I'll relate the personal experience I had with my Dad when he died:

He (Dad) was admitted with emphysema, so soon went on a respirator to help him breathe. His liver packed up and he went into a coma. During his coma, he had two strokes and became paralysed. The doctors treating him for the strokes updated me as to his recovery possibilities. I reminded them that his original breathing issues would still be present if ever he did regain consciousness. The doctors asked me about his quality of life immediately before the loss of brain function and we talked about the lead-up to his hospitalisation. They suggested increasing his morphine dosage and I agreed. He passed away peacefully in the night.

I guess if your view held sway. we'd have enormous hospital wards full of comatose, brain-dead, terminal, or chronically pained, dying people hooked up to ever-more clever machines to extract every last bit of life out of them by artificial means alone. Perhaps, if you elected to go "in" early, you'd get a longer preservation, since you'd have healthier organs. Would the extra life-span (of no quality at all) please your God?

Great verses! Your God guarantees to cause you at least some pain! Can I have some "death to infidels" verses now please?

Well that's the difference between us I suppose. Islam teaches us to be forbearing and patient no matter how glum the situation appears. Yes, Allah promises you hardship, but he promises you great compensation for your suffering.
"Those who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward without measure." (Noble Quran 39:10)
"And bear in patience whatever ill maybe fall you: this, behold, is something to set one's heart upon" (Noble Quran 31:17)

Atheism teaches you to hasten your death under torment, due to the belief of a void afterlife. If your views held sway, Doctors would be taking lives based on their own subjective opinions. I'm sorry about your father, but might not it have occurred to you that he may have wanted to live before you allowed the doctors to increase his morphine dosage?

Also, I found a rather interesting article regarding Euthenasia and Islam.

Link.

"The IMA (Islamic Medical Association) holds the view that when the treatment becomes futile, it ceases to be mandatory. This would reflect on the administration or continuation of medical treatment (including the respirator).
The IMA follows the current policy about DNR (do not resuscitate), where treatment is deemed futile. Brain death, including the brain stem, is an acceptable definition of death, with all the consequences pertaining to cessation of animation or the procurement of vital organs for transplantation.

IMA(Islamic Medical Association) suggests advance directives as part of all hospital and office medical records of a patient.
The objectives of Islamic Shariah (Laws) is for the protection of individual life, religion, mind, property and family. In difficult cases, the rules are:
a) take the lesser of the two evils,
b) necessity overrides the prohibition.

The following Questions and answers took place at ISNA Convention of 1997(2)

QUESTION (1): Is CPR (Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation) part of the mandate to maintain life. What is the status of DNR (DO NOT RESUSCITATE) and code "C"?
ANSWER: When the treatment becomes scientifically futile (i.e. hopeless), it is no more mandatory to maintain life, and DNR would be acceptable. If a patient is placed on life support and the doctors see no improvement in the patient's health conditions, and the doctors indicate that artificial resuscitation has become useless, then with due consideration and care and by collective decision of medical experts, family members and religious scholars, it would be permissible to decide to switch off the life support machine and to allow nature to take its course.

QUESTION (2). Is it OK to withdraw the life support system for example: ( A Ventilator for a patient who has no cerebral function and is in a vegetative state)? Or Feeding Tube.

ANSWER: Same answer as question 1. If there is no hope of treatment, you may withdraw the life support equipment. In an attempt to prolong life without quality, one must not prolong the misery at a high cost. In a patient like Terri Schiavo, it is permissible to remove the Feeding Tube.
If a number of medical experts determine that a patient is in a terminal condition, and there is no hope for his/her recovery and all medications have become useless, then it permissible for them, through a collective decision, to stop the medication."

Well that's the difference between us I suppose. Islam teaches us to be forbearing and patient no matter how glum the situation appears. Yes, Allah promises you hardship, but he promises you great compensation for your suffering.
"Those who patiently persevere will truly receive a reward without measure." (Noble Quran 39:10)
"And bear in patience whatever ill maybe fall you: this, behold, is something to set one's heart upon" (Noble Quran 31:17)

Atheism teaches you to hasten your death under torment, due to the belief of a void afterlife. If your views held sway, Doctors would be taking lives based on their own subjective opinions. I'm sorry about your father, but might not it have occurred to you that he may have wanted to live before you allowed the doctors to increase his morphine dosage?

SpinoRaptor24

Promises, promises!

My views do hold sway (unusually) in the UK: Doctors do take lives based on their medical opinions. That is the sense of the article being discussed...

Atheism does not teach me anything. I'm responsible for my own education, thanks! Also, there is no atheist doctrine, aside a simple statement of disbelief. Everything else is interpreted personally (although there is a high correlation of independently arrived at atheist views - quite unlike all the religions).

I knew my old man better than you did. I did know how pained he was - after having his tracheotomy and while conscious on the respirator. I wouldn't wish that on anyone after seeing it for myself. Were it not for pipes going into his throat circulating air and moving his diaphragm, he'd have suffocated to death. As his lungs couldn't process as much air, the oxygen content of the respirator was increased. This was an artificial environment for my father. Despite this, his life was prolonged artificially until his organs and brain started shutting down.

So respirators can help prolong life, but they also maintain life. But as blood gets less capable of carrying oxygen to the organs due to lung function decreases, the organs start shutting down. People on respirators for long periods do tend to go into unconsciousness, since there is not enough dissolved oxygen to keep their organs running - even with an increased oxygen mix. This is especially true of people with lung diseases (like my Dad had).

Perhaps I did know (at least more than you) about the possibilities for recovery for my father. I did seek medical guidance. As far as I understand it, I didn't sign his death warrant, but may have made his exit more comfortable and slightly faster. (It was not technically a medical morphine OD - that would be against the Hippocratic oath).

The thing that most horrifies me about this is the thought of my Dad (or anyone) being preserved in some horrendous, diseased, perpetual, artificial, comatose, vegetative state with no medical hope of remission, but always the grim possibility of a futile extension.

Also, I found a rather interesting article regarding Euthenasia and Islam.

Link.

"The IMA (Islamic Medical Association) holds the view that when the treatment becomes futile, it ceases to be mandatory. This would reflect on the administration or continuation of medical treatment (including the respirator).
The IMA follows the current policy about DNR (do not resuscitate), where treatment is deemed futile. Brain death, including the brain stem, is an acceptable definition of death, with all the consequences pertaining to cessation of animation or the procurement of vital organs for transplantation.

IMA(Islamic Medical Association) suggests advance directives as part of all hospital and office medical records of a patient.
The objectives of Islamic Shariah (Laws) is for the protection of individual life, religion, mind, property and family. In difficult cases, the rules are:
a) take the lesser of the two evils,
b) necessity overrides the prohibition.

The following Questions and answers took place at ISNA Convention of 1997(2)

QUESTION (1): Is CPR (Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation) part of the mandate to maintain life. What is the status of DNR (DO NOT RESUSCITATE) and code "C"?
ANSWER: When the treatment becomes scientifically futile (i.e. hopeless), it is no more mandatory to maintain life, and DNR would be acceptable. If a patient is placed on life support and the doctors see no improvement in the patient's health conditions, and the doctors indicate that artificial resuscitation has become useless, then with due consideration and care and by collective decision of medical experts, family members and religious scholars, it would be permissible to decide to switch off the life support machine and to allow nature to take its course.

QUESTION (2). Is it OK to withdraw the life support system for example: ( A Ventilator for a patient who has no cerebral function and is in a vegetative state)? Or Feeding Tube.

ANSWER: Same answer as question 1. If there is no hope of treatment, you may withdraw the life support equipment. In an attempt to prolong life without quality, one must not prolong the misery at a high cost. In a patient like Terri Schiavo, it is permissible to remove the Feeding Tube.
If a number of medical experts determine that a patient is in a terminal condition, and there is no hope for his/her recovery and all medications have become useless, then it permissible for them, through a collective decision, to stop the medication."

SpinoRaptor24

So you're agreeing with me now?

So you're agreeing with me now?

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

So you're agreeing with me now?

Gambler_3

Perhaps I don't understand the finery of his argument, but it seems like a complete reversal of what Spino was saying earlier this thread. (Please forgive me if these seem out of context):

Islam teaches us to be forbearing and patient no matter how glum the situation appears.

SpinoRaptor24

I still strongly believe you shouldn't kill someone to end their hardship, even if they are comatose brain-dead.

SpinoRaptor24

Maybe this is the difference between Spino's personal view and the view of his faith?