Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Absolutley not says I.
You already do...and tbh I got nowt against it.
Like, I don't know, a cure for cancer or something.
But the NHS shouldn't be paying them salaries
Spiritual support (for those receptive to it) may in some cases be a fairly effective 'treatment' for patients. There's lots of support for spirituality as an individual factor being a reliable predictor of health outcomes, although I'm not sure how this would translate into actual provision of in-hospital support.
Principles aside, this might be more cost-effective than it initally seems.
on a basic scared level, religion becomes more important at times of weakness. whether or not religion is a load of old cobblers, it's certainly relaxing for people, and anything that cuts stress has a health benefit.
But I still don't want my tax pounds going towards it. The church has an awful lot of money so surely it should all be funded by them!
there's also the factor that people who believe in an afterlife are generally much less anxious when they are ill.
People who disagree with them are largely doing so whilst ignoring scientific facts.
I've no idea what research has been done on the influence of a religious presence on treatment outcomes NHS shouldn't be spending a fortune on any kind of treatment that can't be proven to work.
And yes, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, I mean you too.
in the Nursing literature. It was shakey at the turn of the century but there's been a fair amount of confidence about it in the last few years, to the extent that nursing-in-training now often do an increasing number of modules in it.
In terms of whether it can be proven; well, it can be proven as well as any other psychological treatment (that is, in terms of practical health outcomes).
The RLHH is still on the list though...
based on double blind tests.
Which religion should I 'go on'? What tests should I base that choice on?
and other experiential EVIDENCE.
The key word here is evidence.
Provide a place for these religious bods to do their thing, by all means. But you want me to pay for some completely unfounded beliefs based on fairy stories? GTF!
it helps if you hate women.
State-funding goes to religious schools. Uni's have chaplains also (if I remember rightly) and recieve a lot of state funding.
I don't agree with them but still...
And this includes faith schools!
Is the principle not the same though?
to find britains most powerful muslim woman.
That was funded by the government.
Lots of state money is spent on religion.
Whilst i disagree with it personally engaging with the muslim community is a good thing surely?
SORRY PAUL, that was a joke.
at least in practical terms with tangible results. I wouldn't completely dismiss the usefulness of chaplains in hospitals though.
It's absolute nonsense.
it would be difficult to allow the religeon to fund it because then you might have mormons/scientologists funding it and end up preaching to the vulnerable.
The question perhaps should be....should there be chaplains in hospital permenantly? or should people instead request that they come in, as and when needed?
visit patients from their Parish
people (with Religious belief or not ) are able to talk confidentially with someone who isn't a doctor should they need to. It's having someone there without having to make an appointment as it were
Why can't the religions fund it?
some religeons (i used the example of scientologists/mormons up there ^) evangelising the vulnerable and becoming a nuisance rather than a help
I DO go on and on, I admit, but evangilise?
You were the one who said that if they fund the other chaplains in hospitals that they should also fund these others.....what i said was that i think it would be worse if they allowed to have chaplaincies in hospitals funded by the churches, as this would probably mean they would evangelise more.
I did also say that i think the question should be more, should there be permenant chaplains in hospitals?
why should I fund cancer wards etc. I don't smoke.
but i heard some doctors/nurses saying that they provided assistance tothem sometimes, especially when breaking news to bereaved relatives.....i.e. the doctor dos not have to become involved in realising the distress of something that they could be better being away from....so if they provide 40million pounds of support to medical staff in this respect.....then its difficult to argue against.....of course it will be impossible to measure
I will am give concklushuns
Also, though not being particularly religous myself, I went to a faith school and I think they're pretty good on the whole. They teach a respect (or at least tolerance) for religion. It wasn't taxpayer funded though.
I didn't find it divisive.
KNOWLEDGE is where it's at. Knowledge, based on sound evidence based principles.
Taxes should not be spent on "faith"?
Anyway, define "faith".
Faith is just an unsubstantiated conviction.
I might well have faith in a number of things, but I'm not so pompous as to suggest that my beliefs should be state funded.
Now if you KNOW and can PROVE (not THINK and BELIEVE) that something funded by the state results in a net gain for society, then think about putting your arguments forward in a cogent way and make a suggestion that state money is used to fund your proposal.
Yup, FAITH can get to fsck.
the argument for it is that it makes some sections of society feel better.
There is rarely anything done which is for the benefit of everyone.
I resent having to pay taxes for other things I will never benefit from, but these things usually work out in the end.
Other than just writing about them here.
Sticking it to the man via direct debit.
Been working too hard?
whilst simultaneously supporting the drug trade? A trade which curtails the freedoms of the people that produce the drugs for your bit of weekend fun?
You, Vikram, are a sham. All talk, no backbone.
The drug trade 'should' be liberalised, but it's not. So that doesn't make your consumption morally acceptable.
By all means continue to drugs, but don't think you can buy a clean conscince by giving a couple of quid to a prssure group each month. Morals are wonderful things if you can afford them, you it seems can not.
over other religeons or whatnot....unlike many religeous leader berks
She's always rabbiting on about the bleedin' catholics and the bleedin jews and the bleedin scientologists.
she might be more extreme than philip in private, he might just have loose lips......like Liam the bumbler
we have no obligation to seperate church and state in this country.
and some chaplains is hardly gonna make this into a Theocracy.
Making people feel better is a is a fair enough starting point and a noble enough cause and I wouldn't withdraw my support based purely on whether I'd benefit personally.
But I have some questions:
How many people feel 'better' (and how much 'better')?
Is that improvement worth the cost?
How many people do I have to get together, with a request for dosh if we all "genuinely feel better" when we get given a particular thing for 'free', that a 'large' section of society are perhaps opposed to?
AND WE SHOULDNT FUND THEM.
but then surely you agree with giving money to fund chaplains if it helps people who believe in such things?
i resent funding certain wars and MP expenses etc. a lot more
if the dosh is earmarked for something specific like this and the presence of chaplains means that some doctors/surgeons dont have the burden of telling relatives of bad news on their own then that helps the doctors/surgeons/nurses.....being relieved of having to deal with so many weeping sobbing/distraught relatives might actually benefit the surgeons/doctors/nurses nerves and mean they sleep better (the few hours some house doctors get) I am prepared to waive my normal objection to organised religeon being involved if they actually help hospital medical staff to the extent of this funding and as long as the religeons only act in a consoling/councilling/supportive role rather than evangelising
(whilst personally wishing that there werent any large centrally controlled by big powerful men organised religeons)
then it would be best to spend it otherwise....i am not sure if social services would be better or worse for consoling/supporting.
Im also no sure what the humanist's can offer in the sort of support needed.....if they are good at it then fine....i havnt got enough info on this matter to judge
and yes i realise this is at odds with being equal and fair to all....the thing is that it might be best to have a light and delicate touch with the amount of religeousness involved and (without seeming to favour CofE) they do seem to have more of a tendancy to be slightly more self effacing and less evangilistic than many other 'organised' religeons that are more 'recruitment orientated'
Of course stuff like budhism can be far more accepting of all (more so than even gentle CofE'ers)
Im not considering the moral implications of the issue (they are kind of different)
I am trying to be pragmatic merely about the amount of dosh spent and whether it could be justified to the non religeous......I think that it is well dodgy ground....but i also think that One should listen to some agnostic doctors case for having them in (from the practical reason of helping the doctors)
Personally i think the issue of crackpot religeons should be dealt with in the wider society.......for instance if someone persuades a confused or simplistic person in the wider community to give dosh to say the scientologists, then cant this be covered buy obtaining money by fraudulent means? etc (this can apply to all or less religeons to a lesser or greater degree) Its not a problem that should be battled out in hospitals (they should already have enough battles) The problem of nonsensical beliefs having too much power (having clout if there are enough of them) is a paradox that a democratic society that is a 'dumb democracy' (like what we've got at the moment (as opposed to a 'wise democracy')) cannot sort out without destroying its own justification for being right
Personally all the tax breaks, subsidies, funding etc etc that all and any religions get from the state for me should be stopped immedietely and then we won't have these lesser issues creeping up all the time. Its like a habit, we've been doing it for so long that we rarely stop to ask what exactly are we spending our money on. Would be interesting to get an approx figure that the treasury hands out a year to religion.
because i would have thought that the religeons would behave themselves more in such places, and with regard to individual suffering, and comforting....rather than preaching
I said that religeon should be an issue for society to discuss and battle over....but not in hospitals....the issue for me is if it was removed would the surgeons/doctors/other staff suffer greatly as a result? would their effectiveness go down?
If you could say that you could replace the benefits that the medical staff gain at the moment with an equivalent benefit using 40 million pounds of non religeous humanist counsilling then I would back that immediatly to replace any religeous chaplaincies......i am sceptical that this would be possible, thats all......perhaps you are right.....I originally diodnt intend that i k new absolutely.....I just started posting cos i heard an agnostic doctor saying that he gained benefit from it, and i hadnt seen any other posts suggesting that this might be a facet of the chaplaincies....i.e. that it wasnt just for religeous people, but that it gave a bit of respite (sometimes) to the medical staff.
economic/sociological aspirations touted by a political party?
Personally (although i realise there are degrees of difference)
i feel that most peoples belief in the political process we have at present is akin to an overwhelming overreaching state religeon.
I think it is nonsensical the degree to which people follow and repeat parrot fashion one side or anothers arguments.....i think it is nonsensical and insane to debate things on subjects and in the way as suggested by the media/newspapers and the partioes themselves, they tend to polarise...our whole system polarised (mildly) so much so that anything 'off the beaten path' is considered an irrelevance (beaten path should be taken slightly more literally than normal here) whereas perhaps it is the agendas/ viewspoints that are irrelevant
and the answer was a resounding 'no'