Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones

[DeclinetoState]

Submitted by Vidura Panditaratne on Tue, 2007-07-31 12:32.
Sponsor: X-Treme Geek: USB Missile Launcher (http://click.linksynergy.com/fs-bin/click?id=yEh*IoOH6fg&offerid=115748.10000016&type=3&subid=0)

Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine (http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353).

Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."
Source (http://pressesc.com/news/80931072007/atheist-doctors-more-likely-care-poor-religious-ones)

[The_Elucidator]

Too many factors left out of this report to take it seriously!

[Venus de Smilo]

What an effing load of BS.

[DoctorDoom]

Logic: the atheists aren't absolutely sure of their atheism, and they're trying to put a few good-works notches in their belts, just in case.

I find it incredible that doctors who are intimately familiar with the awesomely complex structure of the human body can be atheists.

[The_Elucidator]

I find it incredible that doctors who are intimately familiar with the awesomely complex structure of the human body can be atheists.

Doc, you are not the first person that I have heard say that. My wife, in pursuit of her EMT/Nursing degree, has made mention that taking all the A & P classes along with Biology/Micro Biology has only strengthened her belief in God!

[Lazarus]

...I find it incredible that doctors who are intimately familiar with the awesomely complex structure of the human body can be atheists.Amazing isnt it, Bro... They see that amazing engineering everyday, and yet they persist in their disbelief...

[queue]

Just some more information for pondering. According to this (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12930.html) site at the American Medical Association, there are 884,974 doctors in 2004.

According to this (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2005/08/01/prsa0801.htm) 2005 article in the American Medical News, 76% of doctors believe in God (and 59% believe in a afterlife).

Using these numbers and assuming that 24% of doctors do not believe in God and that 50% of doctors are the religious described in the OP article (I dropped the 9% to be generous), this comes to 212,393.8 doctors are atheist, agnostic, or none and there are 442,487 religous doctors.

Using those numbers for doctors, 35% of 212,393.8 is 74,337.82 that work with the poor and 31% of 442,487 is 137,171 that work with the poor or almost twice as many and that is being very generous with the numbers that are used.

Of the technique used by the article (a survey), I would have prefered to have seen what percentage of doctors that work with the poor are religious, what percentage are not religious, what percentage of total doctors are religious, and what percentage of total doctors are not religious. I think this would have given more valid information (such as if 25% of doctors working with the poor are not religious but only 10% of doctors are not religious or 5% of doctors working with the poor are not religious but 24% of doctors are not religious). The information used for the article is already unreliable since it is derived from a survey of 1,144 participants and has all of the problems that sampling surveys have.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I think this survey is right on the money. Atheists are badass. They care more about anything than everybody. They are total care bears. In fact, their hearts are so heavy with caring their pusle can be heard outside their bodies as the sound of lumbering dinosaur steps like in Jurassic Park.

Now those shallow Christians, on the other hand, they are hypocritical hypocrits which makes them worse than just hypocrits because the hypocrisy starts to bend centripitally as it approaches zero on the Y axis.

Atheism is the new black. Everybody wants some of that high end cool of intellectual spiritual nihilsm. All the clubs downtown have it pasted on the walls. Club Caring. You can hear it a mile away.

[buzzthepug!]

According to a tidbit of info I heard on Bill O's radio show, charities would close if it weren't for religious people donating to them. This isn't what the link/article is about but it's related. I don't believe the article, either. Another way to look at it is that poor people tend to receive worse health care than either the middle or wealthy classes. Does that mean atheist physicians give crappy medical care to the poor?

[Rhino]

Too many factors left out of this report to take it seriously!Correct. If you look at the actual study, what was reported was not actually what they found.

RESULTS The response rate was 63%. Twenty-six percent of US physicians reported that their patient populations are considered underserved. Physicians who were more likely to report practice among the underserved included those who were highly spiritual (multivariate odds ratio [OR] = 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–2.7], those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine (OR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5), and those who strongly agreed that the family in which they were raised emphasized service to the poor (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0–2.7). Physicians who were more religious in general, as measured by intrinsic religiosity or frequency of attendance at religious services, were much more likely to conceive of the practice of medicine as a calling but not more likely to report practice among the underserved.

CONCLUSIONS Physicians who are more religious do not appear to disproportionately care for the underserved.http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353

It doesn't say that 'religious' doctors are less likely to care for the underserved. It says they aren't disproportionately more likely too.

With respect to religious characteristics, physicians who were more likely to practice in underserved communities included those with high spirituality, those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine, those with no religious affiliation, and those who grew up in families that strongly emphasized service to the poor. Physicians who were more religious in general (as measured by intrinsic religiosity or frequency of attendance at religious services) were not more likely to report care for the underserved, nor were those who viewed the practice of medicine as a calling.

As displayed in Table 3, these patterns of association were also found in analyses limited to the subpopulation of primary care physicians, although effect sizes and significance levels differed somewhat. Among the smaller subpopulation of family physician respondents (n = 158, data not shown), those who were highly spiritual were 4 times as likely as those with low spirituality to report practice among the underserved (45% vs 11%, P = .005), and those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine were twice as likely as those who disagreed (46% vs 22%, P = .04). No other associations were statistically significant.http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/reprint/5/4/353

The article originally linked above also says "...as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none." However, if you read the actual study, there was no such description given. The only place the researchers used the terms atheist, agnostic or none was when they asked for religious affiliation. Religion and affiliation are not the same thing. Also, affiliation and attendance at services were not factors used to determine "intrinsic religiosity". As usual, the news outlet chose to distort the data.

If you read table 3 in the study, you'll see that the incidence of caring for the underserved was actually:

Low intrinsic religiosity 27%
Moderate intrinsic religiosity 22%
High intrinsic religiosity 29%

Also......

Low spirituality 21%
Moderate spirituality 26%
High spirituality 32%

The atheists and biased news sources lose again. Game, set and match.

[Rhino]

The more I read this, the angrier I get. The researchers said flat out that the only two statistically significant asociations were that family physicians who were highly spiritual were 4 times more likely to report practice among the underserved, and those who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influenced their practice were twice as likely to report practice among the underserved. That's the polar opposite of what the original link reported. I find it difficult to believe that could be by accident.

[DeclinetoState]

Are you saying that Vidura Panditaratne was lying?

[Rhino]

Yep. Pretty much.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

The_Elucidator:
My wife, ...

:biggrin: The_Elucidatress?

[DesertFox]

Elucidatrix

[The_Elucidator]

You are both right... :biggrin:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:biggrin: Oh, my!

[BabyBeastie]

I find it incredible that doctors who are intimately familiar with the awesomely complex structure of the human body can be atheists.I don't. Doctors are also scientists. Some scientists are by nature amoral, even immoral. They seem to be able to explain how everything in the body works. They try to secularize everything. Yes or no?

[PrezLeefun]

You are both right... :biggrin:

Too much information.

[PrezLeefun]

I don't. Doctors are also scientists. Some scientists are by nature amoral, even immoral. They seem to be able to explain how everything in the body works. They try to secularize everything. Yes or no?

Well they sure do want to. For many who are in the business and study of science the subject itself appeals to the ego. Instead of believing God knows all things, and God can do all things; they think that they can know all things and do all things.