医疗服务提供者是否应该参与宗教讨论?

Q3 Medicine
Edmund G Howe
{"title":"医疗服务提供者是否应该参与宗教讨论?","authors":"Edmund G Howe","doi":"10.1086/732143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractPatients' spiritual views and, more generally, the meaning they feel in their lives is often, if not always, most important to them, especially when they have serious illness. Yet there are no standard requirements for providers to explore with patients their spiritual needs. Providers' views regarding their both taking initiatives to explore with patients needs and then to discuss with them their religious concerns if they want this vary widely. This piece explores, then, the extent to which providers should take these initiatives and, if they have this interest, whether as providers they should carry on these discussions or refer these patients, always, to clergy persons, as some providers adamantly advocate because they have expertise in this area that providers lack. This piece goes on to discuss whether providers believe they should have these discussions even when their patients' beliefs differ greatly from their own. In exploring this question, examples involving patients with Muslim, Hindu, and Christian beliefs are considered. Beliefs reported by some people from Germany and Israel regarding physician-assisted dying also are reported and compared, illustrating that patients' and people's beliefs cannot be reliably just inferred. Practical approaches, finally, are suggested.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"35 4","pages":"217-223"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Providers Engage in Religious Discussions, and If They Should, Then with Whom?\",\"authors\":\"Edmund G Howe\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/732143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>AbstractPatients' spiritual views and, more generally, the meaning they feel in their lives is often, if not always, most important to them, especially when they have serious illness. Yet there are no standard requirements for providers to explore with patients their spiritual needs. Providers' views regarding their both taking initiatives to explore with patients needs and then to discuss with them their religious concerns if they want this vary widely. This piece explores, then, the extent to which providers should take these initiatives and, if they have this interest, whether as providers they should carry on these discussions or refer these patients, always, to clergy persons, as some providers adamantly advocate because they have expertise in this area that providers lack. This piece goes on to discuss whether providers believe they should have these discussions even when their patients' beliefs differ greatly from their own. In exploring this question, examples involving patients with Muslim, Hindu, and Christian beliefs are considered. Beliefs reported by some people from Germany and Israel regarding physician-assisted dying also are reported and compared, illustrating that patients' and people's beliefs cannot be reliably just inferred. Practical approaches, finally, are suggested.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"35 4\",\"pages\":\"217-223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/732143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/732143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要病人的精神观点,更广义地说,他们所感受到的生命意义,对他们来说即使不总是,也往往是最重要的,尤其是在他们身患重病的时候。然而,目前并没有对医疗服务提供者提出与患者探讨其精神需求的标准要求。对于医疗服务提供者是否主动与病人探讨他们的需求,并在病人愿意的情况下与他们讨论他们的宗教问题,他们的看法大相径庭。因此,本文探讨了服务提供者应在多大程度上采取这些主动行动,以及如果他们有这种兴趣,作为服务提供者,他们是否应该进行这些讨论,或者像一些服务提供者坚决主张的那样,总是将这些病人转介给神职人员,因为他们在这方面拥有服务提供者所缺乏的专业知识。这篇文章接着讨论了医疗服务提供者是否认为,即使病人的信仰与自己有很大的不同,他们也应该进行这些讨论。在探讨这个问题时,我们考虑了穆斯林、印度教和基督教信仰病人的例子。此外,还对德国和以色列的一些人报告的关于医生协助死亡的信仰进行了报告和比较,说明病人和人们的信仰不能仅靠可靠的推断。最后还提出了一些实用的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Providers Engage in Religious Discussions, and If They Should, Then with Whom?

AbstractPatients' spiritual views and, more generally, the meaning they feel in their lives is often, if not always, most important to them, especially when they have serious illness. Yet there are no standard requirements for providers to explore with patients their spiritual needs. Providers' views regarding their both taking initiatives to explore with patients needs and then to discuss with them their religious concerns if they want this vary widely. This piece explores, then, the extent to which providers should take these initiatives and, if they have this interest, whether as providers they should carry on these discussions or refer these patients, always, to clergy persons, as some providers adamantly advocate because they have expertise in this area that providers lack. This piece goes on to discuss whether providers believe they should have these discussions even when their patients' beliefs differ greatly from their own. In exploring this question, examples involving patients with Muslim, Hindu, and Christian beliefs are considered. Beliefs reported by some people from Germany and Israel regarding physician-assisted dying also are reported and compared, illustrating that patients' and people's beliefs cannot be reliably just inferred. Practical approaches, finally, are suggested.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信