And this is relevant to my teaching of???????Political Behavior Analysis maybe? Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 peter...@svsu.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> Cc: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:03:51 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [tips] When Medicine and Faith Clash Some of you may be aware that there is a major battle going on in the U.S. Congress over health insurance, who should it cover, what it should cover, and how to keep the insurance companies wealthy while bleeding the federal government dry (that last bit is just a joke). The process of making law has been likened to making suasage (i.e., the result might be tasty but you really don't want to know what they put in it), with amendments added to bills to either correct definiciencies or remove existing protections (or just to be a pain in the ass of someone). Consider the following blog entry in the Washington Post titled "Health Funding for Science, Not Faith", see: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2009/09/health_funding_for_evidence_not_faith.html?hpid=talkbox1 or http://tinyurl.com/y8d3y6w The article lists amendments proposed for the Baucus Health Care Bill (which recently passed in the finance committe with the support of one Republican Olympia Snow). Consider: |First is the bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators |Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Kerry (D-Mass.). Under |current law, religious people who object to medical care |may have some "spiritual care" covered by Medicare and |Medicaid, including reimbursement for payments that Christian |Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them |when they are ill. Numerous children have died while receiving |this "spiritual care," when modern science could easily have |saved their lives. And |We also oppose an amendment by Senator Mike Enzi |(R-Wyoming), which would allow doctors to deny patients |any care or information that violates the doctor's religious |beliefs. This violation of medical ethics is labeled with the |Orwellian term "Conscience Clause." This amendment |cruelly places the religious beliefs of practitioners such as |pharmacists above the medical needs of patients. And |Lastly, we object to an amendment by Senator Orrin |Hatch (R-Utah), requesting that funding for Title V |abstinence-only-until-marriage programs be restored. |Congress has already wasted $1.5 billion on such programs |since 1996, despite the fact that there is no evidence that |abstinence-only programs have been effective in stopping |or even delaying teen sex. Given these amendments to only one of the bills (I believe that there are two in the U.S. senate and four in the house of representatives) I suggest that it might be worthwhile for people, especially U.S. citizens, to be aware of what is in the ultimate health care bill. Unless, of course, you don't mind paying for someone else religious beliefs with your health plan. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
