Delicious LiveJournal Links for 6-28-2009

[andrewducker]

• Doctors want right to talk faith
  Ahem. NO!
  (tags: health religion christianity UK)
• What's so good about proportional representation?
  A researcher looks at what it does and doesn't produce, and finds it strangely convincing.
  (tags: elections pr voting statistics)

Comments

[randomchris.livejournal.com]

I think there should be clearer guidelines on the right to talk about faith with patients. At the moment, what we have appears to be basically a section 28 for Christianity; doctors are now so worried that they might be struck off for discussing their faith with a patient - even if the patient brings up the topic - that they're unwilling to do so. Spiritual well-being should be something that a doctor's able to discuss - because it has a massive impact on psychological health - and talking about faith is an important part of that. In order to do that, you've got to be able to mention your own views. Naturally, the doctor's religious tendencies should be much less important than the patient's, but it should be possible to talk about them without fear.

[andrewducker]

I'd be fine with a standard opening like "Do you have any faith that you'd like to talk about?" or even something that could be registered with the patient's details.

Offering to pray for me, on the other hand, without finding out my faith, is right out.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

I simply think it isn't the doctor's job to support people spiritually, and if they are doing that then I'd like them to do it in time that I'm not paying for.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Well... it is, or should arguably be, their job to support their patients emotionally and psychologically and also to respect their spiritual needs and wishes (generally relating to treatment refusal and the like). So there is perhaps the argument that if the patient seeks a spiritual connection or support from their physician (and the physician is able to provide it) then it's not a big deal.

But medical staff shouldn't be actively seeking out patients who need spiritual care. For one thing the NHS pays chaplins for that.

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Exactly, although I think there shouldn't a chaplaincy service paid for by the NHS either.

I'm all for doctors ensuring that spiritual needs are met if patients request it, but they should be doing that by enabling patients to make contact with their preacher/guru/personal trainer and not by becoming involved themselves on the NHS's time.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Yeah I do tend to think that the chapliancy service in itself is _already_ (thats done for emphasis yeah?) a duplication of other services (psychological care and the like).

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

My first referral link. I feel warm and fuzzy inside :D

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

We've had PR for quite a while (after switching from FPTP), and I'd say it's improved most everything about parliament and government. It can be cruel to third parties though, which results in the careful ones opting to support the ruling party without actually being in government. So there's been no sign of the tail wagging the dog.

I'm unsure how you'd measure whether there's less corruption in government, but it is obvious some vested interests definitely don't like PR, going by editorials and such. We have had a list MP resign recently (after losing the confidence of the PM), which just meant another list member took their place. Under FPTP that would've resulted in a bi-election, and a government may not have been as ready to kick a member out when it would cause a bi-election. So that's one possible way they may be less corrupt, though obviously it doesn't apply to members with seats.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

That does seem a downside to PR if the PM can force individuals with whom he/she disagrees to resign and simply replace them with someone else of their choosing.

[andrewducker]

If it's list-based then when someone resigns from party X then another member of party X is appointed. If it's the PM's party then they'll get to choose the replacement (if that's how their party does it). If it's the opposition party then they get to do it.

Of course, that's with list-based stuff. With STV you'd simply hold a by-election in that constituency.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The new MP is taken from the highest one on the party's list who's not already in parliament, (assuming they still want the job, I guess). So not quite just anyone of the PM's choosing.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it still seems a worrying concentration of power to me.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The main party in power is much more accountable under PR than under FPTP. For starters, you can't have a party in power with total control unless they receive more than 50% of the popular vote. That's not happened for a while here, or in the UK. Yet under FPTP coalitions are rarely needed unless it's a very close race between the two major parties.

Going by that UK chart, it seems the Labour Party received about 35% of the popular vote. Or looked at another way, 65% of the voting public did NOT want them in power. That's the concentration of power you should be worried about.

[heyokish.livejournal.com]

Having had more than one occasion in hospital where I have been obnoxiously prayed for and at, and, when objecting, told that there was no point and no hope to my life without Jesus...I'm in an absolute froth about this.

You are already asked about religion when you're in hospital...if you have a particular faith, if you want a chaplain or any other religious type to come and visit you. If you ask, they'll find you someone to do all the spiritual handholding you want. But, it's not the job of medical staff, and it shouldn't be.