It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Religion Rule the Medical Industry?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
When studying past medical dictates and journal articles, it becomes apparent that religion has greatly influenced medical policies. Could this still be true today? Is it possible that as medical care changes, religion will step in to influence thought in a more judgemental direction?

Using the platform of circumcision as an example, look how religion has brought medicine under its dictates.





There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts.

[Angel Money. Treatment Of Disease In Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887:421.]




Here, we have physicians declaring that masturbation is a manifestation of a child having a defective brain. Even if this were so, would relieving the symptom of masturbation correct the "brain deficit"?

Since the report concludes that it is necessary to make the genitals sore so that pain results from masturbation, it promotes circumcision as a medical punishment.

And because these words came from "religious and medical authorities" parents voluntarily subjected their young male children to these dictates.

What clinical evidence did the medical profession ever have to base the claim of masterbation being a symptom of defective brain?

Was the medical profession being coerced in some way to uphold religious dictates?
Or did the religious view of physicians shape the policies of medicine, preventing them from being "independent thinkers" and weighing evidence?





A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment...

[John Harvey Kellogg. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. 1888:295.]




The doctorly advice seems cruel and malicious in advising a surgeon to conduct a painful operation without something to deaden the pain. It is appalling that the doctor admits the purpose of this is to make a lasting impression of circumcision as a punishment. What ever happened to "first do no harm"? How could a physician take the Hippocratic oath and yet turn around and do as advised here?






In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensibility of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function of the organ or to constitute an objection...It is well authenticated that the foreskin...is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children... I conclude that the foreskin is detrimental to health, and that circumcision is a wise measure of hygiene.

[Jefferson C. Crossland. The Hygiene of Circumcision. New York Medical Journal 1891;53:484-485]




Circumcision as a preventative to veneral viruses? How would a physician answer to this today? Why were these people allowed to make such speculations without upholding evidence?

"Foreskin is detrimental to health"? OK, sure, you will say 'that was a century ago." Still, is there any excuse for such blatant lack of reasoning? Were physicians attempting to find some justification to obey old testament religious dictates?

Would any physician ever thought to mutilate the human body if religion had not called for it?


Can we trust the medical profession today? Do practices still reflect the dictates of religion? Will ancient cruelties and superstitions guide us into the new millenium as well?




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Religion and Medicine are not tied. Remember "religion" refers to many religions not just the few that you choose to talk about.
Medicine back then more specifically psychiatry was very cruel. The circumcision thing is still being researched i think it is more of a culture thing than a religious thing. The idea that circumcision can prevent VD is still being resarched with mixed findings.
www.cbsnews.com...

But religion used to be tied to medicine the old mental hospitals were all run by the church and the things they did to people (and still do in some cases) would not be even allowed on POWs



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Well my brain is defective I guess, along with 80+ percent of the worlds population.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I'd have to agree and say religion in the past played deciding factor in the Medical Industry. Religion was above everything else. Doctors followed religious orders or were prosecuted like everyone else.

In the present, I think a majority of doctors have the brains to not take the anything with no facts, coming from a religious mouth that was not published as a medical paper seriously. I think we can trust them today, unless government run healthcare gets interfered with by religion.

What religion does do is force the government, which is under their control, to decide which areas of research can and can't be done in the medical field. I am talking stem cell, embryonic, cloning, and even some postmortem research. All are blocked to some degree because of some sort of religious belief that has no scientifical backing.

Circumcisions actually do keep your penis clean and healthy. Cutting it off for masturbating is just religious absurdity at its finest. Circumcisions improve overall genital health by preventing Phimosis, Paraphimosis, Balanitis, it corrects Frenulum Breve, and it also increases staying power.


Circumcision improves genital health. Research has shown that circumcised boys suffer fewer urinary tract infections than uncircumcised boys by a factor of 10. There is also clear evidence that circumcision makes a man slightly less susceptible to catching the AIDS virus. It is also well known that cervical and penile cancer are reduced by circumcision. Urologists have observed that a much higher percentage of uncircumcised men need their professional attention in old age.

www.circinfo.com...

I don't know who did that research, but I presume it was in the form of a medical paper and is generally accepted by doctors.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea


[Angel Money. Treatment Of Disease In Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887:421.]
[John Harvey Kellogg. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. 1888:295.]
[Jefferson C. Crossland. The Hygiene of Circumcision. New York Medical Journal 1891;53:484-485]


Can we trust the medical profession today? Do practices still reflect the dictates of religion? Will ancient cruelties and superstitions guide us into the new millenium as well?


Could you have picked any examples from the 20th Century to plead your case?


As for the question, I would suggest the Medical Profession and Associate Agencies have no affilitations which would place them under the Rule or Regulation of a Religious Organization.

Examples of what I mean,
Viagra +Provestra = Mifeprex

And then there is the other aspect, of Treatment vs Cure.

The Medical Profession bases it's interests in Treating an Ailment apposed to offering a Cure, and the way the whole profession is now structured, can you blame them?

This ensures two things.

The Patient is afforded the opportunity to have an extended lifespan, in some measure, all the while it is also constructed to ensure the Patient secures the opportunity to have an extended lifespan based upon his wallet and it's contents.

Afterall, what is MORE beneficial?


Having the Doctors Benefit?

Having the Prescription Companies Benefit?

Having the Stock Holders Benefit?


or

Having the Patient Benefit?


That's a no brainer isn't it. It would be outright selfish if the Patient was placed first.


It's either efforts to cure problems,
vs ,
the conventional raping of the life savings from these individuals.

What do you think the Medical Profession and it's Affiliated Associate Firms should be doing?


Ciao

Shane



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join