United Press International
Chicago – Jul 31 – A U.S. study found that religiously focused physicians don’t disproportionately care for poor and underserved patients.
The study — conducted by Drs. Farr Curlin, Lydia Dugdale, John Lantos and Marshall Chin at the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital — examined whether physicians’ self-reported religious characteristics and sense of calling in their work were associated with focusing their practice on underserved patients.
The researchers said they found physicians who were more likely to report practice among the underserved included those who were highly spiritual, those who strongly agreed their religious beliefs influenced their practice of medicine and those who strongly agreed the family in which they were raised 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 much more likely to conceive of the practice of medicine as a calling. However, the researchers said religious physicians were not more likely to provide services to the underserved.
The researchers concluded physicians who are more religious don’t disproportionately care for the underserved.
The study appears in the July-August issue of the journal Annals of Family Medicine.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted August 1, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I wouldn’t read too much into this. The single biggest factor influencing where physicians practice is where they went to school, and medical centers are more often located in larger cities and in neighborhoods that are not blighted with poverty and urban decay.
posted August 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm
It would only be a surprise if one thought religiosity corrrelated with service.
posted August 1, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Well now, if I’m reading this right, it sounds like the headline is a little misleading. The third and most of the fourth paragraph seem to imply that yes, those who spend their time treating the poor are more religious and spiritual; while then the last sentence of the fourth paragraph seems to turn that around all of a sudden. So, if I’m getting it right, it says that most of those who treat the poor are religious, but not all those who are religious treat the poor. But that still means that religion increases the chance of charity.
God bless.
posted August 2, 2007 at 9:22 am
Hello Joey,
I didn’t find this misleading myself. This storey points out that there is a difference between being Spiritual and being Religious. Thusly causing each group to approach theses situtations differently. Just because the more spiritual Dr. in the story happens to also believe in a religion doesn’t neccessarily mean that RELIGION leads to more charity which according to this story isn’t the case at all.
Just my two cents, your milage may vary.
Topaaz
posted August 2, 2007 at 10:47 am
Joey,
I think your reading of the article is correct. The problem is that the meaning which you gleaned should not be so hard to discover from the article. This article proves two things…
1 – They need to get better writers fo rthese pieces – and I doubt the B’net is the source of the problem. Wire service articles are often poorly written, so local journalists have to fill in the gaos and clarify the points.
B – This is further proof that it stinks to be poor.
posted August 2, 2007 at 11:27 am
Did anyone really think that religious doctors WERE any more likely than nonreligious to focus their practice on serving the poor and underserved? Nothing against religious doctors OR in favor of religion in my doctor. I just never got the impression that religious doctors were somehow more likely to sacrifice income for the opportunity to provide a service to the poor.
posted August 2, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The issue is more complex than that: I am a physician in Maryland and work for the DOD, my subcontractor benifites including malpractice only cover my medical practice for the goverment, if I wanted to work with the poor ( or start my owm practice for example), I would have to buy my owm policy at my own expense which would start at $5-$8,000 and go up to $20-$25,000 in 3-5 years. I’m just a GP and don’t have that kind of money the throw around. I would love to work a evening or weekend with poor but it is illegal to practice in Maryland without insurance coverage – any ideas??
posted August 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Dr Eltgroth,
Just a thought,
what about creating, or getting involved wiht a large non-profit agenct and arranging for some sort ofgroup malpractice insurance, with the understanding that you are working with people who cannot afford to pay the “Big Bucks”.
I applaud your interest and sympathesize with your concern. I realize that the poor folksneed as much protection as everyone else. But there does seem to be a need for some sort of accomodation. It is like the times we were part of a feed the street people system. The County told us we could not serve hot food because we were not a certified “Kitchen” – documentation that is expensive and requires more staffing than we could provide. So the street people wen twithout hot food even in the coldest months. Protected? yes. Cold? definitely. Hot Soup? You Bet! Sorry, we don’t have the authorizing certificate. It simply seems wrong – for all the best reasons, but still wrong.
More creativity is necessary!