Posts by whereami

2

Rationing Organs for Religious Refuseniks

by whereami in

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/02/rationing-organs-for-religious-refuseniks/.

rationing organs for religious refuseniksfebruary 27, 2013 by adam lee 18 comments.

since new medical advances always catch my attention, i read with interest this article about "bloodless" lung transplants being pioneered at some hospitals - that is, salvaging and re-infusing the patient's own blood, rather than relying on transfusions from donors.

whereami

Sorry about the double post on basicly the same article. It's been awhile.

3

Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusion- Article

by whereami in

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/jehovahs-witnesses-and-blood-transfusion/.

jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusioni had forgotten that the jehovah's witnesses (jw) forbid blood transfusions, but this article in last sunday's new york times reminded me.

it's about physicians who are performing bloodless operations to accommodate the jws who can't receive blood.. the piece starts with the tale of rebecca tomczak, a jw who needed a lung transplant because her own lungs had been destroyed by the disease sarcoidosis.

whereami

Sorry about the double post on basicly the same article. It's been awhile.

3

Jehovahs Witnesses and blood transfusion- Article

by whereami in

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/jehovahs-witnesses-and-blood-transfusion/.

jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusioni had forgotten that the jehovah's witnesses (jw) forbid blood transfusions, but this article in last sunday's new york times reminded me.

it's about physicians who are performing bloodless operations to accommodate the jws who can't receive blood.. the piece starts with the tale of rebecca tomczak, a jw who needed a lung transplant because her own lungs had been destroyed by the disease sarcoidosis.

whereami

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/jehovahs-witnesses-and-blood-transfusion/

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion

I had forgotten that the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) forbid blood transfusions, but this article in last Sunday's New York Times reminded me. It's about physicians who are performing bloodless operations to accommodate the JWs who can't receive blood.

The piece starts with the tale of Rebecca Tomczak, a JW who needed a lung transplant because her own lungs had been destroyed by the disease sarcoidosis. After shopping around, she finally found a hospital that would operate on her without giving her extra blood.

The article discusses the refusal of JWs to accept blood, a stand that is, of course, based on scripture:

The reason: Ms. Tomczak, who was baptized at age 12 as a Jehovah's Witness, insisted for religious reasons that her transplant be performed without a blood transfusion. The Witnesses believe that Scripture prohibits the transfusion of blood, even one's own, at the risk of forfeiting eternal life.
. . .in April, on a trip to the South Carolina coast, she found that she was too breathless to join her frolicking grandchildren on the beach. Tethered to an oxygen tank, she watched from the boardwalk, growing sad and angry and then determined to reclaim her health.
"I wanted to be around and be a part of their lives," Ms. Tomczak recalled, dabbing at tears.
She knew there was danger in refusing to take blood. But she thought the greater peril would come from offending God.
"I know," she said, "that if I did anything that violates Jehovah's law, I would not make it into the new system, where he's going to make earth into a paradise. I know there are risks. But I think I am covered."
. . . Founded in the late 19th century and best known for door-to-door evangelism, the Jehovah's Witnesses first published a position on transfusions in 1945, as the blood donation system expanded after World War II. It grew out of edicts in both the Old and New Testaments that forbid the consumption of blood, which is revered as a life source. The church, based in Brooklyn, takes the position that there is no distinction between oral consumption and intravenous feeding.
The Witnesses' hard line does have its soft spots. The church declared in 2000 that it was up to members to decide whether to accept blood fractions like clotting factors that are extracted from plasma. It has also left to individual conscience whether to accept synthetic proteins that stimulate red cell production or to use mechanical techniques that conserve and salvage blood.

Here's the scripture from Wikipeda (which has a long article about the practice), and the doctrine based on it. If you get a transfusion as a JW, you get shunned (unless you "repent"):

Based on various biblical texts, such as Genesis 9:4 , Leviticus 17:10 , and Acts 15:29 , they believe:
Blood represents life and is sacred to God. After it has been removed from a creature, the only use of blood that God has authorized is for the atonement of sins.When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.
Blood must not be eaten or transfused, even in the case of a medical emergency.
Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of, except for autologous blood transfusions considered part of a "current therapy".
A baptized Witness who unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion is deemed to have disassociated himself from the religion by abandoning its doctrines and is subsequently subject to organized shunning by other members.

Here are the sections from Acts 15 (the passages cited most often by JWs to support their position) are used to prohibit transfusion (all passages below from King James Version):

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
. . . 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Leviticus 17:10:

And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Genesis 9:4

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

There's one upside to all this: because of the cost of blood, and rare negative effects of transfusion, surgeons are developing ways to operate without the need for extra blood. The Times reports:

The latest government data show that one of every 400 units transfused is associated with an adverse event like an allergic reaction, circulatory overload or sepsis [JAC: note that those reactions are probably not always fatal]. Even so, the share of hospital procedures that include a transfusion, usually of two or three units, has doubled in 12 years, to one in 10.
Yet at dozens of hospitals with programs that cater to Jehovah's Witnesses, a million-patient market in the United States, researchers have found that surgical patients typically do just fine without transfusions.
"They are surviving things that on paper were not expected to go well at all," said Sherri J. Ozawa, a nurse who directs the long-established bloodless medicine program at Englewood Hospital in New Jersey.
The economy is also helping the blood management movement. Processing and transfusing a single unit of blood can cost as much as $1,200, and many hospitals are trying to cut back.

Well, that's the good part, I suppose, but the bad part is this:

Unlike other patients, Ms. Tomczak would have no backstop. Explicit in her understanding with Dr. Scheinin was that if something went terribly wrong, he would allow her to bleed to death. He had watched Witness patients die before, with a lifesaving elixir at hand.

In addition, as the National Post reports, Jehovah's Witnesses have fought to keep their children from getting transfusions (they lose in Canada; I'm not sure about elsewhere), but many members have died because of this policy. The Independent recounts one in a story from last year called "Lawyers tell of agonizing scenes as doctors forced to let Jehovah's Witness, who wanted to live, die.:

Robert Tobin, a partner in the London law firm Kennedy's, was called in by an unnamed NHS Trust when the man, a Jehovah's Witness who was critically ill with sickle cell anaemia, refused a blood transfusion which could have saved his life.
Over three weeks the man gradually deteriorated as the crisis progressed, before eventually dying.
"Medical staff were understandably upset at seeing a patient deteriorate before their eyes knowing a simple procedure could have been provided that would have saved his life," Mr Tobin said.
The man's mother, also a Jehovah's Witness, was at her son's bedside, and an elder from the man's church also attended. The trust was concerned that they were unduly influencing him but a doctor from a neighbouring trust who was called in to assess him said he had full capacity and was making the decision on his own.

Yes, there are down sides to transfusion, but shouldn't people have the option of weighing the risk of bleeding to death against the 1/400 chance of an adverse reaction per unit of blood? After all, at present not all surgeries can be "bloodless", and if you die from refusing blood you leave behind grieving family and friends-all in service of a bizarre interpretation of a work of fiction.

2

Rationing Organs for Religious Refuseniks

by whereami in

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/02/rationing-organs-for-religious-refuseniks/.

rationing organs for religious refuseniksfebruary 27, 2013 by adam lee 18 comments.

since new medical advances always catch my attention, i read with interest this article about "bloodless" lung transplants being pioneered at some hospitals - that is, salvaging and re-infusing the patient's own blood, rather than relying on transfusions from donors.

whereami

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2013/02/rationing-organs-for-religious-refuseniks/

Rationing Organs for Religious Refuseniks

February 27, 2013 By Adam Lee 18 Comments

Since new medical advances always catch my attention, I read with interest this article about "bloodless" lung transplants being pioneered at some hospitals - that is, salvaging and re-infusing the patient's own blood, rather than relying on transfusions from donors. It's being sold as a cost-saving technique and a way to lessen the risk of allergic reactions or other rare side effects, plus it conserves donated blood so that more is available for emergencies. But the technique was developed for a different reason, which I bet you can guess:

Ms. Tomczak, who was baptized at age 12 as a Jehovah's Witness, insisted for religious reasons that her transplant be performed without a blood transfusion. The Witnesses believe that Scripture prohibits the transfusion of blood, even one's own, at the risk of forfeiting eternal life.

I must be jaded, because the idea of a Jehovah's Witness refusing blood and dying because of it doesn't shock me any more. But this story had a gut-wrenching twist: Rebecca Tomczak, the Witness who's the subject of the article, was adamant that she wanted the lung transplant, but not a blood transfusion, even at the cost of her own life. She forced her surgeon to agree that if there was a disaster, if she started to hemorrhage on the operating table, he had to stand back and let her die:

Unlike other patients, Ms. Tomczak would have no backstop. Explicit in her understanding with Dr. Scheinin was that if something went terribly wrong, he would allow her to bleed to death. He had watched Witness patients die before, with a lifesaving elixir at hand.

In most cases, this would be a tragedy, but not an outrage. People have the autonomy to consent or refuse treatment as they wish, and if an adult of sound mind wants to throw their life away, that's their choice to make. But this isn't just any surgery; this is a transplant, which brings a very different set of criteria into the picture.

I don't want to sound uncompassionate, because I want all people to live and to flourish regardless of their religious beliefs. But organ transplants are a triage situation, which means we have to make coldly logical choices. Maybe in a few decades, when tissue engineering is more advanced and we can manufacture new lungs or hearts on demand, this won't be an issue. But for the foreseeable future, human organs are a scarce and precious resource, and that means that when one becomes available for transplant, priority has to be given to people who have the best chance to survive. Giving an organ to someone who's likely to die anyway not only means their death, but the death of another person who might have lived if they'd gotten it instead.

And the "likely to die anyway" criterion weighs against Jehovah's Witnesses who insist that if they start bleeding to death, their doctor is forbidden to intervene. By refusing potentially lifesaving care in the event of an emergency, they make themselves poor candidates for transplant surgery. (Just the same way, I'd argue that a person with a history of not following doctors' orders is also a poor candidate for a transplant, since it's less likely that they'll stick to the regimen of anti-rejection drugs.)

I'm not saying that the medical profession doesn't recognize this. As the article says, hardly any surgeons will even consider performing a bloodless transplant, and Dr. Scheinin, one of the few who will, carefully screens patients for those with the fewest risk factors. Combined with the blood refusal, JWs who are in poor health will probably exclude themselves. But even for those whose prognosis is good, it does strike me as unfair that people who willfully reject lifesaving care for irrational reasons should get to be in line ahead of people who want to live and are willing to follow their doctors' orders. What do you think - should a person's stated willingness to accept medical intervention (or their stated consent or refusal to donate themselves) be a factor in deciding their priority for receiving organ transplants?

Image: The May 1994 issue of Awake!, the Watchtower's magazine, which was devoted to celebrating children who died after refusing blood transfusion. Yes, really. Via.

Study: Atheists more driven by compassion than highly religious people

by whereami in

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/religious-compassion-atheists-agnostics_n_1468006.html.

highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers .

whereami

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/religious-compassion-atheists-agnostics_n_1468006.html

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

By Yasmin Anwar, Media Relations | April 30, 2012

“Love thy neighbor” is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.

Study finds highly religious people are less motivated by compassion to show generosity than are non-believers

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.

While the study examined the link between religion, compassion and generosity, it did not directly examine the reasons for why highly religious people are less compelled by compassion to help others. However, researchers hypothesize that deeply religious people may be more strongly guided by a sense of moral obligation than their more non-religious counterparts.

“We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior,” said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley.

Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

“I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies,” Saslow said.

In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them” were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.

When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: “These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals,” the study found.

In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 “lab dollars” and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger.

“The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity,” Willer said. “But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants.”

In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount.

Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.

“Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people,” Willer said.

In addition to Saslow and Willer, other co-authors of the study are UC Berkeley psychologists Dacher Keltner, Matthew Feinberg and Paul Piff; Katharine Clark at the University of Colorado, Boulder; and Sarina Saturn at Oregon State University.

12

Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds.

by whereami in

thinking can undermine religious faith, study findsthose who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.

(uriel sinai / getty images / april 26, 2012).

by amina khan, los angeles times.

whereami

Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds

Those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.

Those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude. (Uriel Sinai / Getty Images / April 26, 2012)

By Amina Khan, Los Angeles Times

April 26, 2012, 9:05 p.m.

Scientists have revealed one of the reasons why some folks are less religious than others: They think more analytically, rather than going with their gut. And thinking analytically can cause religious belief to wane - for skeptics and true believers alike.

The study, published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, indicates that belief may be a more malleable feature of the human psyche than those of strong faith may think.

The cognitive origins of belief - and disbelief - traditionally haven't been explored with academic rigor, said lead author Will Gervais, a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

"There's been a long-standing intellectual tradition of treating science as one thing and religion as separate, and never the twain shall meet," he said. But in recent years, he added, there has been a push "to understand religion and why our species has the capacity for religion."

According to one theory of human thinking, the brain processes information using two systems. The first relies on mental shortcuts by using intuitive responses - a gut instinct, if you will - to quickly arrive at a conclusion. The other employs deliberative analysis, which uses reason to arrive at a conclusion.

Both systems are useful and can run in parallel, the theory goes. But when called upon, analytic thinking can override intuition.

Studies suggest that religious beliefs are rooted in this intuitive processing, Gervais said. So, he wondered, would thinking analytically undermine religious belief as it overrides intuitive thought?

To find out, his research team had college students perform three thinking tasks, each with an intuitive (incorrect) answer and an analytic (correct) answer.

For example, students were asked this question: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer - 10 cents - would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

After answering three of these questions, the students were asked to rate a series of statements on belief, including, "In my life I feel the presence of the Divine," and "I just don't understand religion." Students who answered the three questions correctly - and presumably did a better job of engaging their analytical skills - were more likely to score lower on the belief scales.

To tease out whether analytic thinking was actually causing belief to decrease, the researchers performed a series of additional experiments.

First, students were randomly assigned to look at images of Auguste Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker," or of the ancient Greek statue of a discus thrower, "Discobolus." Those who viewed "The Thinker" were prompted to think more analytically and expressed less belief in God - they scored an average of 41.42 on a 100-point scale, compared with an average of 61.55 for the group that viewed the discus thrower, according to the study.

Two additional experiments used word games rather than images. In one case, participants were asked to arrange a series of words into a sentence. Some were given neutral words and others were presented with trigger words such as "think," "reason" and "analyze" to prime them to think more analytically. And indeed, those who got the "thinking" words expressed less religiosity on a 10-to-70 scale: They ranked themselves at 34.39, on average, while those in the control group averaged 40.16.

In the final experiment, students in the control group read text in a clear, legible font, while those in the other group were forced to squint at a font that was hard to read, a chore that has been shown to trigger analytic thinking. Sure enough, those who read the less legible font rated their belief in supernatural agents at 10.40 on a 3-to-21 scale, compared with 12.16 for those who read the clear font.

So does this mean that religious faith can be undermined with just a little extra mental effort? Not really, said Nicholas Epley, a social psychologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved in the study. But it does show that belief isn't set in stone, but can respond to a person's context.

"There's an illusion that our brains are more static than they actually are," he said. "We have fundamental beliefs and values that we hold, and those things seem sticky, constant. But it's easier to get movement on something fundamental."

As for whether this should alarm the layperson, Epley shrugged. "Even deeply religious people will point out they have had moments of doubt," he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story

EARTH NIGHT SEEN FROM SPACE- Spectacular Video

by whereami in

jw
friends

i love this stuff.. enjoy: http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-night-from-space-vid-120420.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hwz5lte_i4c.

the sequences in the video are stitched together from photographs taken by the expedition 30 crew aboard iss and show the following (a tag appears as well on the lower left of the screen during the video):.

whereami

I love this stuff.

Enjoy: http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-night-from-space-vid-120420.html#mkcpgn=fbsci1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hWz5ltE_I4c

The sequences in the video are stitched together from photographs taken by the Expedition 30 crew aboard ISS and show the following (a tag appears as well on the lower left of the screen during the video):

:01 -- Stars over southern United States

:08 -- US west coast to Canada

:21 -- Central Europe to the Middle East

:36 -- Aurora Australis over the Indian Ocean

:54 -- Storms over Africa

1:08 -- Central United States

1:20 -- Midwest United States

1:33 -- United Kingdom to Baltic Sea

1:46 -- Moonset

1:55 -- Northern United States to Eastern Canada

2:12 -- Aurora Australis over the Indian Ocean

2:32 -- Comet Lovejoy

2:53 -- Aurora Borealis over Hudson Bay

3:06 -- United Kingdom to Central Europe

6

Psychiatric drugs to enhance conformity to religious norms, and conscientious objection

by whereami in

i hope this doesn't give the wts any ideas!!!.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/04/psychiatric-drugs-to-enhance-conformity-to-religious-norms-and-conscientious-objection/ .

psychiatric drugs to enhance conformity to religious norms, and conscientious objectionpublished april 10, 2012 | by katrien devolder.

whereami

I hope this doesn't give the WTS any ideas!!!

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/04/psychiatric-drugs-to-enhance-conformity-to-religious-norms-and-conscientious-objection/

Psychiatric drugs to enhance conformity to religious norms, and conscientious objection

Published April 10, 2012 | By Katrien Devolder

An article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports on the (alleged) frequent use of psychiatric drugs within the Haredi community, at the request of the religious leaders, in order to help members conform with religious norms. Haredi Judaism is the most conservative form of Orthodox Judaism. It is sometimes referred to by outsiders as ultra-Orthodox. Haredim typically live in communities that have limited contact with the outside world. Their lives revolve around Torah study, prayer and family.

In December 2011, the Israel Psychiatric Association held a symposium entitled "The Haredi Community as a Consumer of Mental-Health Services". One of the speakers was Professor Omer Bonne, director of the psychiatry department at Hadassah University Hospital. Professor Bonne is claimed to have said that sometimes yeshiva students (yeshiva is a religious school) and married men should be given antidepressants even if they do not suffer from depression, because these drugs also suppress sex drive.

Homosexuality and masturbation (referred to by Haredim as 'compulsiveness in sex') is not accepted by Haredim. Sex is not something that is to be enjoyed. (In the Gur sect within Haredi Judaism it is strictly prohibited to enjoy sex.)

Professor Bonne's justification for providing the antidepressants to Haredim is that this helps to avoid "destructive conflicts that would make students depressed". The medication "enables them to preserve their place, image and dignity within the system, to continue to maintain proper family and social relations, and to find a match and raise a family.

A first question that arises is whether, from a religious point of view, medication is an acceptable, or the best means for complying with religious norms. One may think that what matters most from a religious perspective is one's strength to resist temptation rather than living in accordance with religious norms without there being anything to resist. If this is so, then this counts against using drugs as a means to conform. However, religious people already use 'tricks' to resist temptation, such as seeking distraction whenever 'inappropriate' sexual urges arise or having members of the opposite sex wear unrevealing dress. One question then is whether the use of a pill is morally different from these non-biomedical tricks. It seems not. Also, it may be that some people can only conform to religious norms by using medication; if one doesn't have the strength to resist temptation, maybe taking the pill is the next best option.

A second question that arises is whether psychiatrists should provide such 'treatments' if requested by the patient. The answer will depend on what role one ascribes to psychiatrists, and medical doctors in general. One view is that medical doctors should provide any medical services the patient demands, as long as these are legal and beneficial. Providing Haredim with antidepressants is legal. Is it beneficial for the 'patient'? This is controversial. Perhaps the drugs could indirectly reduce depression by enabling the patient to think, feel and act in accordance with the expected norms in his community. However, antidepressants have serious side-effects and it is not clear that these are outweighed by the advantages of the drug (if there are any advantages at all). Also, perhaps having a good sex life is good for you, and the Haredim are mistaken to think otherwise.

But suppose there were safe drugs that reduced sexual desire. Should psychiatrists offer them to Haredim (or other religious groups with similar values) upon request? Since such treatment would be legal, and would potentially be beneficial to the individual 'patient', it seems that the psychiatrist should provide the drugs.

Perhaps one could say that helping people adhere to religious norms falls outside of the psychiatrist's sphere of duty, and that, as a consequence, psychiatrists do not have to provide such 'treatment' even if requested by the patient. However, the aim of the drug could be described in several ways: to help maintain the Haredi community, or to increase people's wellbeing, for example, by increasing their authenticity, or by reducing anxiety and depression. The latter clearly falls within the professional responsibility of psychiatrists.

So should a psychiatrist then provide such treatment? Many psychiatrists may feel uncomfortable at this thought.

Could the psychiatrist refuse to provide the treatment as a form of conscientious objection? Is it permissible for a psychiatrist to refuse providing a legal treatment that may be beneficial for the patient on the ground that she strongly objects to the values she would thereby promote? According to Savulescu (2006), "values and conscience ... should influence discussion on what kind of health system to deliver. But they should not influence the care an individual doctor offers to his or her patient. The door to "value-driven medicine" is a door to a Pandora's box of idiosyncratic, bigoted, discriminatory medicine." (p. 297).Following this reasoning, it seems that a psychiatrist has no ground for conscientious objection and should provide the treatment to Haredim. But this seems intuitively incorrect. Intuitively, it seems that individual psychiatrists should be able refuse treatment because they do not want to be complicit in maintaining religious norms that they profoundly disagree with.

Does this mean that psychiatrists work should be value driven after all?

Conscientious objection is typically discussed in a context of objections to provide abortion services, contraceptives, terminal sedation to dying patients, or pediatricians who object to providing the HPV vaccine to young female patients in the belief that it will encourage underage and unmarried sex. It is, however, interesting to think about conscientious objection where intuitively we feel the practice, though legal and possibly in the interest of the individual patient, is nevertheless morally objectionable because it sustains morally objectionable religious values.

3

The lives less lived: Sons & daughters of perdition- EXCELLENT article.

by whereami in

the lives less lived: sons & daughters of perdition --http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-03-11-the-lives-less-lived-sons-daughters-of-perdition.

for people who have been indoctrinated into fundamentalist faiths from an early age, losing their religion can feel a lot like losing their minds.

the experience brings grief, anger, depression, social rupture, alienation and a loss of meaning for many.

whereami

The lives less lived: Sons & daughters of perdition --http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-03-11-the-lives-less-lived-sons-daughters-of-perdition

For people who have been indoctrinated into fundamentalist faiths from an early age, losing their religion can feel a lot like losing their minds. The experience brings grief, anger, depression, social rupture, alienation and a loss of meaning for many. Despite this, society for the most part refuses to acknowledge that religions can be harmful, and the medical fraternity is unlikely to recognise Religious Trauma Syndrome as a legitimate diagnosis. By MANDY DE WAAL.

"Though the loss of my Christian faith was psychologically and emotionally and I'd say spiritually devastating... I think one of the most devastating things really for me, or anybody, when you no longer consider yourself a Christian, and you know you've have backslidden and become that apostate, and that unbeliever, is the loss of community. That's a huge benefit to being involved within the Christian system, is the support. Human contact by people who are doing everything that they can to care about you. Outside of Christendom, outside of your church you don't feel safe anywhere."

This is the story of Zeno Rossetti who in the days when he loved Jesus was a gospel songwriter and a Christian fundamentalist. This was way before Rossetti, the founder of Obscenitease Apparel, became a lover of reason. For Rossetti, a man who says he knows the Bible better than any other Christian, the turning point came when logic smashed headlong into belief.

Watch: Recovering from Religion (My Journey out of Christianity)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gRB0nOr4f4g

"The walls eventually came crashing down in my attempt to reconcile the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection Story," he writes describing how he went from being a straight-laced lay preacher to starting up what he calls the most blasphemous company on earth. "All of the four accounts must harmonise, though they are from differing perspectives. My horrid and devastating (but honest) conclusion was that they can't logically commingle. It's impossible. These days were the most psychologically devastating days in all my adult journey. Everything I believed in, worked towards, and invested thousands and thousands of dollars and hours in... was a Pile of Shit!"

The anger, devastation and disillusionment that Rossetti expresses are commonplace for people leaving a fundamentalist type religion. US based psychologist Marlene Winell, who has recently gave birth to the diagnosis "Religious Trauma Syndrome" as a kind of Post Traumatic Syndrome, says that fundamentalist religions set people up for debilitating cycles of abuse.

"The doctrine of 'Original Sin' and 'Eternal Damnation' cause the most psychological distress by creating the ultimate double bind. You are guilty and responsible, and face eternal punishment. Yet you have no ability to do anything about it," writes Winell on Journey Free, a resource guide for people recovering from harmful religion. "You must conform to a mental test of 'believing' in an external, unseen source for salvation, and maintain this state of belief until death. You cannot ever stop sinning altogether, so you must continue to confess and be forgiven, hoping that you have met the criteria despite complete lack of feedback about whether you will actually make it to heaven. Salvation is not a free gift after all. For the sincere believer, this results in an unending cycle of shame and relief. It is a cycle of abuse."

Born to Christian missionaries in Hong Kong, Winell became immersed in her faith as a teen, but suffered when she decided to separate from religion in college. The author of Leaving the Fold: a Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, Winell counsels people exiting fundamentalist religions like evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity as well as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Scientology and other cult-like systems.

"Human babies are born long before their brains are fully developed and (religious) indoctrination starts at such an early age," says Winell, who adds that the theist imagery of hell, the devil and Jesus bloodied on the cross, is extremely powerful and is often stored in the amygdala (along with emotions) as a pre-verbal language. "This basically constitutes a kind of child abuse and trauma that is very difficult to undo. That's why when people want to undo this emotional damage, they often don't understand the disconnect they experience between their intellect and emotions."

Religions like Christianity are "coded" for early indoctrination. If you are good, responsible parents you baptise your offspring and from inception teach them to accept faith as a way of avoiding eternal hellfire and damnation. "Religion has often been compared to a virus and this is because religions stay alive by being passed on. They stay alive from generation to generation, and so if you're born into it and you don't know anything else you aren't told what your options are. You think it is normal, you think it is reality. You are able to believe things that are quite fantastical. Things, which if you were told them as an adult, would sound absurd."

For many parents there is no choice when it comes to passing down a religion. In real, practical terms any "choice" is between proselytising your child into a faith which ensures family cohesion and social integration together with religious salvation; or, it means condemning your child to hell and embracing the stigmatisation of abandoning your kid by enabling them to make their own choices later on. Obviously any concept of choice operates well without the frameworks of fundamental religions and cults, because the consequences of not perpetuating the faith are so severe, for most they cannot be tolerated psychologically.

Despite this many faiths present the illusion of free choice. For example Christianity presents itself as a religion based on free will. The Christian doctrine is of course complex and nuanced for each sub-grouping, but for the sake of simplicity the basic doctrine is that God created people (along with everything else on earth), and commanded obedience. Obviously someone as "wise" as a deity couldn't punish humanity for slavish acquiescence, and so the concept of moral liberty became important to Christianity's message of salvation. In terms of Christian logic humans are born of sin (or fallen), and free to love God or not.

However rejecting Christian dogma doesn't exactly come with a free trip to Disneyland, and if the rejection is outright the sanction is severe, or should I say "hell". What is hell? Well those fabulous folk from the Evangelic Alliance are fairly literal and their interpretation is: "As well as separation from God, hell involves severe punishment. Scripture depicts this punishment in various ways, using both psychological and physical terminology. Although this terminology is often metaphorical and although we should be wary of inferring more detail about hell than Scripture itself affords, hell is a conscious experience of rejection and torment (Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 24:51; Luke. 13:28, 16:23)."

Photo: Marlene Winell

Dante Alighieri put a bit more thought into his thesis on purgatory which is contained in the 14th-century epic poem Divine Comedy, which explores a Catholic-inspired, medieval worldview of hell, purgatory and paradise. In this vision Dante and his companion, Virgil pass through gates inscribed with the words: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here", but before entering hell see ambivalent souls being attacked by wasps and hornets while maggots and other insects suck their blood and drink of their tears. Dante would have us believe that there are nine circles of hell, each worse than the next. The most despairing is the ninth, which is reserved for traitors. At the centre of this icy hell Satan chews Judas Iscariot's head and forever skins the traitor's back with his claws.

Just as Dante's hell operates on a savage sliding scale, religions have their own interpretations and severities of hell. But inevitably a special kind of inferno is set aside for those who denounce their faith. The rule of thumb is that the more extreme the religious dogma, the more barbarous the consequences of non-compliance to the system.

"The Mormon Church is very difficult. I was at an ex-Mormon convention in Salt Lake City and there I saw that people go through a huge amount of fear in leaving. I didn't realise it was that bad or that intense. I ended up calling Mormonism the mafia of religion," says Winell, speaking to iMaverick from Berkley in the US. "Leaving that church altogether after being sealed in the temple confines you to the worst level of hell. If you have been a Mormon and you leave, you are called a son of perdition. It is the worst thing that can happen to you."

Mormon exit sites like I Am An Ex Mormon and PostMormon.Org carry their own painful accounts. "I view the years I spent as a Mormon as a kind of mind rape. Mormonism gave me a terrible self-image (I could not live up to the impossible, 'perfect' expectations) that I am only recently recovering from. The farther I get away from that church, the better," writes one person. "Until a person leaves Mormonism, they have no idea how painful it can be. When I left Mormonism (the last and final time) I was filled with fear and guilt. I was angry at a huge religion that had taken so much of my time, energy and money for so many years," writes another.

Despite the trauma of exiting religions, people are leaving religions in record numbers. RecentPew research on religion in the US showed that big shifts were happening in the American religious landscape. Close on a third of US adults surveyed (28%) indicated they had left the faith they were born into in favour of no religion at all, or another system of worship. Younger people hold even more bad news for Christianity. Pew's research on among Millennials indicated that one in four Americans under 30 is atheist, agnostic or believe in "nothing in particular". Religion is increasingly becoming less important to younger generations, and young adults in the US are less convinced about the existence of a God.

Watch Marlene Winell talk about Religious Trauma Syndrome:

The research doesn't detail why younger folk are less religious, but perhaps it has something to do with critical thinking, the rise of the information and the challenge that presents in terms of accepting what are essentially primitive beliefs. As one former theist wrote on a Christian exit forum: "I had started becoming repulsed by the Fundamentalist view of people being burned into fires forever, just because they were in the wrong religion, or people burning forever, just because they looked at a playboy magazine, ate a grape without paying, spoke back to their parents, etc. as deserving of eternal and unbearable punishment forever and ever."

But because religion and identity are so intertwined, and because indoctrination almost always takes place at a young age, leaving religions remains a complex and traumatic affair. "You feel like you have lost all your moorings, all your ties," says Winell. "Depending on the particular religion, family or community you are from, it can be more or less painful or negative. But some religious groups are horrible in their response. For instance the Jehovah's witnesses have a policy, and it is part of their doctrine, to shun anyone that leaves, because the community thinks it is following orders from Jehovah. In a lot of cases it just forces someone to come back because they just can't stand it. They want to be with their families, you know."

Winell talks about a former Jehovah's Witness in one of her support groups who was cut off from her family. "Last night this woman was talking about her parents who completely shunned her and told her that she couldn't come to see them anymore. She's 40 years old and she has got a child, a son. She's no longer allowed to come and visit or to bring him there, and she just cried and cried and cried. To think that a religion could dictate something like that and create that kind of destruction to a family, is unbelievable," says Winell, who offers a list of symptoms of Religious Trauma Syndrome:

Cognitive: Confusion, poor critical thinking ability, negative beliefs about self-ability & self-worth, black & white thinking, perfectionism, difficulty with decision-making;
Emotional: Depression, anxiety, anger, grief, loneliness, difficulty with pleasure, loss of meaning;
Social: Loss of social network, family rupture, social awkwardness, sexual difficulty, behind schedule on developmental tasks
Cultural: Unfamiliarity with secular world; "fish out of water" feelings, difficulty belonging, information gaps.

Winell says causes of RTS are religious authoritarianism, toxic theology, suppression of normal childhood development, the teaching of dysfunctional beliefs and other practices that damage normal thinking. Fundamental religion also demands an external locus of control which promotes dependencies, and she says that patriarchal power, unhealthy sexual views and abuse often dominate in cultish religions.

"Usually people go through a very agonising time because they don't know what they are experiencing," says Winell of people who start to wake up to the understanding that the religion they're in is not for them. "There is usually a cycle of abuse, because the religion teaches that if there is a problem, it is your problem. If you go and see the pastor at church, you will be told that you are not praying enough, you are not reading the Bible enough. So people will go through cycles similar to domestic abuse cycles."

In Winell's experience, the world of medicine offers little if any relief. "RTS is not widely recognised at all, it is not in the diagnostic manual. The mental health community still doesn't recognise that religion causes problems," she says, adding: "Often when people go to therapy, and tell their therapist that they are having a problem with their religion, the psychologist can't even hear this issue. No one wants to say that it is the religion itself that is the problem and it is way overdue. We need to put the blame where it belongs.

"A lot of people who suffer from RTS have a terrible sense of failure and they blame themselves, they think that something terrible is wrong with them. They also don't understand because no one has labelled it properly, no one has said: 'It is the religion, it is not you.' The point is to help recognise what is happening and why, so you can understand and know what to do about it," she says.

In a world where the dominant belief is that religion is benign or beneficial for people, Winell is working to demand that the practice of psychology recognises RTS as a legitimate diagnosis. It's likely to be a long, hard haul particularly as fundamentalist churches face a decline in the numbers of people who can drop funds into collection plates.

As Bertrand Russell once said, the Church is notable for its willingness to counter greater good: "You find as you look around the world that every single bit of human progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the coloured races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organised churches of the world. I say deliberately that the Christian religion, as organised in its churches, has been and still is, the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Perhaps then those who suffer the alienation and torment of leaving that which hurts them can find succour in Russell's wisdom and look within for salvation: "I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." DM

4

Critical thinking explained

by whereami in

critical thinking explained in six kid-friendly animationsif you've been looking for a crash course in basic logic - or just want to explain to a friend exactly what a logical fallacy is - turn your attention to these simple, easy-to-understand videos, which lay out the basics of critical thinking.. creative solutions agency bridge 8 created these animations to offer a basic overview of critical thinking.

the videos were designed for an audience of kids (edit: australian grades, not ages) 8-10, but they're handy for anyone who wants to brush up on their logic.. the first video (up top), provides an introduction to critical thinking and how we form judgments and opinions.. .

the second video introduces formal logic and explains logical fallacies.. .

whereami

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iSZ3BUru59A#!

Critical thinking explained in six kid-friendly animations

If you've been looking for a crash course in basic logic - or just want to explain to a friend exactly what a logical fallacy is - turn your attention to these simple, easy-to-understand videos, which lay out the basics of critical thinking.

Creative solutions agency Bridge 8 created these animations to offer a basic overview of critical thinking. The videos were designed for an audience of kids (Edit: Australian grades, not ages) 8-10, but they're handy for anyone who wants to brush up on their logic.

The first video (up top), provides an introduction to critical thinking and how we form judgments and opinions.

The second video introduces formal logic and explains logical fallacies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VRZk62QNOsM

The third video explains straw man arguments and false premises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kgdDK4XMpm0

The fourth video reminds us to separate the person from the argument. That's always a tough one to remember in the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W_veZ24nC3g

Video five describes the gambler's fallacy, while acknowledging that the human brain is always looking for patterns. Not a bad way to warn kids off gambling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K8SkCh-n4rw

The final video looks at the utility (and limits) of the precautionary principle and notes that theories do not mean "I reckon this is probably true." I wonder what they could possibly be referring to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjaqM4yd_RA

http://io9.com/5888322/critical-thinking-explained-in-six-kid+friendly-animations