RSS Feeds
Physicians and Patient Spirituality
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
IN RESPONSE:
The majority of Dr. Baumgartner's letter pertains to the office display of “gay-friendly posters,” which is a subject entirely separate from that addressed in my letters published over the years. Obviously, one's sexual orientation is not the same as one's religious orientation. If he somehow thinks he is referring to anything I have said, Dr. Baumgartner is sparring with an imaginary partner when he states, “The implication is that it is somehow ‘correct’ for a homosexual physician to nonverbally communicate who he or she is through office adornments.” I don't agree with this practice any more than I do with the display of religious icons in the office. Why in the world should the physician use the office as a tool to “promote openness to the lesbian message,” the “Christian message,” or the elements of any other personal value system? Why not instead make the comfort of the average patient one's major priority as a physician?
The issue of the display of religious icons in a hospital with an obvious religious affiliation is an interesting one, and I am surprised that it has not been raised previously in these discussions (I have to admit I was relieved that it wasn't!). A “middle of the road” stance is that since this type of hospital always displays its religious heritage to the public in an obvious fashion, those who choose not to obtain care in such a setting receive “fair warning” and can go elsewhere. The issue becomes more problematic when an element of coercion (such as the offering of a service not easily obtained elsewhere) is involved, since no member of the public should be forced to receive care in a religious setting not of his or her choosing. The policy of one of our own religiously affiliated hospitals is to allow the patient to decide whether religious symbols will hang in her or his hospital room. The display of such icons in the corridors is to be expected and has never been an issue, nor has the religious dress of the workers, as long as the institution proclaims its religious affiliation in a publicly obvious manner. I realize this is not a perfectly satisfactory resolution of the issue, and that, I suppose, is why the debate continues.
- Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
