Christianity – with a generic name of “anointed one” is a religion based on Jesus’ teachings and life as illustrated in Gospels and other New Testaments. Followers of Christian faith are known as Christians.
Oops, wait. Apparently, definition of Christianity doesn’t relate into a drug or a medicine. It’s definitely a religion. How come a British doctor has been prescribing Christianity to his patients?
Dr. Richard Scott is now under investigation for wrongful prescription of religion and not medicine. Allegedly, he was promoting Christianity as a health benefit to his 24-year-old depressed patient.
According to the British medical guidelines, medical malpractice is not allowed. Doctor’s personal belief should not be discussed to patients if it is far relevant to the patient’s medical care needs.
Another point is that Scott’s patient is suffering from depression regarding his lifestyle issues. It is also stated in the General Medical Council of UK that doctors must not express their personal beliefs like political, religious and others in such ways that may exploit their patient’s sensitivity or that may possibly cause them further distress.
This case is about Scott and his colleagues, directly offering God as part of his usual treatment. It’s not a case about a doctor who once mentioned his religious belief during a consultation.
The main reason why the medical litigation occurs is because Scott declines the GMS’s decision to reprimand him over the incident. He was insisting that he has the right to offer the word of God to his patients.
Well, obviously this case still doesn’t qualify to a medical malpractice. It is still under debate and expected to prolong. Based on the doctor’s act, this case is more like a religious discrimination rather than a medical malpractice.
Oops, wait. Apparently, definition of Christianity doesn’t relate into a drug or a medicine. It’s definitely a religion. How come a British doctor has been prescribing Christianity to his patients?
Dr. Richard Scott is now under investigation for wrongful prescription of religion and not medicine. Allegedly, he was promoting Christianity as a health benefit to his 24-year-old depressed patient.
According to the British medical guidelines, medical malpractice is not allowed. Doctor’s personal belief should not be discussed to patients if it is far relevant to the patient’s medical care needs.
Another point is that Scott’s patient is suffering from depression regarding his lifestyle issues. It is also stated in the General Medical Council of UK that doctors must not express their personal beliefs like political, religious and others in such ways that may exploit their patient’s sensitivity or that may possibly cause them further distress.
This case is about Scott and his colleagues, directly offering God as part of his usual treatment. It’s not a case about a doctor who once mentioned his religious belief during a consultation.
The main reason why the medical litigation occurs is because Scott declines the GMS’s decision to reprimand him over the incident. He was insisting that he has the right to offer the word of God to his patients.
Well, obviously this case still doesn’t qualify to a medical malpractice. It is still under debate and expected to prolong. Based on the doctor’s act, this case is more like a religious discrimination rather than a medical malpractice.
