Medical practice which is based on Christ and His principles has unlimited potential!
Which Doctor in his or her right mind would not want to follow the Master Physician, Jesus?
Christian Doctors have a calling... to represent Christ and be salt and light to the bland and dark world.
This blog and fellowship has this desire as our aim and goal.
May God guide us in the coming days.
Dr. MC Matthew (CMC Vellore) leading a time of reflection on Jesus ministering to the woman with the 12 year haemorrage - we were challenged to see that Jesus identified with the woman in her suffering and took her from her illness to wellness.Dr. Ashok Chacko (EMFI Gen Sec.) gave a challenging biblical call to 
healing. We were reminded of the Biblical call to: (1) Whole person care (2) Care for the poor (3) Not neglecting care in the pursuit of cure. Dr. Ashok finished off with a challenge for us to be good stewards of who we are (who are becoming vs what we have done) and the great task and great opportunities that are open for us.
Dr. MC Matthew also challenged us with Biblical view of life and death. He explored the words creation, formation and integration to describe the amazing beauty and value of life, while urging a humble participation by doctors in God's ongoing handiwork.
Dr. Stephen Alfred (Lok Hospital, Thane) using his trademark wit and honesty explored what it means to be a Christ follower in a medical field rife with corruption and greed. Using his own experiences and building on the idea of obedience to God, he posed the challenge of following God within a corrupt world as being both necessary and possible - given God's grace to his children.
The 'break-out' groups were lively and provided excellent times of reflection and discussion on key ethical issues that Christian leaders in health care face. Our featured speakers were joined by Dr. Adam Black, Dr. Sheba Eicher, Dr. Thomas Koshy, Dr. SP Matthew and Bro. Stanley Nelson in leading the 4 different groups exploring Abortion, End of Life Issues, Integrity and Reaching out to the Poor.
Before we knew it, Dr. MC Matthew was summarising the conference. He suggested that we could see the whole day's deliberations in three main headings:
We realise that whatever we have, whoever we are - is not because of our own efforts alone, but by God's grace. We need to give back - lots! We need to practice our medicine in a wholeistic way that pays attention to the whole person. We also need to reach out to people even if they provoke us - God calls our generosity to include the table of forgiveness (which of course we received from Him in the first place).
Almost two thirds of the church members surveyed (n=117) did not agree that the pregnancy should be terminated. About 1 in 10 were unsure, but just over a quarter agreed that the abortion should take place.
Three quarters of the conference delegates disagreed with the decision to do the abortion (n=34). The major difference when compared with the church goers was that only 1 respondant (3%) agreed with the termination - while 1 in 5 of the delegates were not sure what to do.
The findings show that there is a significant proportion of local church-going Christians who believe that it is right to end a pregnancy if the child is in anyway abnormal. Though most of the delegates who were involved in health care clearly disagreed with the abortion, there was a significant group that has still not made up its mind.
Some questions:
1. Do you know someone who has Downs syndrome? What has their experience been? What have the parents learned through the process? What value does that person have in God's sight?
2. If the parents went ahead with the procedure, what should the response of the church be? How deep is our truth and grace in helping people who have done abortions?
Almost three quarters of the church goers who took part in the survey (n=117) disagreed with the removing of life support from this person. For the remaining quarter, 1 in 7 were not sure, while 1 in 8 agreed or strongly agreed to removing the life support.
The delegates responses (n=34) largely mirrored the church-goers with two thirds disagreeing with the removing the life support from this person. A quarter where not sure, while 1 in 8 agreed or strongly agreed to removing the life support. In comparison with church members - the same proportion of delegates supported withdrawing life support, but there were more who were not sure what their stance was.
Hard decisions. Things that many of us will face - both as people who are helping others make choices - and for our selves and our loved ones.
Almost 80% of the church members surveyed (n=117) considered it wrong for the doctor to write the certificate for a child who was clearly not sick but whose parents wanted to attend a Christian meeting. It is interesting to note, however, that almost 1 in 5 church goers surveyed felt that it was right for the doctor two write out a medical certificate.
The delegates involved in health care (n=34)also followed the patern with 4 out of 5 disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the doctor writing a fraudulent certificate. There, were almost 10%, however that agreed with the request.
We are constantly asked to tell lies - often because people want to do - or have done 'good things'.
Ethics is the challenge of being true to what God wants of us. Even if it may disappoint people who we like.
Just over half of the church members (n=117) felt the charitable hospital was wrong to send the patient to the government hospital for the emergency procedure. A third, however, agree with the hospital's decision.
The delegates were stronger in stating that the emergency procedure should be done at the hospital, with a full 3/4 of them disagreeing with the hospitals decision (n=34). The remaining quarter of the delegates were split between those who agreed with the hospital managment and those who were not sure. This question is of course a challenging one, and one that asks questions on both sides of the spectrum.
1) Should charitable hospitals have the right to refuse emergency cases? By definition, that is what they are there for, and the right to emergency care is crucial for the right to health.
2) What is the actual condition of the government emergency care? Does the government setup adequately deal with serious medical conditions?
It is interesting that more people in the general Christian public were agreed with the hospital's decision to refer to the government hospital than the Christian health care givers who attended the conference. Though the majority of both disagreed with the hospital management, would it be a small indication that the case study perhaps reflects the reality experienced by church goers?
A quarter of the church members felt that abortion was right in this case (n=117). If the ones who are not sure are included the proportion goes up to 1/3.
The conference delegates, however, had a strikingly different view (n=34). They were over-whelmingly clear that abortion in this case was wrong, with over 90% expressing this view.
This question showed the biggest gap yet between views held by church going Christians and Christians in Medical practice who were drawn to attend this conference.
There is clearly a large minority within the church for whom an extra life is seen mainly as an economic impediment and burden. This is perhaps not surprising as abortion is legalised as a form of birth control. We often confuse what is legal with what is right. Just because something is permitted in the law of the land, does not mean it pleases God.
The whole Ethics and Excellence in Medical Practice Today conference actually got its spark from a case study done 2 years ago at a church camp, where at the end of a discussion on abortion 3 Christian doctors felt threatened by the Biblical picture of the sanctity of life. It is heartening to see such a strong life-affirmation by those Christians in health care who attended this conference. The challenge now clearly remains about how to see the church take ownership of this issue too.
While the majority of church goers (n=117) disagreed with the statement, an interesting minority did not. One in five church members felt that the Bible was not relevant for medical practice. When the people who are not sure are added to this number, we see that almost a third of the members feel the Bible is not relevant for medical issues.
The conference delegates (n=34), on the other hand overwhelmingly affirmed that they saw the Bible as key to their medical work. Only a single person was not sure of this with 97% of the delegates affirming their view the scripture is important for medical practice.
Two interesting thoughts come out of this:
1) Given that many church goers do not see the Bible as being important - is this a product of their own churches and faith journey, or is it because of the dominant humanistic environment we are in?
2) While all the participants professed that the Bible was important for them and their medical practice - is this really seen in the day-to-day actions?
What do you think?
The Evangelical Medical Fellowship of India – Greater Mumbai Network
We had a total of 117 church members take the survey - and 34 conference delegates.
The church members represented 7 different congregations in the Thane and Mumbai area. 60% of the participants were women (n=99) and the average age was 37.8 (n=83). 61% of the respondents filled up the Hindi version, while the rest did it in English (n=117).
The conference delegatesfilling the survey included 21 doctors and 13 others involved in health care (n=34) . There were slightly more men (53%) than women participants (n=32), and the average age was 41.3 years. All the delegates were given the English version of the survey.
------------------------
The first question of the survey was a inquiry into whether a doctor should communicate "bad news" to a patient against the wishes of the patients relatives.
The question was phrased like this:
A patient is diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. The relatives of the patient ask the doctor not to tell the patient what his real condition is and just say that he is sick and will get better. The doctor does not do this, but explains the situation to the patient. Did the doctor do the right thing?
The results were as follows:
When compared with the church member responses, the delegates to the conference (n=34) mirrored the opinions of the church members (n=117). Two thirds agreed with the doctor's step, and just over 1 in 5 disagreed.
We can see from the question, most agreed that the doctor was right to communicate difficult news to the patient - even though the relatives had requested otherwise.
Some thoughts:
How much value do we place on truth? How do we communicate difficult issues? When do we over-ride what the care-givers desire?
What the question does not capture is how the news is communicated. Hard facts can be shared in loving ways. The Christ-following doctor and health-care worker have tremendous opportunities to speak truth in love.
