A.) A Christian group that will treat you but has the additional agenda of witnessing to you and perhaps lecture you about abstinence and deny you access to condoms and sex ed - even if you're being treated for something else
or
B.) The secular group called Doctors Without Borders who inject who do not inject religion into medical treatment and and give care and base their ethics only on current science/medicine and what is proven to be best for the patient, regardless of the doctors' or patients' religious beliefs
?
2007-12-26 05:59:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
B
If I had to pick A, I would just pretend I didn't speak their language.
2007-12-26 06:02:31 · answer #1 · answered by Nea 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have to say 'B' because if I am well enough to refuse treatment on religious grounds (my religion holds no such restrictions) than I am well enough to say "I'm an American! Call some body now. I want to go home. Drop me off in Boston, take me to MGH, I'm all done." If I am not well enough to say that, than the doctors will do what they feel to be in my best interest.
2007-12-26 06:08:37 · answer #2 · answered by Wicked Warrior 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
B. The secular Doctors Without Borders
They wouldn't have an alternate agenda. I would want a doctor, not a missionary.
2007-12-26 06:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by maisha 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
The Christians. I dont have to believe what they tell me. But it is important that i get to decided what medical treatments I receive, so the secular group is out.
2007-12-26 06:07:52 · answer #4 · answered by ♥ Strawberry D-Lite ♥ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'd always go with B.), they're more likely to have current knowledge and act in a way that is benefitial to me, instead of to their personal beliefs.
Edit: I can trust that they won't get a "sign" from God that my non-belief caused God to inflict me with whatever illness I may have anymore than Christians believe God inflicted them with headaches for thinking unpure thoughts.
2007-12-26 06:35:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
B
Missionary groups have been known to refuse food and medication until people choose the "true faith". Like vultures they hang around the dead.
Even Mother Theresa would forcibly baptise unwilling non-Christians
2007-12-26 06:03:34 · answer #6 · answered by shaybani_yusuf 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Well, if I was living in poverty and didn't have many options I'd go to whoever was closer. Given the options with equal access... B, of course.
2007-12-26 06:09:21 · answer #7 · answered by AngFlowr 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
would that DWB be the same group that ran out of Afghanistan the minute that they heard the first gun shots? or would that be the group that gave out all the HIV vaccines in south Africa that actually made the 'tester' so much more likely to develop aids that they had to stop at once?
Great track records
2007-12-26 06:16:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Most certainly B. It is wrong and foolish to influence religion while helping people.
2007-12-26 06:02:53 · answer #9 · answered by Imagine No Religion 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If I lived in an impoverished country, I'd go to the closest one I could walk to. sheesh James.
2007-12-26 06:03:07 · answer #10 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋