A Catholic attitude towards medicine?

[HomeschoolDad]

(This isn’t the category I would have chosen, but it is the closest thing.)

Is there a specific “Catholic attitude” towards medicine, or possibly a better way to put it, a “Catholic way to practice medicine”?

I have to think that it is more in keeping with the Catholic mindset, and with right reason, to prefer less invasive and less drastic means to those that are more invasive and drastic. I’m reminded, first of all, of the medical dictum primum non nocere — “first, do no harm”. I am also reminded of an adage a priest told me one time, “first regime, then medicine, then surgery”.

It seems reasonable, when confronted with a medical problem, to prefer natural, non-invasive means first, such as changes in lifestyle, diet, and health habits. Then, if those don’t work, you would employ medicine and pharmaceuticals. Finally, as a last resort, if all else has failed — or if there is an emergency that doesn’t give you the luxury of choosing less drastic means — you choose surgery or some other method that changes the organism itself.

I contrast this with the tendency of some doctors to “throw pills at it”, or to perform surgeries needlessly. Writing out a prescription is the easiest thing in the world, but is it always the best solution? For instance, is it better to prescribe cholesterol medication, or to pursue the changes in lifestyle — which could be difficult — and withhold the medicine where all else has failed and there is no reasonable chance of success? Is it better to perform stomach reduction surgery (whether temporary or permanent), or to put the patient on a highly restricted diet for a long period of time, leaving the surgery as a drastic last resort, possibly where the alternative will be death? I just offer those as two examples.

Which is the Catholic way?

 

[JanR]

I’m not a fan of taking conventional pharmaceuticals, and neither was our Dad.

Currently, hubby and I are seeing a licensed naturopath, who has helped us a lot. And, when I am having lower back muscle pain, I prefer topical analgesics – pain creams and lotions – over pain pills, which rarely work, anyway.

I don’t like the way some doctors – even female doctors – treat women patients. I’ve been to some who have spent about three-to-five minutes with me, only to blow me off and walk out of the room while I was still trying to talk to him or her, and still had questions. Very, very rude! Then they go hide inside of their private office so I couldn’t have any further contact with them.

After one of my Mammograms, I was advised to back it up with an MRI, because my breast tissue is so thick. And my mother had breast cancer, so there’s an immediate family history. When I tried to get her to authorize it, this doctor I’ve been seeing for my annual wellness exams became very hostile toward the idea. She stated my insurance wouldn’t cover it and it wasn’t necessary. I really don’t think she had my best interests at heart.

I’ve had some awful experiences with conventional doctors, and a few good ones. But I try to stay away from them as much as possible – because too many of them just don’t seem to care.

I’ve been trying, for years, to find out what is causing the burning nerve pain on the tops of my feet, and nobody I have seen about it – not even the podiatrist – has taken it seriously and none of them are willing to look into it and give me straight answers.They just say it’s nerve pain. I already know that. I want to know what’s CAUSING the nerve pain.

This is just one more example of doctors refusing to listen or make any kind of an effort to find out what’s going on. . . .

 

[Jen7]

I do not think the way you outline is necessarily more “Catholic.” It is a luxury, for example, to be able to overhaul the family’s diet before trying a pharmaceutical medication. Not everyone can afford it in both time and money & they are no less Catholic for being strapped in those ways. I think “Catholic” medical practice would never use the human person as a “thing,” would “treat” only malfunctioning human parts (not healthy parts, such as applying contraception to a healthy woman), and would honor the frail.

I recommend the book “Being Mortal” for reflections on treating patients with dignity and respect.

 

[Lara]

My guess is the Catholic way is to spend a bit more time with every patient and make less money.

Also, to not have so many patients that s/he doesn’t have time for a brain wave. Some difficult patients with complex issues really need that creative (name removed by moderator)ut from their doctor, and creativity often happens when a doctor has more time.

I think a Catholic doctor would spend time visiting the sick in their own homes.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I do not think the way you outline is necessarily more “Catholic.” It is a luxury, for example, to be able to overhaul the family’s diet before trying a pharmaceutical medication. Not everyone can afford it in both time and money & they are no less Catholic for being strapped in those ways.

You have a point. I have been to doctors (both Catholic and otherwise) who seemed to be following the concept of “binding up burdens too heavy to be borne”. Sometimes, in a perfect world, with a perfect patient, in perfect circumstances, lifestyle changes would be preferable to pills, but in an imperfect world, we do the best we can, with what we have to work with.

My guess is the Catholic way is to spend a bit more time with every patient and make less money.

Also, to not have so many patients that s/he doesn’t have time for a brain wave. Some difficult patients with complex issues really need that creative (name removed by moderator)ut from their doctor, and creativity often happens when a doctor has more time.

I think a Catholic doctor would spend time visiting the sick in their own homes.

Wonderful thoughts as well. It is indeed a “Catholic thing” to take more time, to look for root causes, and to alleviate suffering gently and with the resources available in the present moment. I have to think that osteopathic medicine, which is more holistic in nature, is preferable in some cases.

 

[boldlygo]

A Catholic attitude towards medicine…
I saw this personified in my uncle, who was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. His deep Catholic faith was evident in everything he did. His patients all had his home telephone number, and it wasn’t unusual for him to make house calls on weekends and even on holidays - I can remember him taking a call on Thanksgiving, and leaving the family gathering to care for a needy patient. If a patient was having trouble making ends meet, there would be no charge for his services. Even after he ‘retired’, he continued to see patients who just couldn’t go to anyone else. His house was adorned with gifts - religious statues of various sizes - from grateful patients. He lived a life of service, as do all good Catholic Christians.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I contrast this with the tendency of some doctors to “throw pills at it”, or to perform surgeries needlessly. Writing out a prescription is the easiest thing in the world, but is it always the best solution?

No, it’s not the best solution, but people don’t like to change when they can take a pill instead

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I contrast this with the tendency of some doctors to “throw pills at it”, or to perform surgeries needlessly. Writing out a prescription is the easiest thing in the world, but is it always the best solution?

True, but sometimes, there are changes that can’t be made, taking into account that people live in the real-world circumstances that they live in. So the doctor has to do the less-than-ideal thing, where the ideal thing isn’t possible.

 

[JanR]

Always, it’s best to treat causes instead of just treating symptoms. Our licensed naturopath addresses causes and prescribes dietary and lifestyle regimens to correct those causes. That is the essence of true healing. Just treating symptoms, which too many conventional doctors try to do (to keep you having to come back to them so they can continue to charge you, Medicare, your insurance), may help the patient feel better for awhile, but then their problem returns because its causes haven’t been addressed.

When we first met with our naturopath, she told us that her goal, and ours, was to have us see her less and less frequently, and eventually get to where we don’t need to see her anymore, at all. In other words, to get better so we wouldn’t need her services, anymore.

That is the polar opposite of how today’s conventional medical system operates.

In order to properly address causes, doctors need to take the time to properly investigate their patient’s problem so they can FIND the causes. Too many of them won’t do that. And too many of them have the cop-out attitude that, “It’s all in your head.” I find that insulting, as it’s just another way to blow someone off.

We’re told, today, to pay attention to our body’s signals (symptoms) that something might be wrong, but when we do exactly that, we’re treated like hypochondriacs. Especially female patients. I think it’s deplorable how conventional doctors treat us gals, sometimes.

 

[Thorolfr]

Always, it’s best to treat causes instead of just treating symptoms. Our licensed naturopath addresses causes and prescribes dietary and lifestyle regimens to correct those causes. That is the essence of true healing. Just treating symptoms, which too many conventional doctors try to do (to keep you having to come back to them so they can continue to charge you, Medicare, your insurance), may help the patient feel better for awhile, but then their problem returns because its causes haven’t been addressed.

When we first met with our naturopath, she told us that her goal, and ours, was to have us see her less and less frequently, and eventually get to where we don’t need to see her anymore, at all. In other words, to get better so we wouldn’t need her services, anymore.

That is the polar opposite of how today’s conventional medical system operates.

In order to properly address causes, doctors need to take the time to properly investigate their patient’s problem so they can FIND the causes. Too many of them won’t do that. And too many of them have the cop-out attitude that, “It’s all in your head.” I find that insulting, as it’s just another way to blow someone off.

We’re told, today, to pay attention to our body’s signals (symptoms) that something might be wrong, but when we do exactly that, we’re treated like hypochondriacs. Especially female patients. I think it’s deplorable how conventional doctors treat us gals, sometimes.

Sometimes a doctor doesn’t know what the causes are. If someone has high cholesterol, is it because of their diet or is it just their genetics? And most doctors don’t have the time to do in depth investigations for each patient. It’s not like an episode of House where the doctors could go to a patient’s home and look at all the things in their home environment including the food they ate to see what might have caused their medical condition.

And most people find it very difficult to make radical changes in their diet or habits even if they intend to do so. Most doctors try to get people to make changes in their diet before prescribing cholesterol medication, but if the patient continues to have high cholesterol because they are not able to change their eating habits or because it wasn’t diet that was causing the high cholesterol, then medication might be appropriate.

And is it really a good thing to get to a point where someone doesn’t go to the doctor anymore? If they’re not having at least a yearly doctor visit with labs, some serious medical condition might be missed. Someone might develop some kind of cancer that could have been caught early if they were seeing a doctor regularly. And as we age, we also just naturally need more care. Most people over 50 now get a colonoscopy to check for polyps that could develop into cancer. The risks are based on age.

 

[JanR]

Oh, yes, I believe in having tests done to determine if there are any medical problems. That’s what I try to get the doctor to do for me if I suspect something amiss – to find out what it is and what’s causing it. Most medical tests these days can at least tell them something.

My complaint against conventional medicine is that too many doctors won’t take the time to listen to me, answer my questions, and basically communicate. They’re in too big a hurry to move on to the next patient. I feel like a piece of cattle being herded as quickly as possible in and out of the clinic.

That’s bad medical practice, in my opinion.

Our licensed Naturopath, by contrast, spends a good hour with each of us, wanting updates on our symptoms, our progress, whatever other wellness situations have arisen between visits. She and we both keep meticulous records, and she does blood tests as needed to determine things like food intolerances, etc. That’s how I learned that I’m dairy intolerant, and have been able to eliminate all dairy products from my diet. Since I have, things have improved significantly.

Conventional doctors won’t do that. As you say, they haven’t got time. The whole system is set up to move patients in and out as quickly as possible.

I don’t appreciate how some doctors brush me off, take the attitude that it’s “all in your head”, or treat me like I’ve the mentality of a five-year-old. To me, that communicates contempt toward the patient, which is totally uncalled for. They may be somewhat jaded from having to deal with so much, but to treat a patient like they just don’t want to be bothered is inexcusable. If they feel that way, they need to get out of the medical profession and go do something they really enjoy doing.

As for things like Mammograms and colonoscopies – I’ve had those, and I completely believe in them.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Is there a Catholic day when it comes to medicine?

 

[JanR]

I’ve never heard of one. But it sounds like a good idea.

 

[boldlygo]

I’m more than a little surprised that, to this point, nobody has mentioned the sacrament, Anointing of the Sick.
On Nov. 2, I received the sacrament during the Vigil Mass. My pastor mentioned that I would be undergoing shoulder surgery, and the entire community prayed for me. Two days later, I went to the clinic for surgery - a reverse total shoulder replacement. Now, two+ weeks later, my recovery is ahead of schedule, and I already have limited use of that arm.
The skill of the surgeon is a huge factor. The skill of the physical therapists is a huge factor. I believe that the Sacrament and the prayers are also a huge factor - when I arrived at the clinic for the surgery, I knew the outcome would be good.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Is there a Catholic day when it comes to medicine?

I’m not following you here. Could you elaborate?

I’m more than a little surprised that, to this point, nobody has mentioned the sacrament, Anointing of the Sick.
On Nov. 2, I received the sacrament during the Vigil Mass. My pastor mentioned that I would be undergoing shoulder surgery, and the entire community prayed for me. Two days later, I went to the clinic for surgery - a reverse total shoulder replacement. Now, two+ weeks later, my recovery is ahead of schedule, and I already have limited use of that arm.
The skill of the surgeon is a huge factor. The skill of the physical therapists is a huge factor. I believe that the Sacrament and the prayers are also a huge factor - when I arrived at the clinic for the surgery, I knew the outcome would be good.

Thanks for bringing this up. I regard myself as a traditionalist Catholic but this is one post-Vatican II “change” that I can entirely understand. Back in the day, this sacrament was called “extreme unction” (another word for “anointing”) and was reserved for those in danger of death. I welcome the expansion of this sacrament to include anointing for any kind of illness. I have even wondered if it could be used for mental illness, such as clinical, biological depression (not just “a case of the blues” because life hasn’t been much fun lately) or schizophrenia. I can’t see why it couldn’t be.

I would be interested to know if the Church ever officially taught (as doctrine, not discipline) “the sacrament of extreme unction is only for those in danger of death, and cannot licitly be administered simply for illness where life is not threatened” (or words to that effect), and if so, how the teaching was able to be changed. “Hermeneutic of continuity”? Far fewer illnesses end in death than in prior times, due to advances in medicine.

And one more thing: how can anointing of the sick be administered to someone who is about to be executed? I think I heard of this one time. The condemned person is not in the least bit “sick” before the execution takes place, though once the punishment is administered, the person is going to be very, very “sick” indeed.

(I entirely accept the present judgment of the Church that capital punishment cannot be justified in modern, advanced, highly developed societies where other means of confinement and rehabilitation are easily used.)

 

[po18guy]

Generally, read Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 38. Specifically, being an informed patient while praying for and applying the virtue of prudence. Each case is different.

From someone with a nightmare medical resumé

 

[1ke]

I would be interested to know if the Church ever officially taught (as doctrine, not discipline) “the sacrament of extreme unction is only for those in danger of death, and cannot licitly be administered simply for illness where life is not threatened”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I would be interested to know if the Church ever officially taught (as doctrine, not discipline) “the sacrament of extreme unction is only for those in danger of death, and cannot licitly be administered simply for illness where life is not threatened”

Thanks so much. I skimmed through this and got my answer (AotS/EU can be administered even for severe illness, this per Trent).

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes my day. As the saying goes, “give me that old time religion”!

 

[BT3241]

That makes me laugh - I was at mass and the priest said he would be performing the sacrament for anyone in the congregation who had a life threatening illness - he was very clear on it. So I decided I would not get it even though at the time I could barely walk and needed both my knees replaced so i stayed seated - i watched as from the youngest to the oldest person in the church went up and got the sacrament everyone went up except for me and another older woman that was there. What was the priests to do - refuse them? Their were 2 priests. There is what is written and then what is done.

 

[signit]

A Catholic attitude towards medicine…
I saw this personified in my uncle, who was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. His deep Catholic faith was evident in everything he did. His patients all had his home telephone number, and it wasn’t unusual for him to make house calls on weekends and even on holidays - I can remember him taking a call on Thanksgiving, and leaving the family gathering to care for a needy patient. If a patient was having trouble making ends meet, there would be no charge for his services. Even after he ‘retired’, he continued to see patients who just couldn’t go to anyone else. His house was adorned with gifts - religious statues of various sizes - from grateful patients. He lived a life of service, as do all good Catholic Christians.

Yeah; my mother’s cousin was like that. He was a pediatrician, and a strong Catholic.

He was one of the two pediatricians in our town. One of the two was always “on call” for the weekend, meaning that if he was “on call” he’d give up any weekend plans for his family.

He had two phones on the wall: his private phone and his “doctor” phone. It wasn’t unheard of for him to go out in the middle of the night for some sick kid.

And, believe it or not, he’d treat his patients first and send the bill later. Not ask for proof of insurance first.

Today, it seems, medicine is more like any other business. Don’t you dare call the doctor’s office after 4 p.m.; if you need help go to the emergency room.