Yesterday the British Medical Association effectively voted to keep care and prayer distinct. As David Keen summed it up:
So the BMA conference recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients, but doesn’t believe that medical staff should take the initiative in offering it.
In a post on the Wardman Wire he put it slightly differently:
The mood seemed to be that prayer was the job of the ’spiritual professionals’, not medical staff.
Other quick reactions come from Ruth Gledhill and the Church Mouse.
In some ways this whole debate is a curiously British thing, and comes out of a complex history of having all healthcare provided by the state in the years following WWII, and, following several centuries of all official prayer being provided by the state-sanctioned Church, the idea of a public-purse funded chaplaincy came quite naturally, and without question.
That position had been coming under fire. One of the interesting things about this particular BMA debate is the reception its decision has had on the (exceedingly small) National Secular Society. Two months ago they were campaigning against wasting money on hospital chaplaincy. Today they (with very dubious figures) seem to welcome it:
Mr Sanderson said that the NHS was spending more than £40 million a year on hospital chaplains whose job was to pray and offer spiritual comfort to patients. “Sick people want doctors to take care of their physical health and a clergyman (sic) to take care of their spiritual health. Doctors and nurses have enough to do without burdening themselves with the need to pray with patients.”
It is an uncommented on side-effect of the decision that medical professionals should not initiate prayer with patients that the BMA affirms the value of spiritual care, and reinforces the need for chaplaincy provision.
{ 7 comments }
Well spotted. This is the second U-turn in a week by the NSS. But I’m impressed that the NSS recognises that patients have such a thing as ‘spiritual health’ – that is a big admission from the NSS.
…Assuming they meant to admit it!
This is funny. Did you not read what the NSS actually said about the chaplaincy issue?
Shall I help?
Here is the NSS position:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/nhs-chaplaincy-funding.html
It says:
“We do not seek an end to chaplaincy services, but we do argue that the taxpayer should not be made responsible for them.”
So unless you can show where the NSS has now said that chaplaincy should be publically funded, there is no u-turn and I fear you look a little bit silly.
Dan
So, it’s valuable to patients, they want and need it, doctors ought not to be burdened with providing it, but it shouldn’t be paid for. Hmm.
BTW, did you not read the post? I already linked to the statement you feel obliged to link to again in the comments. People can read for themselves and make up their own mind whether Terry Sanderson is being consistent.
PS. I get the feeling that what you really mean at the end of your comment is “I hope you look a little bit silly”
That’s right, shouldn’t be paid for by the State. Secularists don’t think that public money should subsidise religious services.
I felt obliged to link to the NSS statement again because I felt that you mispresented it. People can indeed read it and make up their own mind. How does giving *my* opinion affect that?
Dan
I suspect the view is that only some patients want it so why should all taxpayers pay for it rather than the faith groups to which the patients who want it belong.
There are drawbacks in that approach; however, having a discussion about the roles of the chaplaincy is probably a good idea (after all at one time it would have been assumed a government paid chaplain would be CoE). Should humanists be encouraged to be chaplains?
No, the view is that the State should not subsidise religion. It’s a straightforward secularist position.
Should humanists become “chaplains”? There have been humanists who have acted as hospital visitors on an analogous basis to chaplains in hospitals and prisons. There’s probably be some demand for that, though possibly not a big demand.
But again, the secularist argument would apply: the state should not fund atheist hospital visitors any more than it should fund theist hospital visitors.
Dan
The view would have more point if we lived in a secular state. As it is, your argument is back to front. There is no logic in arguing that a State that legally and constitutionally has a religious establishment, should not fund religious services. First dismantle the establishment (an argument on which many Christians and secularists would be co-belligerents) and then have a clear and constitutional settlement that spells out the limits of the state and the rights of people to their religion or philosophy.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }