【24h】

Author's reply

机译:作者的答复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

I am interested, although not surprised, to hear that Professor Poole thinks that my suggestion that a significant prospective study of religion and completed suicide1 might have implications for British clinical practice is 'profoundly misguided'. It is true that the study in question emanates from the USA, not the UK, but Poole concedes that a study undertaken here 'would be likely to yield similar findings'. Nor did I have space to expand in any detail upon exactly how the matters in question might be discussed with patients, but I did cite Koenig et al as urging caution with regard to any religious/spiritual interventions that might be contemplated. I am therefore surprised that Poole found necessary to emphasise the dangers of proselytism, as though I might have been opening the door to this, especially given that he notes that I wrote the College Position Statement that clearly states 'Psychiatrists should not use their professional position for proselytising or undermining faith'.
机译:我很感兴趣,尽管并不感到惊讶,但听到普尔教授认为我关于宗教和已完成自杀的重大前瞻性研究可能对英国临床实践产生影响的建议“被严重误导了”。确实,所涉及的研究来自美国,而不是英国,但普尔承认,此处进行的研究“很可能会产生相似的发现”。我也没有空间详细讨论如何与患者讨论有关问题的细节,但我确实引用了Koenig等人的观点,敦促谨慎对待可能考虑的任何宗教/精神干预措施。因此,令我感到惊讶的是,普尔发现有必要强调强调宗教改革的危险,仿佛我可能已经为此敞开了大门,尤其是考虑到他指出我写了《大学职位声明》,明确声明“精神科医生不应使用其专业职位宣扬或破坏信仰”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号