Great. So next time one of my eyestrain headaches kick in, I’ll just pull out my trusty Bible, the one with the 1/8th-inch-tall font. That’ll fix my problems. Thanks Dr. Hager. Praise be!
I have read the book. First of all, it is not geared to anyone who doesn’t already consider themselves (for all intents and purposes) an evangelical Christian and in agreement with general ideals common to most evangelical denominations.
Second, it does not reject modern medicine at all. Dr. Hager is a professor medicine! Why would he write a book which rejects modern medicine?
What it suggests is that headaches, PMS and other emotionally tied ailments are worsened by stress. This is pretty much a given. Hager points out, however, that Christians are availed of spiritual benefits in addition to the medical approaches towards dealing with these problems. He recommends that someone suffering from these conditions can take advantage of prayer and scriptural encouragement to help lessen stress, thereby reducing or even eliminating the problems.
If you don’t believe in the basic premise, that’s fine. But it should be noted that it doesn’t put Hager any further out on the spectrum than the majority of Christian teachers/authors, especially in the area of a Christian response to stress and similar issues.
If it gives you any indication of just how “part-time” his position is, I did two months of OB/GYN at UK, and I have no idea who he is. I do know that they send one intern at a time over to Central Baptist, but they mostly work with the private docs, so I’m not sure what his UK connection is.
From what I’ve read, he’s a good doctor, but he’s a real idealogue when it comes to his beliefs. Someone in that position should be able to evaluate drugs and evidence based on the science alone, and I’m not convinced this guy is the one. You’ll see how much my opinion matters, though.
Dr. J (UKCOM, Class of 2002)
If we are going to discuss medical qualifications, the final paragraph in the Time article is interesting:
These two seem quite highly qualified. Dr. Mattison’s bio, here, is quite impressive. I also got a lot of hits googling Dr. Greene- I was unable to find a published CV, but he seems very influential. Either of them would seem a better choice than Hager, so you have to ask “what’s Hager got that they ain’t got?” JDM
Note that Hagar hasn’t even been nominated, although a campaign against him has already begun.
What’s Hagar got? I guess he’s sop to the fundies who also is a well-qualified MD.
LOL, this made me smile!
The fact that he refuses to perscribe birth control for unmarried women, for one.
As for him being a “man”-you’re right-that IS uncalled for, and I appologize.
I take that back.
Now, there is some backing that meditation and prayer can be helpful to one-it is a calming influence. HOWEVER, when one has a headache, the last thing one should be doing is reading small print-that’s only going to make it worse. Because birth control pills are one of the more frequent treatments for severe mentrual difficulties, and he won’t perscribe them to unmarried women-that alarms me, to say the least. I’m an unmarried woman. I have rather severe PMS-though I’m not on birth control.
And the idea that someone would not allow one avenue of treatment based on my marital status-and nothing else-is frightening.
There are large print Bibles readily available in most secular and christian bookstores.
**tlw wrote:
What it suggests is that headaches, PMS and other emotionally tied ailments are worsened by stress. This is pretty much a given. Hager points out, however, that Christians are availed of spiritual benefits in addition to the medical approaches towards dealing with these problems. He recommends that someone suffering from these conditions can take advantage of prayer and scriptural encouragement to help lessen stress, thereby reducing or even eliminating the problems. **
I’ve read some of the efficacy of faith healing and am interested in more research.
My question is; what if a patient happens to an Atheist or a Non-Christian? How does this method of treating the illness handle that?
I would think that the patient would read or focus on something personally calming and uplifting to them. Or maybe something funny. Laughter is the best medicine, right? 
Would this be a bad time to bring up a certain scene in The Exorcist?
Actually, Ellen Goodman in today’s Washington Post has a take on the confirmation battle that’s coming up. It doesn’t make him sound all that worthy of the vitriol here.
Do I disagree with him on several issues? Yes. Is it right that Time magazine pillories the guy? No.
Here’s the op-ed piece:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49815-2002Oct18.html
I almost menstruated in my pants, for the first time in my life, reading that You, yes YOU!!!, was questioning this wise decision! (We know who You are!!)
What on earth are You so angry about???
Fortune-tellers are complitely OUT! They are just for commies, hippies and ex-presidents!
Medicine men are IN! Suitable for anyone that believes in Him! (I do not mean JC nor Muhammed here).
A medicine man of a tribe does only need good mantras* and a powerful and holy magic wand, a RPB.
*Mantras can be ordered from the same place where You get Your RPB.
If You are in lack of mantras, You can use my posts (they are maybe not so powerful even if they change radically the blood pressure of some readers).
Even more effective than the Republican Party Book, is dito from John Birch Society (JBS).
Just check that Med.m. W. David Hager has both and sing:
“…don’t worry, be happy…”
Choir:
*“PMS go away,
let RPB make my day,
birth control not needed here,
Believe in GB and do not fear,
just a finger and a fluff,
thus no need for that stuff.”
“…don’t worry, be happy…”*
Huh?
Interesting piece. Except I don’t get her last statement…
Huh? Of course it appears that he was picked…to a certain extent…because of his political/philosophical views. (What, Jocelyn Elders wasn’t?). Goodman is trying to suggest that because he was picked because of his apparent conservative background, that he therefore can’t be a “victim” of religious profiling.
But yet she says…
She says that …
So Goodman admits that he was being misrepresented about his beliefs and treatment approaches…but that this misrepresentation has nothing to do with his religious background? OK…
Like I said earlier, I don’t know a whole lot about this guy. I certainly don’t know enough about him to know whether he is qualified for the position being discussed. However it sure does sound like some folks are playing loose with the facts in their description of him, and it sure does seem like it has at least something to do with his religious beliefs.
Well, that’s the nature of the game with the Senate divided as it is.
I do agree that Goodman wandered from her point there. What? Is it worse to cream the guy for his beliefs or to choose him for them?
Is it worse to cream an appointee for his race or to choose him for it? The former, obviously.
I’m not certain of that. I think both show that the actor (creamer or appointer) views people in terms of their group rather than the individual.
And I find that to be outrageous regardless of the situation. People are far more than members of their groups.
Yes, you are. Compare these two scenarios (#1 is real; #2 is hypthetical)
- Clinton decides to appoint a black as Surgeon General.
- Trent Lott decides to prevent the comfirmation of any black for the position.
Substitute for black some other minority: Jewish, gay, Asian, Irish. Same answer.
Getting representatives of various ethnic groups into one’s administration has a long and honorable history. Rejecting someone because of his/her ethnic group has a long and dishonorable history.
[quote]
- Clinton decides to appoint a black as Surgeon General.
**
december, did he appoint said person because he or she was black? (I’m assuming you’re speaking of Jocelyn Elders?)
PPOR. (Post Proof or Retract-I got that from theforce.net boards!)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**
Oh, I don’t mind retracting it. My point is that if Clinton had looked for a black SG, that would have been normal politics. But, if Trent Lott had prevented her confirmation because she was black, that would have been unthinkable racism. I assume you would agree with me on this point.