Counterpoint: Donald Trump got elected and I know exactly what to think

This is written as a public response to Jonathan Imbody, VP of Government Relations for CMDA, who recently wrote an opinion piece for a CMDA blog titled “Donald Trump got elected and now I don’t know what to think.” As he introduces:

If that statement describes how you feel, you are a member of a large group of Americans who neither enthusiastically support nor disgustedly oppose the new administration. You land somewhere between “Not My President” and “Make America Great Again.”

The brief suggestions below aim to help you process what’s happened, what’s happening and what you can do about it all.

While I have great respect for the work of CMDA in legislative advocacy to protect physician freedom of conscience (even if I disagree with certain points), and would consider Mr. Imbody and others as part of the Christ community, there are both specific and coded references written in this piece that I have concerns about. As a former student leader for CMDA and ongoing active member, I am obligated to represent viewpoints of Christian healthcare professionals otherwise excluded in this narrative. Even if my points here constitute a minority perspective, I hope to demonstrate their validity. I also hope these words will not be construed as contention or meaningless dissent, as I do support much of the work and perspective of CMDA, but that it represents a plea to not alienate those who share my concerns from within the body of CMDA constituents.

Mr. Imbody writes this piece as an attempt to placate concerns regarding the Trump administration. He states that detractors are unnecessarily concerned because they have placed disproportionate faith in government to be the “primary vehicle for social change.” He assuages:

Our founders and Constitution, however, designed government with a small “g.” They designed a limited government that reserves maximum power to the people, a deliberately cumbersome system that makes sweeping change difficult.

That realization should help hyperventilating Trump opponents breathe a significant sigh of relief. Ironically, the small government system that Big Government advocates have been trying to dismantle is actually the very system that will protect them from any tyranny they now fear. (emphasis mine)

However, he minimizes or overlooks issues concerning to both physicians and patients related to the new administration and the public. Here are a few:


Mr. Imbody cites the federal court “kiboshing” of the executive order on immigration as an example of this natural check and balance system. Though the ban has now been limited twice by the federal court, it illustrates both the persistence and the scope with which the Trump Administration is seeking such restrictions. Even with these reversals, the initial implementation of the original ban created sufficient chaos within the legitimate migration of refugees, visa and green card holders, healthcare practitioners, and patients that the response of other medical professional organizations was swift and strong. These concerns focused primarily on the uncertainty it produced among practicing & research physicians planning to travel abroad, International Medical Graduates (IMG) planning to match, and the care & treatment of immigrant children:

Internists: The ACP issued a comprehensive statement with plain opposition to “denying refugee status from persons in designated countries of origin who otherwise would meet refugee status law requirements in the United States,” interference with legal migration, religious discrimination, and forcible deportation. The NEJM published a specific perspective piece on the order’s “detrimental effects on medical training and healthcare,” again related to interference of graduate medical education.

Pediatricians: The AAP statement reads: “Children do not decide where they or their parents were born. They do not choose whether or how to travel to the United States. We owe it to these children to protect them. Far from doing so, this Executive Order temporarily bans refugees—including children and families who are fleeing persecution, war, or violence—from entering the United States and appears to open the door for individual states to refuse to resettle them.
The Order also impacts our colleagues in medicine, as international medical school graduates and pediatric researchers will continue to be among the foreign nationals and refugees impacted by the travel ban. Leaving it to the discretion of Customs and Border Protection to decide whether to grant entry on a case-by-case basis will prevent these professionals from traveling or training here. This means that vulnerable children, particularly in rural and underserved areas of the United States, will be unable to access care provided by some of the brightest minds in medicine.”

Family Physicians: The President of the AAFP issued a public letter to the president plainly stating: “We are deeply concerned that steps your Administration has taken will have a chilling effect on our nation’s physician workforce, biomedical research, and global health. It is often America’s physicians who answer the call to assist people around the world when a public health crisis occurs. Imagine a world where physicians fail to answer the call of the needy because they fear they may not be able to return to their home and families in the United States. Many family physicians are international medical graduates, who have completed all or part of their education and training in the United States. They are professionals who dedicate their careers to the service of their patients in communities large and small, urban and rural. In fact, 20 percent of our membership and over 25 percent of family medicine residents are comprised of international medical graduates. The AAFP applauds and supports wholly the contributions of these individual family physicians to their patients and communities and we celebrate their diversity.”

These are neither hypothetical nor minor concerns. While the multiple publicized examples of physicians temporarily denied entry or re-entry have been reversed, the case of a Houston OB/GYN physician who cancelled his medical team’s trip to perform fetal surgeries, likely resulting in those pregnancy losses, should be distressing to any pro-life advocate. Additionally, the areas that IMGs from these countries serve are disproportionately in medically underserved areas, and though the second iteration of the travel ban would exempt visa holders, it is entirely plausible that it would continue to have a chilling effect on applicants from those countries as well as an implicit bias by program directors against ranking applicants from those countries if there is any degree of uncertainty of their immigration eligibility in the future. In fact, even the NRMP issued a statement on the Executive Order:

The consequences of the Executive Order are far reaching for Match applicants, and the upheaval it is causing is extensive. The affected applicants have worked hard for many years to achieve their goal of becoming physicians, and they should not be denied that opportunity because of a blanket policy that does not consider the individual. Similarly, U.S. training programs should be able to select applicants based on their excellent character and qualifications, without regard to nationality. Both applicants and programs benefit from an orderly process for entry into graduate medical education. The Executive Order disrupts that process very considerably.

This does not even begin to address the impact on refugee migration, which represents a particularly vulnerable population of patients. The revised ban continues to seek a complete and arbitrary suspension of the refugee program for 120 days which threatens the supportive infrastructure of refugee resettlement programs. In fact World Relief, a Christian non-profit agency that works with refugee resettlement, has closed 5 of 27 offices and laid off over a hundred employees in response. Robert George, eminent Constitutional scholar and avid Catholic pro-life advocate who has favored the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, soundly denounced (in conjunction with Angela Wu Howard) the travel ban in this joint article from First Things:

I myself only learned about the stringency of our refugee vetting procedures as a result of extensive briefing when I was chairing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). There are many things in our government that are “broken,” but our refugee vetting system isn’t one of them. We needn’t, and therefore we shouldn’t, shut out refugees who are fleeing terrorism in places such as Syria and Iraq, even temporarily. Because it isn’t necessary to do it, it is, in my opinion, necessary not to do it.

When I was chairing USCIRF, I called for an increase in the refugee quota. I continue to favor that. Many of my conservative friends disagree, but I believe that justice as well as compassion requires it. The U.S. is not without responsibility for creating the refugee crisis (or the conditions for it)—though we can debate just which presidents and others bear just what portion of that responsibility. I also favor maintaining the stringency of the vetting system, even if that means we do not reach the quota. That’s because I do believe that national security is preeminently important, and I want to make sure that what has happened in some places in Europe does not happen here. The other thing I advocated, and continue to advocate, is prioritization of refugee acceptance based on vulnerability to the worst forms of abuse: murder, rape, torture, enslavement. This is not because I want to bias the system in favor of Christians, as some of my more ridiculous critics on the Left have claimed. It is because decency requires it. Yes, Christians will benefit, but so will Yazidis, Shabak, Turkmen, minority Muslims, and even majority Muslims who are targeted by terrorists (such as ISIS) for helping U.S. forces or opposing terrorist entities. These are the people targeted by ISIS and other evildoers for the worst forms of abuse.

While a check-and-balance system may limit the long term consequences of an administrative agenda, to overlook the short term consequences of the uncertainty introduced does not provide reassurance because it intentionally understates the power of the President to cause real, actualized harm and therefore further alienates the very group meant to be comforted. If the physician creed is to “first do no harm”, how can we as healthcare practitioners — especially Christian ones committed to political advocacy — not object to the irresponsible use of force and poor policy?

I know exactly what to think about that.


Even more puzzling is the assurance that we should trust the administration because “thousands of good people will run the new government.”

The Chief Executive determines broad policies, but these people scattered throughout federal agencies make the government run. They flesh out laws through detailed regulations. They write the aims and guidelines for grants that fund the work of non-profit charities and organizations across the country. And they develop the pragmatic policies and programs that help our children learn, ensure that patients receive good healthcare and assist in feeding the poor and housing the homeless.

But Mr. Imbody’s statement remains problematic for many reasons. I draw direct attention to the gross omission, in his benevolent description of the “thousands of good people”, of Steve Bannon, the Chief Strategist of the White House. Bannon, who occupies a position not subject to the scrutiny of Congress for approval (one of the checks-and-balances cited earlier), has raised significant controversy for his leadership of Breitbart News and the alt-right movement. This alone was enough to draw criticism by the Anti-Defamation League for implicit support of white supremacists (though it acknowledges Bannon himself has not explicitly done this). But Bannon’s agenda, which as Chief Strategist is a reasonable proxy for that of the administration itself, has moreover explicitly been to “deconstruct the administrative state.”

While I appreciate Mr. Imbody’s point that government is not necessarily meant to be the “primary vehicle of social change,” the new administrative agenda stands in direct contradiction to his appeal that we trust in its intent to “develop the pragmatic policies and programs that help our children learn, ensure that patients receive good healthcare and assist in feeding the poor and housing the homeless” in that it has both implicitly and explicitly pledged itself to dismantling those things. Not restructuring, dismantling.

Though the American Health Care Act (AHCA) eventually failed to pass the House, it is indicative of the agenda of the administration (and the GOP). On a patient care level, the impact of the AHCA according to CBO estimates would result in worsening coverage loss, premium increases, and Medicaid contraction. Though multiple other professional organizations have taken stances criticizing the current form of the AHCA (including the AAFP, AAP, AMA, ANA, AHA, and even the AARP and Medicaid CMO), I understand that CMDA may not necessarily agree with these shared perspectives of healthcare policy as its constituents are diverse and not all agree that health insurance is necessary for quality healthcare; as an example, the AHCA pledges to increase funding to Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) which are primarily designed to care for uninsured patients, many of which are operated by explicitly Christian organizations (though doubtful that the proposed augmentation will be proportional to the needs of the newly uninsured). I also recognize that other elements of the AHCA also directly align with CMDA interests, such as reducing abortion subsidy by decreasing funding for Planned Parenthood.

But, as the Annals of Internal Medicine has cautioned regarding proposed ACA repeal: first, do no harm:

The 2010 health reform law is far from perfect, in either its structure or its execution; in a less dysfunctional political era, the flaws would have been addressed through subsequent changes. Now, amid the drive not to amend the law, but to repeal it—and absent a definitive replacement plan—physicians, as stewards of the nation’s health care, should be up at arms about the potentially dangerous impact.

Additionally, to imply that the new administration will be proactive about developing new programs to “help our children learn… assist in feeding the poor, and housing the homeless” is also directly contradicted by President Trump’s initial budget proposal, which:

- Eliminates US Interagency Council on Homelessness
— Eliminates Community Development Block Grant and Community Services Block Grant
— Eliminates funding for Habitat for Humanity and YouthBuild
— Eliminates the Home Investment Partnership Program
— Eliminates assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions
— Eliminates weatherization assistance program and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
— Reduces Legal Services Corp
— Reduces SNAP and WIC assistance
— Reduces Job Corps
— Eliminates the Senior Community Service Employment Program

In summary, this is a reduction of the:

- Department of Health and Human Services by 16.2%
— National Institutes of Health by 20%
— Department of Education by 13.5%
— Department of Housing and Urban Development by 13.2%

While one may make an argument in favor of these cuts in terms of a lack of efficacy by these programs, any claim that these are meant to improve the deficit is offset by the fact that these savings only make up 6% of the simultaneously proposed increase to defense spending by $54 billion. The proposed increase in defense spending also sends the signal that there is no intent to replace the cut programs but to rather displace their responsibility to states.

To therefore claim that this administration will make these issues a priority is financially, intellectually, and politically disingenuous.

I know exactly what to think about that.


While not all instances of violence should be attributable to the new administration or its constituents, it cannot be ignored as a primary cause of concern and anxiety among the many who oppose it. Mr. Imbody’s logic that the opposition’s primary concerns stem from “trust in government” and therefore the protections of the checks-and-balances system above should let “hyperventilating Trump opponents breathe a significant sigh of relief” is incomplete. Quite frankly, people are afraid of getting hurt. A Muslim colleague at my institution had a brick thrown through his daughter’s window after the election because she had a Clinton sign in it. Two Indian men were shot and killed by a white man telling them “get out of my country.” A Sikh man was shot in his driveway after being told “go back to your country.” There has been an increase in reported hate crime incidents in the past year (though this number is hopefully declining). Though President Trump has denounced some of these and the administration has suggested that they are statistically unlikely events, so are terrorist attacks. Yet the President and administration have used one set of threats against the safety of Americans to justify the Executive Orders for a travel ban while responding to the other set by excluding “white supremacists” from categorization as violent extremists.

This does not even begin to address issues of structural violence such as the mass forcible deportation and incarceration of illegal immigrants or that of mass incarceration in general. Whatever our political position regarding immigration or social policies may be, as Christian healthcare providers our primary concern should be the health of our patients, whomever they may be and however we come to encounter them. From this perspective, the administration’s early actions paint an aggressive stance that cannot be brushed aside as mistakes or indelicate handling.

I know exactly what to think.


Mr. Imbody also highlights President Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch as an example of comforting change to the composition of the Supreme Court:

From this list, President Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, an originalist in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, whom Gorsuch would replace. This nomination provides significant reassurance that the Supreme Court will be guided more by the rule of law, which protects everyone equally, than by ideology, which favors only those who support the ideology.

But the President himself, as indicated by his tweets and rhetoric and unprecedented leverage of Executive Orders, expresses disdain or ignorance for Constitutional principles themselves. He recently hinted, in reference to prior suggestions made during his campaign, that he would like to change libel laws to influence the media. He has openly challenged the legitimacy of Judge Curiel’s rulings against Trump University solely on the basis of Curiel’s Mexican ethnicity and heritage, a remark that Speaker Paul Ryan openly admitted at the time as being “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” This does not even begin to probe the concerns regarding conflicts of interest with the Emolument clause.

What does President Trump really think about the Constitution? Does he intend to govern in a way that respects the rule of law and the courts or does he intend to push their limits in favor of his maximal benefit? I know exactly what to think about that.


This is the most egregious omission in a blog post representing an explicitly Christian organization. That there would not be a single word of criticism or even expression of concern by Mr. Imbody regarding this President — who would be disqualified to become even an overseer in a church much less a self-proclaimed Christian President — is both disturbing and disheartening.

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. — 1 Timothy 3:1–7


Mr. Imbody concludes his piece by stating:

As of this writing, the Trump administration is just a month into governing and already has made some strides and some mistakes. The normal course of any administration is a rocky start followed by greater calm and competence. It’s too early to call.

The extent to which the administration advances policies and achieves results that better our own lives and the lives of others around the world does not just depend on one man. It depends upon all of us, advocating for good policies, demanding accountability and supporting our elected leaders with respect for their offices and with prayer.

I agree that it depends on all of us to advocate for good policies, accountability, and respect. However I strongly disagree that it’s too early to call.

I know exactly what call to make.
I know exactly what to think.

Counterpoint: Donald Trump got elected and I know exactly what to think

Scum of the World

I could hear the cussing from inside the room and noted the awkward glances of nearby nurses and staff who turned to look and gawk. Even though I only sat a few feet outside the door, I ignored the increasingly loud litany of expletives and deliberately focused on the screen in front of me. He was my patient and I was doing my best to concentrate on his rapidly evolving list of medical problems, the electronic progress note already ballooning in front of me as I tried to prioritize multiple terminal conditions competing for attention. I scrolled through pages of old notes that were littered with repeating instances of phrases such as “lost to follow up,” “did not comply with therapy,” “uncooperative,” and the ever favored, “signed out against medical advice.” I paused and watched as a freshly berated specialist walked out of the room, sat down at a nearby computer, and dictated into his own note the word “belligerent.” The diction snob inside me was pleasantly surprised to hear a new and applicable word and so I inserted it into my note as well.

Last week my pastor asked me, “How do you keep from becoming cynical?” The question caught me off guard; it occurred in the context of a series of conversations on the struggles of caring for people in both spiritual as well as physical matters. My reply was somewhat flippant as I didn’t have a good response. The question was unintentionally pointed; Pastor Tom is a quick-witted man and one of the many reasons why I respect him so much is that even though he appreciates a dry and sardonic sense of humor, he intentionally suppresses it. By contrast, I relish in lengthy conversations about all things dark and cynical. In college I would rant about the evils of systems of poverty, child slave labor, sex trafficking. Nowadays I rant about urban violence, health disparities, child abuse, racism, Donald Trump. I am not shy about these views and justify vocalizing them as a mechanism for challenging injustice, but the genuine and curious nature of Pastor Tom’s question left me unexpectedly exposed to scrutiny. After all, what is justice and how does that apply in medicine? What is the root of cynicism and why are criticism and sarcasm so satisfying?

Continue reading “Scum of the World”

Scum of the World

Failing Faithfully: Created, Fallen, and Waiting

[This is an advance post in a series from the ESN blog. You can find the first part here or here.]

In the first post of this series, I was ruminating about a patient who had a rapid decline in health and social circumstances, culminating in a recent scan that showed the possibility of cancer even while he was struggling with homelessness. It was a bleak situation that caught me off guard because I was not expecting it and was grieved to think of what it would be like for him to die alone.

He has since died.

Continue reading “Failing Faithfully: Created, Fallen, and Waiting”

Failing Faithfully: Created, Fallen, and Waiting

Pediatrician to Parent to the Passion

I stopped and put my fork down on the plate. There was still food on it, but an emotional force had interrupted my appetite. My wife and I had been sitting at the dining table, chatting idly about preparations for our child, now nearly 34 weeks old and still in the womb.

34 weeks. In the mere act of thinking those numbers, my mind suddenly brought out memories of many other children I had seen with those same numbers attached. 34 weeks but still with an unexpected high-grade intraventricular hemorrhage. 34 weeks but with panhypopituitarism. 34 weeks but with neurologic devastation. 34 weeks but…

Continue reading “Pediatrician to Parent to the Passion”

Pediatrician to Parent to the Passion

Suffering on Mission

I Peter 4:12–19 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Back in March I traveled overseas to do disaster relief work for nine days. Short-term medical missions work and being part of an inner city church plant are two things God has called me to at this time in my life. Our team went to an area that was recently hit by a large typhoon. People have asked me before, but especially with this high risk trip, “Why do you go to far away countries to do missions work?,” and, “Why do you choose to go to a church in Camden?” Sometimes I ask myself the same question. Before I left for this trip, I concluded that it’s because I’m not afraid to die. But I didn’t ask myself the question of what to do when God asks me to continue living for Him in the midst of difficulties.

When I returned home, I had a mild case of various gastrointestinal symptoms, pretty typical when working in a disaster area overseas. Over the course of two weeks, mild discomfort slowly turned into severe symptoms, forcing me to take about 10 days off of work. My skin was in a constant state of hives due to different medications. At the same time, I was in the middle of trying to plan an upcoming move, visiting my ailing grandmother, and preparing for a friend’s wedding. I spent some days barely able to get off the couch, and many other days only able to tolerate fruit juices and liquids. For someone who is rarely sick, just having to stay at home was torture. I spent a couple weeks trekking back and forth to the doctor’s office.

One night, after being sick for a month, I found myself reaching a point of utter exhaustion and frustration. It was very late in the night and I was lying there in bed, flat on my back, my arms stretched out. I had just put a medicated cream on my arms and hands and they were stinging very badly. I was miserable. I was tempted to- maybe I even did- ask God, “Why?”

There in the dark a tear trickled down the side of my face.
I thought of my Lord Jesus Christ.
Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame.
And stretched out His arms for me.

Jesus Christ is the ultimate picture of suffering. The recent movie Son of God clearly depicts this. The Roman method of crucifixion is one of the most painful, humiliating, and prolonging ways to die. And yet, he took the pain joyfully upon himself for my sake. My stinging hands and upset stomach were nothing compared to the weight of taking on the world’s sin.

I realized in that moment that my short and momentary affliction was from God. He allowed this in my life for His glory. I was trying to obey God when I went overseas; it was very clear to me that I had to go. I wanted to blame the sickness on Satan and spiritual forces, but a look at Job in the Bible told me otherwise. God has more power than Satan. Job was a very righteous man, probably one of the most righteous men ever to live other than Jesus, but God gave permission to Satan to allow him to suffer. God allowed Satan to afflict Job with the death of his family, financial ruin, and physical illness. Through it all, Job remained faithful to God. His response was: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.” Job’s decision was to continue praising God and give Him glory for who He is.

Now, I don’t claim to be righteous like Job. But that night lying in bed I was faced with a decision: will I continue serving God when it causes me to suffer? I had the option of becoming bitter over the fact that I had become sick while trying to be obedient or I could choose to praise God and find comfort in Him. I decided to start a thankfulness journal and wrote down things that I was thankful for each day. Slowly my tummy began to return back to its normal self, but God taught me a lot in five weeks and brought several important questions to mind.

Serving God comes with a price tag. When missions is no longer “fun,” what drives us to obey God? When the price tag of life on mission starts to hit closer and closer to home, will we continue to serve? Suffering might mean not being able to buy that computer you really need because you’ve used up all your savings to pay for airfare. Perhaps it is foregoing a family vacation because you’ve already used up all your time off for the year or coming down with a strange illness no doctor in the states knows how to treat. If you choose to serve God by living in the inner city, it might mean having your car broken into or breaking up fights at 1 in the morning or finding that the sewer system has overflowed into the street.

Instead of focusing on our temporary losses, let us consider the price Christ paid for us to become His. He gave up everything so that we could have eternal life. May that be our motivation as we strive to glorify Christ in our lives and may we strive to give up our lives so that others could know Him.

Suffering on Mission

Should We Pray With Patients?

The patient was abruptly, unexpectedly, and neurologically devastated, leaving his family stunned and grief stricken. There was little else for the ICU team to offer, even as we worked to do everything physiologically possible to sustain life. It was late at night and as we stood in the room listening to beeping monitors and the running motors of IV pumps, the family mentioned in passing that many people were praying for him. So I asked them two simple questions: Are you Christian? Would you like me to pray for you? They answered yes to both. I led them in a short prayer, expressing no more in terms of medical prognosis or aspirations for therapy than had already been offered, but also asking for strength, wisdom, and a clearer understanding and experience with God himself. The family was marginally but visibly relieved and calmed by it, and we continued on with the grueling task of caring for the patient.

As anticipated, the patient passed away several days later. After the family left, their nurse told me, “They could not stop talking about that prayer. They said that of the dozens of physicians they have interacted with over many years, not a single one ever offered to pray with them. It meant a lot.”

Modern healthcare is conflicted about how to approach faith and illness. On the one hand, rising pressure to improve patient satisfaction must recognize the importance of faith in the lives of patients; in one small family practice study, 48% percent of patients wanted a physician to pray with them (even though 68% never had a physician discuss religious beliefs with them). On the other hand, the secularization and humanism-ization of medicine can use the ethical mandate to respect patient autonomy as an excuse not to engage in matters that could be controversial (such as faith). Fear of “abuse of paternalistic power” in the physician-patient relationship or fear of invoking religious ritual and methodologies that are virtually impossible to hypothesis-test can create a “chilling effect” on the inquiry and expression of religious belief by healthcare workers even when no hostility or indifference is there. It is as if medical practitioners find it hard to believe that faith not only exists, but that it could possibly matter more to patients than the field of medical therapeutics itself.

The earliest practitioners of medicine were clergy members. In virtually every culture, ministers of medicine began as… well, ministers. After all, what can be a more compelling reason to drive us to our knees than helplessness in the face of suffering? Though modern medicine can explain the physiology of how we decay and die in excruciating detail, it is certainly not equipped to answer the question of why we do. This observation alone should explain why questions of faith contend to occupy the center of a patient’s attention and not simply the periphery.

The next time you are in a small group or a prayer gathering, try to count how many times health-related concerns come up for prayer.  Illness afflicts our minds, hearts, and souls as readily as our bodies. Healthcare workers are compelled to take hours of training in cultural sensitivity, mindfulness, and meditation; shouldn’t we be similarly compelled to attain and encourage proficiency in spiritual need assessment, willing to offer prayer when requested instead of retreating in indifference? Shouldn’t this be true in all the “helping professions”?

[Originally published at the Gospel Worldview Blog, written by very thoughtful college alumni. Read and contribute there!]

Should We Pray With Patients?

Death and Resurrection

He was a young man, and I could see fear in his eyes as he gripped the railings of the bed and struggled to breathe, sucking in heavily through the plastic mask feeding him oxygen. His body was wasting away from cancer, and the infections that had crept into his lungs were now forcing every compensatory mechanism into extremis. He wanted to fight and live, but there was little left for the ICU to offer. I had been pleading with him for days to consider hospice and a more peaceable passing at home where he could be surrounded by family and friends, but to him that meant giving up.

He was a young man …

So we had continued to do everything, and as predicted we eventually came to that point where every biomarker and technological parameter heralded physiologic disaster. “Your breathing cannot hold on its own. We will need to intubate you soon, but your body is so sick that we will probably never be able to take the breathing tube out.” I paused. We had had this conversation before. “Do you still want us to do it? I need to tell you the truth; you will almost certainly die either way. If we transition you to hospice, you can go home and pass away with your family and friends, and we will make sure that you are comfortable. But if you still want us to do everything — intubation, CPR, shocks — you will still die, but it will be here in this hospital, and it will be brutal. Do you want us to intubate you? Do you want CPR?” He nodded vigorously, still afraid, still adamant.

He was intubated. Continue reading “Death and Resurrection”

Death and Resurrection

What Does It Take?

[Guest poem]


What does it take
to change a life
from within?

Young and fearless
those 3 words,
inscribed on your chest

Invincible you were
til one day,
gun shots fired

your body running
suddenly ablaze
the sirens wailed

your family prayed
your homies await
your enemies irate

everything hurt
a miracle, you survived
and lived to tell

did you understand
you put your
family at risk?

did it matter
you committed a crime
done did your time

did you realize
a bullet would injure
more than a disk

now, though young
you’re bound to a chair
cannot run, cannot hide

a lifelong disability
you must take in stride
swallow all that gangsta pride

you leave the hospital
vowing to change
yet a few months later

it’s back to the same.

what does it take
to change a life
from within?

[Submission from Soapie, a nurse from the New England area who works in the urban setting. Soapie has been a fellow Christian blogger with David C for years (!), long before this site existed.]

What Does It Take?