Bemaj Pharmacy

Can a Doctor Deny Me Treatment? When, Why, and What are my Options? – Baizer Kolar Neiman P.C. Yes, a doctor can deny you medical treatment. Private doctors have some more leeway to deny treatment to patients than those in Medicare-compliant hospitals, but there are circumstances under which even doctors serving Medicare patients may choose not to serve a patient.

Can a GP remove a patient from their list?

Removal of patients from GP lists – GP practices may apply to remove patients from their list if the relationship between patient and GP has broken down. Your GP will normally explain the problem to you and try to resolve it. They may ask to see you or may write to you.

If the problem can’t be resolved, the GP will normally advise you in writing that you may be removed from their list. Patients cannot be removed from a GP’s list because they’ve made a complaint. However, the basis of the complaint may mean that the relationship between patient and GP has already broken down.

If a patient has been violent or abusive, or has behaved in a threatening way towards their GP or a member of staff and the police have been involved, they may be removed from their GP’s list immediately without warning. Your GP’s practice leaflet may explain their policy for removing patients from their list.

What is the refusal of treatment?

Right to Refuse Treatment Every competent adult has the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. This is part of the right of every individual to choose what will be done to their own body, and it applies even when refusing treatment means that the person may die.

1. The right to refuse treatment applies to those who cannot make medical decisions for themselves, as well as to those who can; the only difference is how we protect the rights of people who cannot make decisions for themselves (see VEN’s free handbook ).
2. A person might decide against having a recommended treatment for any number of reasons.

Some people for religious reasons do not want to receive blood transfusions. Others decide that they don’t want a recommended treatment because it is too risky or expensive or because even if the treatment works, there is little or no chance it will get them back to a quality of life they could enjoy or accept.

• Many people do not want life-sustaining treatments like ventilators or feeding tubes if these treatments are only going to prolong the dying process.
• Having the right to refuse medical treatment does not mean that a decision to forgo treatment will be accepted without question.
• Any time a patient turns down a recommended treatment, it means that he or she and the doctor view the situation differently.

That’s OK. It is not the patient’s job to simply “go along” with what is being recommended. Rather, the patient’s job is to consider all the options and decide what is best for him or her. What is most important from the medical point of view may not be most important from the patient’s point of view, because goals and values may differ.

What is a warning letter from GP practice?

Issuing a formal warning to patients about their behaviour isn’t a step most doctors take lightly – but if you ever have to, here’s what you should know. – Warning letters are issued to patients when GP practice partners or the trust believe a patient’s behaviour has been inappropriate and unacceptable.

Can you delete GP records?

No. A patient’s record should be complete and accurate to ensure they receive appropriate care. Patients can question the content of their records, but not on the basis that it is upsetting or that they disagree with it. Factual errors can be corrected but it must be immediately obvious what has been changed, who made the amendment and the time and date it was changed.

How many patients should a GP have on their list?

Unsafe working contacts – The European Union of General Practitioners and BMA have recommended a safe level of patient contacts per day in order for a GP to deliver safe care at not more than 25 contacts per day. ‘At Your Service’, published by the Policy Exchange and forwarded by Sajid Javid, states that 28 patient contacts per day is safe.

Present contacts per day by GPs in England are significantly in excess of this. “At Your Service” highlights that GPs are seeing on average 37 patients per day. We recommend that practices take urgent action to move towards safe consultation numbers per day. Excess demand beyond safe levels should be directed to NHS 111, extended access hubs, or other providers.

We strongly recommend moving away from a ‘duty doctor’ system with uncapped demand. This is where clinicians may be expected to maintain unsafe levels of patient contacts in a day. In order to provide extra capacity for patient care, alternative sources should be taken advantage of wherever possible.

• extended access appointments
• walk in clinic services
• clinical pharmacy consultation service (CPCS)
• ARRS staff with their role diverted to maximally support core provision of patient care

NHS 111 can directly book GP appointment slots to a maximum of 1 appointment per 3000 patients. It is for the practice re-triage these patients and decide how to manage them. Many GPs now have access to remote working solutions and utilise these to manage their working day and current patient demand.

1. Remote access can encourage a working culture that means GPs work more.
2. For example, by logging in on evenings and weekends.
3. This working culture should be avoided as it can disproportionately impact women and part-time GPs.
4. Sessional GPs are an integral and crucial component of practices.
5. We advocate involving them in discussions at all stages when you are making changes.

This is to comply with employment law related to changes in working practices, but also to utilise their expertise and experience to help shape the provision of patient services.

What is white coat syndrome?

PHILADELPHIA – White coat hypertension, a condition in which a patient’s blood pressure readings are higher when taken at the doctor’s office compared to other settings, was originally attributed to the anxiety patients might experience during medical appointments.

However, over the years, research has suggested the elevated readings might be a sign of underlying risk for future health problems. A new study led by researchers from Penn Medicine, published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, revealed that patients with untreated white coat hypertension not only have a heightened risk of heart disease, but they are twice as likely to die from heart disease than people with normal blood pressure.

Researchers also found that patients with white coat hypertension who were taking medication to treat their high blood pressure, called antihypertensives, did not have an increased risk of heart disease or cardiovascular-related death compared to those with normal blood pressure readings.

1. Studies suggest that about one in five adults may have white coat hypertension.
2. Our findings underscore the importance of identifying people with this condition,” said the study’s lead author Jordana B.
3. Cohen, MD, MSCE, an assistant professor in the division of Renal-Electrolyte and Hypertension and a senior scholar in the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics.

“We believe individuals with isolated in-office hypertension – those who are not taking blood pressure medication – should be closely monitored for transition to sustained hypertension, or elevated blood pressure both at home and the doctor’s office.” High blood pressure, or hypertension, is a defined as a top reading of at least 130 or a bottom one of 80.

The condition affects nearly a third of American adults and, if left untreated, increases one’s risk for severe complications, including heart attack and stroke. To diagnose and manage the condition, recent hypertension guidelines strongly recommend out-of-office blood pressure monitoring, such as at-home monitoring and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, which requires patients to wear a portable device that records blood pressure readings over a 24-hour period.

However, providers have been slow to adopt this practice due, in part, to skepticism over the usefulness of screening for white coat hypertension given the inconsistent findings – from past studies – and uncertainty around its association with heart disease and death.

To identify the cardiovascular risks of white coat hypertension, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies, comprising more than 60,000 patients, that evaluated the health risks associated with the condition. They found that patients with untreated white coat hypertension had a 36 percent increased risk of heart disease, 33 percent increased risk of death and 109 percent increased risk of death from heart disease.

“Our findings support the pressing need for increased out-of-office blood pressure monitoring nationwide, as it’s critical in the diagnosis and management of hypertension,” Cohen said. “Simultaneously, we advise individuals with untreated white coat hypertension to engage in lifestyle modifications, including smoking cessation, reduction in their alcohol intake, and making improvements to their diet and exercise regimens.

We also caution providers not to over-treat individuals with white coat hypertension who are already on blood pressure medication, as this could lead to dangerously low blood pressures outside of the office and unnecessary side effects from medication.” Researchers noted that future studies are needed to investigate interventions to reduce the cardiac risk of white coat hypertension.

This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (K23-HL133843). Additional Penn authors on the study include Matthew G. Denker, Debbie L. Cohen and Raymond R. Townsend. Penn Medicine is one of the world’s leading academic medical centers, dedicated to the related missions of medical education, biomedical research, excellence in patient care, and community service.

The organization consists of the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Penn’s Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine, founded in 1765 as the nation’s first medical school. The Perelman School of Medicine is consistently among the nation’s top recipients of funding from the National Institutes of Health, with $550 million awarded in the 2022 fiscal year.

Home to a proud history of “firsts” in medicine, Penn Medicine teams have pioneered discoveries and innovations that have shaped modern medicine, including recent breakthroughs such as CAR T cell therapy for cancer and the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines.

The University of Pennsylvania Health System’s patient care facilities stretch from the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania to the New Jersey shore. These include the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Chester County Hospital, Lancaster General Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Health, and Pennsylvania Hospital—the nation’s first hospital, founded in 1751.

Additional facilities and enterprises include Good Shepherd Penn Partners, Penn Medicine at Home, Lancaster Behavioral Health Hospital, and Princeton House Behavioral Health, among others. Penn Medicine is an $11.1 billion enterprise powered by more than 49,000 talented faculty and staff.

What is unacceptable blood pressure?

What is high blood pressure? – Blood pressure is defined as the force of blood pushing against the walls of the arteries as the heart pumps blood. High blood pressure – also known as hypertension – is a disease in which blood flows through blood vessels (arteries) at a higher than normal pressure.

• Blood pressure is measured with two numbers.
• The first, or top number, is the pressure in your blood vessels when your heart beats, called the systolic pressure.
• Systolic pressure is the higher of the two numbers.
• The second, or bottom number, measures the force of blood in your arteries while your heart is relaxed between beats.

The bottom number is the lower of the two and is called the diastolic pressure. Normal pressure is 120/80 or lower. Your blood pressure is considered high (stage 1) if it reads 130/80. Stage 2 high blood pressure is 140/90 or higher. If you get a blood pressure reading of 180/110 or higher more than once, seek medical treatment right away.

Why is it so difficult to see a GP?

It’s no wonder I couldn’t see a GP: limiting access to services is the point | Kenan Malik I t’s a problem familiar to millions: the trials of trying to book a doctor’s appointment. Last week, suffering from a debilitating condition but not an emergency, I called the GP surgery to get it checked out.

• There were no slots available for that day.
• Nor could I book an appointment for beyond that day.
• Trying online, the best I was offered was a telephone call two weeks away.
• Online slots are so precious that by the time you choose one and input your details, it has already been taken.
• I eventually ended up in A&E, and thankfully everything turned out fine (fine enough, at least, for me to be able to write this column).

It’s a common tale, and one that millions endure every day. There are many reasons, not least the pressures imposed by Covid and lockdowns on the post-pandemic world and, perhaps most importantly, the shortage of medical staff. In the NHS as a whole, there are more than – almost 10% of its planned workforce.

Among GPs, with a planned, fully qualified workforce of almost 30,000, there are more than, And it’s the that are most lacking in GPs. Beyond such proximate causes, however, there lies a deeper reason, too, and one that shapes not just the difficulties in accessing health services but also many contemporary problems, from the rail chaos to the failure to mitigate the impact of soaring energy costs.

All are, at least partly, the product of the changing nature of the state. Political analysts have been talking for more than three decades about the shift from the “positive” or “command” state, which was employed in the immediate postwar decades, to the “regulatory state” that slowly came into being from the 1980s.

Where the postwar state directly intervened to secure what were seen as desired social and economic outcomes – from creating the National Health Service to the nationalisation of key industries, from railways to coal – the post-Margaret Thatcher regulatory state viewed desired outcomes as best shaped by the market and saw the role of the state less as providing services than in regulating the market and in “steering” it towards desirable outcomes.

A state that made rules rather than material interventions. A state that outsourced its capacity to get things done to the market and to non-governmental organisations, whether private or public. Over time, the process of regulation itself has been removed from the direct ambit of the government through the creation of independent quangos to provide the “steering”, from Ofgem to the Low Pay Commission.

1. The Grenfell fire inquiry has exposed the degree to which private companies rode roughshod over government regulations In his 1997 book The Audit Society, accountant and economist argued that Britain was becoming a nation more concerned with monitoring services than with their actual improvement.
2. Rituals of regulatory verification,” he argued, served as “empty assurances” for a public that had become distrustful of the judgment of professionals.

It is a process that has deepened over the past quarter of a century. The regulatory state has actually led to looser regulation and less capacity to achieve socially desirable outcomes. We can see this most dramatically, and tragically, in the, The inquiry into the fire has exposed the degree to which private companies not only rode roughshod over government regulations but also the degree to which regulators often colluded with the rule-breakers or at least turned a blind eye to their activities.

• The rise of the regulatory state has also made it more difficult for government to institute long-term planning, whether, or resilience against,
• At the same time, the outsourcing of government functions, and its reluctance to intervene directly, has undermined its capacity to respond to crises, leading, for instance, to the current paralysis over soaring energy costs, a paralysis that goes far beyond simply the chasm in governance created by the Tory leadership campaign.

The regulatory state has also created organisational incoherence and fragmentation. We can see this in the railways, the water industry and the energy sector. Perhaps most perniciously, we can see it in the NHS. The establishment of the “internal market”, the division between “commissioners” and “providers” and the setting up of a multitude of semi-autonomous organisations has all helped to create, in the words of, “a highly complex bureaucratic structure, in which responsibility is so widely dispersed that accountability is virtually impossible” and in which even those charged with its administration struggle to identify But, more than that, in the age of austerity, mechanisms of regulation have become the means less of ensuring good services than of restricting access to impoverished ones.

That is why the process of booking a doctor’s appointment seems designed to be as difficult as possible in order to limit access to a diminishing resource. Free market policies have placed market efficiency and the conditions for profitability above social need Free market policies and the entrenchment of the regulatory state are often celebrated as enabling greater democracy, enhancing choice and empowering the ordinary citizen.

What they have really done is place market efficiency and the conditions for profitability above social need. They have also been used in an attempt to insulate public institutions from democratic pressures. That is why the rise of the regulatory state has gone, hand in hand, with assaults on trade unions and the greater atomisation of society.

As early as 1975, the Trilateral Commission, an elite non-governmental organisation set up two years earlier by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose aim was to shape global governance, had warned in a report, entitled The Crisis of Democracy, that a problem such as inflation is “exacerbated by a democratic politics”.

This is because the idea that “government should be responsive to the people creates the expectation that government should meet the needs and correct the evils affecting particular groups in society” and makes it impossible “to curtail spending, increase taxes and control prices and wages”.

1. The “crisis of democracy”, in other words, was that there was too much of it.
2. It was necessary to shield the state from democratic pressures and to squash the expectation that the role of the government was to “meet the needs and correct the evils” afflicting citizens.
3. The structures of the regulatory state have sought to do just that.

And, in so doing, they have turned as mundane a task as making an appointment with your doctor into a tortuous trial while allowing something as monstrous as the energy price rise to hit us without any serious forward planning to mitigate its impact.

How do you document a patient refusal?

Documentation Strategies – In the event of litigation, the patient record is one of the most important components of the defense. Regardless of the record format, document the details of all informed consent or informed refusal discussions. The documentation should include when and where the discussion occurred; who participated or was physically present; the options, risks, benefits, costs, and possible outcomes addressed; and a notation that the patient’s questions were answered.

Information the provider gave to the patient concerning the patient’s condition and the proposed treatment or test. Reasons for the treatment or test should also be noted. The patient was advised of the possible risks and consequences of failing to undergo the treatment or test, including the loss of life or limb, if appropriate. The provider’s referral to a specialist, including the reasons for the referral and the possible risks of not seeing the specialist. The patient’s refusal of the treatment/testing plan or advice. In this circumstance, consider asking the patient to sign a specific refusal form. (See our sample form ” Refusal to Consent to Treatment, Medication, or Testing,”) Although a form is optional, it offers providers the strongest protection against subsequent claims alleging a lack of informed consent.

The paternalistic approach to providing care has given way to a much more patient-centered environment in which patients enjoy greater autonomy and participation in the delivery of professional services. (See our article ” Best Practices in Patient-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making,”) Increased communication, enhanced patient understanding of treatment options and the risks of refusal, and improved documentation may all help to reduce the risk of professional liability claims when the patient declines to follow recommendations.

What does the Bible say about refusing medical treatment?

Does Believing In God Stop One From Taking Medicine Or Blood Transfusion? Due to religious beliefs, when some people, especially Christians fall ill, they refuse to take drugs preferring to go to their prayer houses, instead of heading for the hospital. While no one has the right to query the stand of another in such matters, it nevertheless elicits curiosity when someone at the point of death, and who probably could have been saved by medical treatment refuses to avail himself/herself of such.

Does medicine in any way reduce one’s faith in the Creator? Recently, for instance, a pregnant woman reportedly shun the idea of blood transfusion, which was meant to aid in her safe delivery, as she was experiencing prolonged and difficult labour. She did this on the ground that her faith does not permit such.

So, one cannot but ask: should believing in God stop the individual from taking medicine, going to the hospital or receiving blood transfusion? Is availing oneself the benefits of medicine tantamount to less faith in the Lord? How far can faith carry the believer? Some Clerics ventilate on the issue, as reported by CHRIS IREKAMBA.

Where Does Faith End And Medicine Begin? ‘I Deem It Unfortunate That The Woman Refused Blood Transfusion’ (Rt. Rev. Monsignor John Aniagwu, Vicar-General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Lagos/Parish Priest, St. Leo’s Catholic Church, Ikeja, Lagos) THERE is a saying that ‘heaven helps those who help themselves.’ So, if you are sick and you want God to help you, you have to do something.

You don’t just sit down doing nothing about it and believing that God will just come and work miracle in your life. It is also a fact that God is the Author of medical science. He gave the medical know-how to human beings. So, when we have recourse to medical science, we do so in the consciousness that God Himself created it.

1. It does not in any way contradict or detract from our faith, if we use something that God Himself has made available for us.
2. Opting for medication or going to the hospital does not contradict our religious stance.
3. Indeed, we encourage members to also use whatever resources are available and compatible with Christianity alongside prayers.

So, for instance, we will never encourage anyone to go to a shrine or consult a medium and such things. But if you go to the hospital for medical care or even take traditional medicine that is not tied to fetishism, it’s in order. We are not against such in the Catholic Church.

1. To the woman that refused blood transfusion even after she was told ‘look, you need blood to survive’ and she refused, I would say it’s unfortunate, though I can’t judge members of other faith.
2. I can only say that in my own Church, I would not advise anyone to do that.
3. We run hospitals.
4. In fact, there are a lot of Catholic hospitals around the world and there is even one right here inside this church compound.

When people come to us, we give them whatever medical help that is available. And if blood transfusion is required, we give it. ‘Many Leaders Have Misled Their Members On Blood Transfusion’ (Brother Godwin Ifeacho, Chairman, Executive Board, God’s Kingdom Society, GKS, Warri, Delta State) SOME people hold the religious view that it is wrong for a Christian to take medicine in any form.

This is wrong. The Bible makes it clear that God has provided medicines for the use of man. “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man” (Psalm 104:14). In Proverbs 17:22, it is written: “A merry heart doeth good LIKE A MEDICINE: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.” That faith and prayer are of great importance in the life of a Christian cannot be argued.

But to depend on them without discretion and understanding of the law of God is tantamount to over-righteousness or fanaticism, which can even lead to untimely death. It was King Solomon that said: “Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?” – Ecclesiastes 7:16.

1. When Hezekiah, the king of Judah was sick and prayed for recovery, God Almighty instructed Isaiah the prophet to tell him to take a lump of figs and lay it on the boil.
2. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.” (2 Kings 20:1-7) The lump of figs used to cure the boil was medicine, pure and simple.

Indeed, those who should see a physician as our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 9:12 are those who are sick. And will the doctor not prescribe medicine? In the parable of the Good Samaritan, oil and wine were poured on the wounds of the man injured by robbers.

• These were medicines.
• See Luke 10:25-37.
• James 5:13-16 where the exhortation is given that one who is sick should meet the elders of the church to pray for him “and the prayer of faith shall save the sick” does not in any way mean that Christians should not take medicine.
• It only emphasises the power of prayer and the importance of faith such that when a Christian takes medicine, he believes it cannot be effective UNLESS God, by His grace, blesses it with His healing power.

A Christian should, however, avoid anything idolatrous for that is sinful. (2 Kings 1:1-18; see also Deuteronomy 18:10-12 and Isaiah 8:19.) It is only the Lord alone that heals and this belief is perfectly in order. On blood transfusion, there is no disputing the fact that the Almighty God commanded his people not to eat blood; but this is not the same as blood transfusion, which involves transferring the blood of one person into the circulatory and not the digestive system of another person.

Transfusion is similar to when someone is given drip to sustain him/her when he/she cannot eat. The drip will not have the needed effect unless transfused. Eating of food merely serves to satisfy hunger and the waste is later passed out, (Matthew 15: 15,17) while transfusion involves injecting blood or blood plasma directly into the blood vessels of a patient.

It is a big sacrifice by one to sustain the life of another person. Jesus Christ said: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13). It is not a sin. Many people have died because of ignorance, having been misled by their leaders on the issue of blood transfusion.

1. The Bible says “For the leaders of this people cause them to err and they that are led of them are destroyed.” (Isaiah 9:16) And God Almighty declared through the prophet Hosea: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” -Hosea 4:6.
2. If Somebody Refuses Blood Transfusion, It’s More Of Denominational Doctrine’ (Pastor Onyema Duruigbo, General Overseer, The Gospel House, Okota, Lagos) GOD created all the herbs and gave them to man.

When discussing medicine, you are talking about synthesising those herbs and extracting the active ingredients in them, measuring them and being in a position to administer them. If God gave herbs to man and commanded him to eat them, He would not frown at anyone going to the hospital for treatment.

He’s given us all wisdom and power and He said ‘subdue,’ which means subduing sicknesses with the wisdom He has given us. So, I think it’s not Biblical for the woman to have said because of her faith she wouldn’t take blood transfusion and all that. It’s more of denominational doctrines and people that do that are mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As a Christian, I don’t see anything wrong with it even in the scriptures when King Hezekiah was sick, Isaiah was commanded to take some figs and mix them with leaves and when he administered that Hezekiah recovered. God is not against it and if your faith cannot carry you, it’s advisable you seek treatment elsewhere.

1. The drugs cannot heal on its own.
2. It still requires the Hand of God to rejuvenate the cells within the system.
3. I don’t see anything wrong in taking drugs, going to the hospital for treatment or receiving blood transfusion.
4. Anyone Who Does That Is Going To The Extreme In Exercising His/Her Faith’ (Rev.

(Dr.) Musa Asake, National Secretary, Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN) HAVING faith in God does not mean that one should not take medication when he or she is sick. Anyone who does that is actually going too far in the exercise of his or her faith.

Such is also a clear indication that the individual does not know what faith in God is. There is nowhere in the Bible we read that if you have faith in God you cannot take any medication. One’s faith in God should enable him/her believe that the medication will work. Today, there are some Christians who have fine-tuned the Bible to suit their personal and selfish theology and are thus causing serious problems in the household of God.

My question to anyone that refuses to go to hospital for treatment but goes to a prayer house is: whom is he/she going to meet in that prayer house? The person offering that prayer is praying to whom? Why don’t you pray to that same God yourself? Prayer does not prevent you from taking medication.

• Some prayer houses have become a source of income while they try to play God.
• Some tell the sick that someone is responsible for their ailment and ask them to do this or that.
• I do not encourage any Christian to do that.
• There are examples from the Bible that encourage people to go to the hospital for treatment.

For example, Na’aman the leper in the book of Kings was told by prophet Elisha to go to the river and dip himself seven times so that he could be healed. Refusing to go to the hospital for treatment is wrong. Our faith can carry us even to the hospital and still believe that God will use that medication to heal us and if at the end we do not get healed then that is God’s will for us.

Believing in God does not stop us from taking medicine and nobody should deceive us by playing God. ‘Those Who Are In Need Of Blood Transfusion, Surgery Should Not Be Hindered’ (Pastor Ezekiel Joel, Full Salvation Believers’ Assembly Int’l, Nnewi, Anambra State)

LET us be sincere, the issue of faith is very delicate and personal. The issue of whether or not to use medical means to secure our health or to allow blood transfusion is as delicate. Those who believe that it goes against the teaching and practice of their church should not be castigated or condemned for any reason whatsoever.

This is the stand of the Bible, especially as there have been people whose personal faith has developed and carried them for over three decades, without taking a single tablet or dose of syrup. Yes, the Bible promised divine healing for the sick, without the use of medicine, upon fulfilling certain scriptural conditions (Exod.15: 26; 23:25; Deut.7: 15; Psalm 103:1-4; Jer.33: 3,6; Isaiah 53:4,5; Mathew 8:16,17; Acts10: 38; I Peter2: 21, 24).

Interestingly, God is still honouring His word and proving Himself faithful on behalf of, and to those who trust in His unfailing and unchanging promises and power to heal and keep His trusting children healthy. I’m a living witness to miraculous healings.

However, those who are in need of medical help such as blood transfusion, surgery and caesarean section among others should not be hindered or condemned also. This is because God, in His word, alluded to the role of medical aid, and not in a derogatory manner (lsaiah1: 6; Jer.8: 22; 30:12,13; Luke10: 33-37; Matt.9: 12).

Christians are admonished not to look down on others regarding what their faith can or cannot carry (Matt.7: 1-3; Rom14: 1-5; 15:1-3). I would only advise all and sundry to ensure life is not lost because of ignorance or due to dogmatism and fanaticism.

It is God that gave doctors the knowledge of medicine in order to help humanity. And we should be free to take advantage of what God has graciously given for our good, without becoming fetish or going into syncretism. ‘Some People Thought God Should Do Almost Everything For Them’ (Bishop Isaac Ayo Olawuyi, Methodist Church Nigeria, Diocese of Lagos Mainland) IN creation, God made man in His image Gen.

I: 26-27. He created other things such as water, trees in their kinds, grass of the field in their kinds and animals in their kinds but made man to have dominion over all that He created. In fact, God had created all other things before He finally created man.

• All that the Lord had made are given to man to eat for his subsistence and wellbeing.
• The food we eat and water we drink are medicine for the body.
• All roots and herbs that God created are good according to Gen.1:31, which reads thus “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” Everything, which is made by God, has been declared good for us, good for our consumption, use, sustainability, wellbeing and healing. There are cases of healing in the Bible through the power of faith, which has a significant place in the healing of man.

Peter’s mother-in-law was healed of fever by our Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 1:29-31. It has been scientifically proven that faith in God does quicken recovery from illnesses. There are several places in the Bible, where faith alone is accounted for the healing of the people. But there is no place in the Bible that forbids the use of drugs, especially for someone who is ill.

Jesus said: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick”—Matthew 9:12. For any one who is sick or a pregnant woman who needs medical attention but refuses a medical treatment is acting in ignorance of the Divine Providence. Medical care is part of God’s provisions for restoration, health, wellbeing and life sustainability.

1. It does not contradict or reduce faith in God.
2. This wrong notion has been in existence for quite a long time.
3. Some people thought that faith should be absolute, that is, God should do almost everything for them.
4. They expect that God should go to the office and do their work for them, that He should construct the road for them, as well as do the work of the PHCN by providing electricity, do the wiring of the house and switch it on for them.

They feel that God should go and buy clothes and sew for them. He should also go to the market, buy foodstuff, cook and feed them. This is an absolute ignorance and total absurdity. Divine providence is always there for us, but we have a part to play as well.

• His divine providence has to be wisely applied for the good of humanity.
• It is, therefore, advisable for anyone that is sick to go to the hospital for medical treatment and not refuse the goodness of God.
• If he or she dies as a result of refusal based on faith, he/she may enter heaven but he/she has lost his/her opportunity to live longer on earth for the good of his/her family, Church and nation.

‘Jesus Acknowledged The Need For A Physician’ (Pastor (Dr.) Jacob E. Umoru, President Lagos Atlantic Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist Church) THE Apostle Paul defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1).

John Wesley’s paraphrase of this verse: “(Faith) is the power to see into the world of spirits, into things invisible and eternal. It is the power to understand those things, which are not perceived by worldly senses.” Faith is the act of the soul by which the whole man is given over to the guardianship and control of Jesus Christwith assurance Christ is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.

Tozer is right when he says that: “a spiritual kingdom lies all about us, enclosing us, embracing us altogether within reach of our inner selves, waiting for us to recognise it. God Himself is here waiting for our response to His Presence. This eternal world will come alive to us the moment we begin to reckon upon its reality.” Some Christian denominations believe that when one is sick and takes medicine he doesn’t have enough faith in God because the person is depending on medicine and his/her doctor instead of God to make him/her better.

To me, however, this actually reveals a self-righteous attitude and shows a lack of common sense. It is true that doctors cannot heal but only care, as it is only God that heals. This claim that seeing a doctor when sick shows a lack of faith is not consistent with the scriptures because Luke was a medical doctor and Jesus acknowledged him.

When you read the Gospel of Luke, you can tell that a man that had medical experience wrote it. Jesus acknowledged the need for a physician when he said in Luke 5:31, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” This is repeated in Matthew 9:12 and in Mark 2:17.

1. The story of the blind man in John 9:6-10 is a clear example of Jesus healing with medicine.
2. As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, 7 saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent).
3. So, he went and washed and came back seeing.8 The neighbours and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, “Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?” 9 Some said, “It is he”; others said, “No, but he is like him.” He said, “I am the man.” 10 They said to him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” Here, we see that Jesus believed in doctors and that he said that it is the sick who needs a doctor.

How much plainer can that statement be? There are no Scriptures and there are no New Testament church verses where we are told not to seek medical attention when necessary. When Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach illness, would we accuse Timothy of having a lack of faith (1 Tim 5:23)? Paul prayed three times to the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh” and would you say that Paul lacked faith (2 Cor 12:7-1)? I would hope not.

1. God is the one that heals and it is He alone that heals and sometimes in His divine providence, He chooses not to because He can be shown strong in our weaknesses and afflictions (2 Cor 12:9).
2. But this does not mean that God would expect us to do nothing.
3. It is not a lack of faith for anyone to go to the doctor for treatment, but a demonstration of faith in God to cure them with the medicine.

Those that have faith respond to treatment faster than those that do not. : Does Believing In God Stop One From Taking Medicine Or Blood Transfusion?

What is capacity and refusal of treatment?

Capacity: the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and they can use it to make an informed decision. decisions for themselves about their medical treatment is legally entitled to accept or refuse any treatment that is offered to them.