20 July 2009

Swine Flu and Theological Reflection

The new Vice President of Methodist Conference, who is a GP (General Practitioner) by profession, has posted an excellent reflection on the subject of responding to swine flu

Here is a flavour:
There are though for Christians many ethical aspects to a flu pandemic that we should consider. In Britain we have a well developed health service, and enough money and forethought to buy large amounts of anti-viral medication and vaccine. This though means there is less or even none for those with less well developed plans or limited resources. Yet again the rich developed world will be able to protect its population at the expense of the poorer developing world.

6 comments:

Doorman-Priest said...

Is it just me, or this a story made by and for the media?

PamBG said...

What, Swine Flu? Or working as a GP and reflecting theologically on it?

Doorman-Priest said...

I was thinking of swine flu, but now you come to mention it.....

PamBG said...

Here's a (rather long) comment I just posted on Fat Prophet's blog.

No, I don't think that the VP of Conference is making this up for the sake of publicity. I think it's a real part of his job and he's reflecting theologically on it. (Sorry, but I'm a bit sensitive to all the knocking of the officials of the Methodist Church; I don't actually believe that, on the whole, people are doing these jobs for cynical reasons.)

Here's my comment at FP's blog:

I rather agree with you on this. I think it's a great news story for the media (perhaps in a slow news season?) and the word 'pandemic' sounds dramatic.

I'm not all that knowledgeable about medical issues, but my impression is that what 'the issue' is with swine flu is that there was no one with natural immunity to the disease before it sprung up, so it's easily contagious. I think that the worry, from a medical point of view, is that the virus will mutate as it comes in contact with other viruses and we have no way of knowing how virulent such a mutation would be.

I get the general impression that people come often fall into two broad categories when it comes to behaviour around contagious diseases: those who don't practice good hygiene at all and those who are hypochondriacs. I'm not sure we can calm down the latter, but it's no bad thing to practice good hygiene. For example, when I go into a nursing home to do communion, I wash my hands when I get there and use gel as well; I've always done that. I'm not a hypochondriac, but it seems like the right thing to do for people who may well have constitutions that are more frail than mine. Why should they have the germs from my car door, steering wheel and anything I've touched on the way there?

Fat Prophet said...

I am not sure where the idea that anyone was knocking the Vice President has come from. For me I was merely raising the viewpoint that I am not entirely sure the whole thing isn't as DP put it a story made by and for the media. I hope that was what I was communicating in the post over at my own blog and I would certainly not question the Vice President in respect of a topic he is far more qualified to comment on than I am.
As far as knocking of officials of the Methodist Church goes I agree that it is great pity that this sort of thing happens but that is the nature of living in a democracy where freedom of speech is still one of the things available to us all.
I was in a joint Anglican/Methodist service on Sunday evening when we had a dsicussion about how we saw things and one of the things that struck me was that there was a great deal of respect for other peoples views with the consensus that we may not agree on everything but that doesn't prevent us working and worshipping together.

PamBG said...

Fat Prophet, no I didn't think you were knocking the VP at all over on your post, so don't worry about it.

As far as knocking of officials of the Methodist Church goes I agree that it is great pity that this sort of thing happens but that is the nature of living in a democracy where freedom of speech is still one of the things available to us all.

Yes, I agree with you. But I think freedom of speech cuts both ways. It appears to me that people who are used to being verbally aggressive to the point of suggesting untruths often don't like to be challenged. A lot of people in this country don't like confrontation and I think aggressive people are used to having others back down. In the US, if you punch someone in the face, by and large, you don't scream 'How dare anyone punch me back'.