GMCs anti- Christian Bias

The new tolerance the GMC exhibits resembles what we called intolerance last century, does it not?
It’s not even-handed. As such, does it not also smack of injustice?
It often seems that the Christian way is neither tolerated nor given similar credence to other faiths by "the powers that be"- the required reading of General Practice materials flavoured with Zen is only one such example.
Perhaps the GMC is making up for past preferences - but in doing so without acknowledging the benefits gained by Christian principles to the development of modern medicine- could arguably reflect an arrogant, biased, non-holistic, short-sighted, tunnel-vision- could it not?

Isn't this dangerous ground reminiscent of “Hitlerian” prejudices- or the Romans taking issue with Christians in the first Century.
In the UK, do we only tolerate the remnants of Judeo- Christian law because being without it would be intolerable and allow us to be governed along the lines of nations that are functionally anarchic?
Aspects of the law do allow the patient the right of complaint and God-forbid this is ever revoked!
Equally can we allow such rights to become unbalanced, twisted privileges?

Was Dr. Scott insensitive to the needs of his patient?

Did his patient have his arm twisted behind him- metaphorically speaking-or is Dr. Scott’s benevolence being perceived as malevolence?

Society’s unhappiness and psychological ills are epidemic in proportion despite our unprecedented comforts in historic and global terms.
Can we really knock Dr. Scott for suggesting answers that are “outside the box?”
His practice has taken him further afield than the majority of doctors and as such is there nothing we can learn from him?

Dr Annie Cherian-Forester (Returner program NW Deanery)