UK Nurse faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient

Mena

robindch wrote: »

Stuff

Cheers Robin, was just about to ask both sides to give sources

sorella

Your evidence please.

And why would knowing you are being prayed for stress you?

If that is so then you really have problems.

We pray for each other in sickness of all kinds. because we know the power of prayer. Why would it make you afraid? It is simply asking Jesus to heal.

There was a time when eg the RC anointing of the sick was only given as a last resort when death was near. But that was changed.

We have prayed with many who are sick and seen their minds eased of fear in cancer, which has helped the treatments to work.

And we will always offer prayer.

Our email box carries so many. And we see healings and ease.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't true. While studies have found prayer does nothing to improve a persons recovery or survival, there is some statistical suggestion that people who have been informed they are being prayed for are more likely to suffer worse.

A possibly explanation for this is that being informed people are praying for you introduces an extra level of stress in the patient. Rather than being a comfort it does in fact reaffirm to the patient that they are at risk.

After all why would people praying for you if you were going to be fine anyway?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If the said Scientologist said, I've got a device that will get rid of your thetans, do you mind if I use it on you? Then even then, you merely say, I'm not interested.

Why does the sick patient have to tell the staff member they are not interested?

Why can't the staff member simply not ask them the question in the first place? Is there some pathological need for the staff member to have to be allowed do this. Are they going to combust if they don't?

If the purpose is to not offend people it seems some what silly to wait around until someone gets offended, does it not?

sorella

They ask; nurses I mean... and we do.. we offer and they accept thankfully.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I understand that, but on the face of it it appeared amusing to me. I wonder what would happen if a patient asked to pray for a nurse?

Mena

sorella wrote: »

Your evidence please.

Robin posted his source. Could you kindly reciprocate?

sorella wrote:

"Actually, the reverse is true and has been proved over and over again. Prayer can never, ever do harm.

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

Your evidence please.

http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

sorella wrote: »

And why would knowing you are being prayed for stress you?

Yes I've no idea why someone suggesting that you are beyond the saving of medical treatment but sure maybe an act of God might help you, would stress someone out.

robindch

sorella wrote: »

Your evidence please.

See the link above

sorella wrote: »

And why would knowing you are being prayed for stress you? If that is so then you really have problems.

Psychologists surmise that if you expect prayer to produce a positive outcome and if you know that you're being prayed for, then your stress levels increase if the expected result does not arise (as it won't, since prayer doesn't work).

That's not having "problems", that's how people's brains and bodies work.

sorella

ONE study in ONE illness?

Oh really

robindch wrote: »

With respect, the world's largest and best-funded study (it was a multi-million dollar study) into the effects of intercessory prayer produced two significant conclusions which refute your position completely:It's the second effect that I'm referring to. The full report with methodology, outcome and conclusion is available for download here:

http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html

sorella

Prayer does work however. So your original premise is erroneous.

And we who have faith know that we will accept the will of God.

That is a healing in itself.

robindch wrote: »

See the link abovePsychologists surmise that if you expect prayer to produce a positive outcome and if you know that you're being prayed for, then your stress levels increase if the expected result does not arise (as it won't, since prayer doesn't work).

That's not having "problems", that's how people's brains and bodies work.

Mena

sorella wrote: »

ONE study in ONE illness?

Oh really

I don't want to sound petty, but it's still one more than you have provided to backup your claim.

sorella wrote:

"Actually, the reverse is true and has been proved over and over again. Prayer can never, ever do harm.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

It's the power of the meme

Look at the third item in Jimi's message above -- religion is very effective at getting its adherents to think about propagating it.

And your brand of atheism is very effective in disguising religious bigotry in secular concern and intellectualism. Lets see which 'Meme' wins this 'evolutionary' battle.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

And your brand of atheism is very effective in disguising religious bigotry in secular concern and intellectualism.

I'm a bigot?

Isn't that a bit rude?

sorella

http://www.church.org.uk/resources/sermondetailpf.asp?serId=909

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&pwst=1&q=author:%22BYRD%22+intitle:%22Positive+Therapeutic+Effects+of+Intercessory+Prayer+in+a+...%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:-kti6Cn-SVcJ:www.vanguard.edu/uploadedfiles/faculty/ddegelman/prayer.pdf+research+intercessory+prayer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ie

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1924985

And a few hundred others

Add to this the great number of physical healings many of us have witnessed...

Robin simplifies to try to discredit us.

And I have no doubt he will attack everything we offer in rebuttal of his claims.

That is his choice.

Ours is to pray for all; and to know that the Jesus Whom we trust will respond to the needs we bring to Him.

This we have known; this we trust in to the death. And to the life beyond death.

Over and out on this thread; I am available on anchoresscj at yahoo dot com.

Praying for all here; especially those who do not know the love and healing power of the Lord Jesus.

Maybe look at the thread here on Cathy Moran also

Blessings to all, and thank you for uplifting my soul.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

IMO, ridiculous policy anyway. I hate this idea of choking people with silly red tape. If a Wiccan or a muslim or whatever, said to me that they were going to say a prayer, or whatever the wiccan equivalent is, It will provoke one of a few things:

a) I'd merely say, Thanks.
b) I'd politely say, I'd rather you didn't.
c) Use it as an opportunity to share my own faith.

But not everyone is as open minded and accommodating as you. At the end of the day this is yet another argument from incredulity, a christian favourite it seems. You can't imagine being offended by someone offering to pray for you, therefore no one would or should be offended.

JimiTime wrote: »

Why they need to legislate against this, is just so annoying. Can't people just speak for themselves?

They need to legislate for it because people like you think it is ok to offer your religion to people when they may not want it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair enough, if someone is pestering you in your hospital bed with religion, it can become an issue of complaint. However, saying, 'Do you mind if I pray for you?' Its flippin laughable.

I would mind greatly if someone offered to pray for me. Particularly if that person was a medical professional.

MrP

sorella

No just accurate.

And your posts are not offensive?

robindch wrote: »

I'm a bigot?

Isn't that a bit rude?

robindch

sorella wrote: »

ONE study in ONE illness? Oh really.

One thousand eight hundred people tracked over a period of three years for the appearance of eleven separate ailments with prayer input from one protestant community and two catholic monastic communities like a pretty good spread to me.

Can you point to a similarly well-researched, double-blinded, randomized, professionally-carried out study which supports your point of view?

robindch

sorella wrote: »

And your posts are not offensive?

I hope not -- can you point out what you find offensive in what I've written?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Why does the sick patient have to tell the staff member they are not interested?

Why can't the staff member simply not ask them the question in the first place? Is there some pathological need for the staff member to have to be allowed do this. Are they going to combust if they don't?

Its this simple, its a massive mountain out of a tiny molehill. If someone is concerned enough to offer something extra to a patient, it should not be stamped out. As I said, its personality sanitisation. People can think and speak. Stop flippin treating everyone as if they are these soft centred idiots, who take offence at every little thing. Don't legislate against peoples humanity and personality in matters like these. Its ridiculous!

If the purpose is to not offend people it seems some what silly to wait around until someone gets offended, does it not?

No. I don't think we should legislate against offending people in such matters. I think we should send the message that its your own idiocy that makes you take offence at such things. If on the rare occasion someone does take offence, so be it. It would be different if a priest came in and performed a mass or something. A sister asking someone could they pray for them? Secularism gone mad! If thats the way its heading, I'm not surprised that there are conspiracy theories about atheist agenda's and the likes. Its incredibly stupid IMO. An exercise in extreme wallyness!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

There certainly are worse things happening, but the whole point of a religion-free hospital system is that nobody has to be put into the difficult situation of having to deal with somebody else's religious views, when one is already ill oneself.

Reversing the position, I wonder how an ill christian or muslim fundamentalist would feel if an atheist doctor told him that there was no god out there helping him? I would imagine that most religious would be then be quite happy to have the doctor disciplined (as he should be).
.

Not at all robin, you are dead wrong here. This is Atheism run amock. Shut teh Christians up so we feel better. Her job requires looking after people health. Mental health is as important as physical health.

She offers to pray, the person says no thanks and the story is over. The nurse doesnt go on and pray after being told no thanks, she follows the wishes of the patient.

I just shake my head at you and wicky sometimes, I really do.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether or not the person complained or not is rather irrelevant. The purpose is to stop this sort of thing before it upsets someone, not wait till it upsets someone and then do something about it.
.

Foolowing that logic wicky, we should ban you from coming on here in order to prevent you from potentially upsetting people in the future.

I am stunned.

sorella

This is not a ping pong game.!!!

We KNOW that prayer heals.

And as I say elsewhere, robin will always spend time and energy attacking us.

If i had any money, I would bet it all that right now he is pouring over the urls I sent and finding some way to rebut them all!!

Have you heard the old saying. " Damned lies and statistics" :P

Let him play; while we pray...

Reminds of Paul....

Over and out; prayer calls.

Jimitime; I closed my pms here but feel free to email me; address on other mail. A rush order came in for a Christening Gown for a premature baby so I have to work morning noon and night on it now. Hand kniited lace in fine sheland yarn and a prayer in every stitch

Mena wrote: »

I don't want to sound petty, but it's still one more than you have provided to backup your claim.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

I would mind greatly if someone offered to pray for me. Particularly if that person was a medical professional.

MrP

Well there-in lies the problem IMO. I would not, nor would I like to see legislators pandering to such things. As I said earlier, Grow a set, realise that there are people that are different to you, and that merely asking something in good heart should be lauded. Especially in the medical profession! It means that they actually give a toss! Just open your mouth and say, I'd rather you didn't as I'm quite aggresively anti-religious!

Just because you are intollerant of someone with such views, does not mean we should have to seal up the mouths of these people. IMO of course.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

sorella wrote: »

This is not a ping pong game.!!!

We KNOW that prayer heals.

Prayer heals in the exact same way a placebo heals.

Prove me wrong.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Well there-in lies the problem IMO. I would not, nor would I like to see legislators pandering to such things.

But why shoudl they pander to your opinion? Why is yours somehow more worthy of pandering?

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said earlier, Grow a set, realise that there are people that are different to you,

Funny, I could say the same thing to you.

JimiTime wrote: »

and that merely asking something in good heart should be lauded. Especially in the medical profession!

I want my medical professionals to believe in medicine, not wizardry.

JimiTime wrote: »

It means that they actually give a toss!

Ah, so we are back to the "only christians can care" line are we?

JimiTime wrote: »

Just open your mouth and say, I'd rather you didn't as I'm quite aggresively anti-religious!

The point is I should not have to.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just because you are intollerant of someone with such views, does not mean we should have to seal up the mouths of these people.

You seem to be quite intollerant of people that have not interest in your views. Why can you not accept that some people have no interest in what you are selling and don't want it mentioned to them? Is it really too much to ask that this kind of thing should be opt in rather than opt out?

JimiTime wrote: »

IMO of course.

Of course.

MrP

robindch

Well, well, well!

In the last half an hour or so, I've been called a bigot, another poster thinks she's being attacked by me, one more thinks that it's all atheism gone "amock" and seems to think me an idiot.

It's a great first-hand example of how close religious intolerance is to the surface in so many people.

QED - that's why religion is not let into hospitals.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

QED - that's why religion is not let into hospitals.

QFT

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Foolowing that logic wicky, we should ban you from coming on here in order to prevent you from potentially upsetting people in the future.

I am stunned.

If the purpose of Boards.ie was to provide health care in a welcoming, inclusive and comforting environment then yes you bloody well should ban me

Though I'm pretty confident that if I worked in such an environment I could manage to go 5 minutes without blurting out something religious to someone.

I find it pretty amazing that Christians can't. Must be all that joy in your hearts bursting out.

BrianCalgary

Sean_K wrote: »

Prayer heals in the exact same way a placebo heals.

Prove me wrong.

You are the one making the statement, prove that it is right.

mehfesto2

Wicknight wrote: »

Why does the sick patient have to tell the staff member they are not interested?

Why can't the staff member simply not ask them the question in the first place? Is there some pathological need for the staff member to have to be allowed do this. Are they going to combust if they don't?

Because the nurse has to treat the patient holistically - this includes religious beliefs, if they exist. If the patient was too ill to pray, the nurse could offer to pray for them. The nurse was doing her job as the job-outline details. Fair enough, the patient had the hump with it, but that's his/her problem. All s/he had to do was ask for the nurse not to pray. It's not offensive to offer kindness. If you dont believe just say so - manners cost nothing!:pac:

Fanny Cradock

Lets all relax and stick to the topic! That means no more bickering - I'm holding my mod stick.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are the one making the statement, prove that it is right.

I don't think so.

sorella wrote: »

We KNOW that prayer heals.

MrP

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

If the purpose of Boards.ie was to provide health care in a welcoming, inclusive and comforting environment then yes you bloody well should ban me

Though I'm pretty confident that if I worked in such an environment I could manage to go 5 minutes without blurting out something religious to someone.

I find it pretty amazing that Christians can't. Must be all that joy in your hearts bursting out.

Who asid anything about five minutes wick? Exaggeration to the max.

For goodness sake a woman asks a patient, "can I pray for you?". The patient says 'no thanks', and you want her disciplined?

In the health care arena, where prayer is given on a daily basis. Where patients could be afraid to sak for it just in case. Here comes wicky the nurse, the patient says, 'could you say a prayer for me?' Wicky reacts, no God doesn't exist and I am so offended by that question that I am going to refuse you treatment.

PS. The Atheist agenda, shut up all Christians, do not let them say anhthing about God in public, because it makes us feel uncomfortable.

MrPudding

mehfesto2 wrote: »

It's not offensive to offer kindness. If you dont believe just say so - manners cost nothing!:pac:

Why can you not offer kindness without praying? And whether or not it is offensive, it is against the rules. That is the only issue here. This nurse has repeatedly, despite warnings, broken the terms of her employment.

MrP

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Well, well, well!

In the last half an hour or so, I've been called a bigot, another poster thinks she's being attacked by me, one more thinks that it's all atheism gone "amock" and seems to think me an idiot.

It's a great first-hand example of how close religious intolerance is to the surface in so many people.

QED - that's why religion is not let into hospitals.

If it walks quacks and swims like a duck...............

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

Why can you not offer kindness without praying? And whether or not it is offensive, it is against the rules. That is the only issue here. This nurse has repeatedly, despite warnings, broken the terms of her employment.

MrP

C'mon Mr P, we had a doctor in Canada break loads of rtules back in the 70's performing abortions. I would suffice it to say that you would agree with what he did.

We had loads of Irishmen break the rules at the turn of the 20th century, I'm sure you apllauded their efforts.

You argument is rather empty.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The patient says 'no thanks', and you want her disciplined?

She should be disciplined because she repeatedly breaks the rules which have been laid down to regulate how she and her colleagues behave during their professional day. That's it. It just so happens that the issue is religious and because religion is supposed to get special treatment people are up in arms.

What if it was sneaking in fags or booze to "help" the patient?

MrP

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think so.




MrP

Two diffrent statements Mr P.

One says that pray vs. placebo is the same.

Th eother is that prayer heals. (this I have witnessed peronally)

CerebralCortex

MrPudding wrote: »

Why can you not offer kindness without praying? And whether or not it is offensive, it is against the rules. That is the only issue here. This nurse has repeatedly, despite warnings, broken the terms of her employment.

MrP

Didn't you know religion deserves special treatment because of its super kind noble nature.

mehfesto2

BrianCalgary wrote: »

C'mon Mr P, we had a doctor in Canada break loads of rtules back in the 70's performing abortions. I would suffice it to say that you would agree with what he did.

We had loads of Irishmen break the rules at the turn of the 20th century, I'm sure you apllauded their efforts.

You argument is rather empty.

Any chance you could post these rules, just to clear things up? I can't find them meself.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

But why shoudl they pander to your opinion? Why is yours somehow more worthy of pandering?

They wouldn't be pandering to my opinion, as my opinion would mean no legislation in the first place. Its only when people like yourself seek out an issue, that people like me say, 'hang on'.

I want my medical professionals to believe in medicine, not wizardry.

Well I can't speak for wizards, but the doctor who sucessfully performed my dads triple bypass was a heart surgeon and a Christian. So if you are trying to say Medicine and Christianity must be divided, well, thats fairly stupid.

Ah, so we are back to the "only christians can care" line are we?

If you are looking to pick a fight, do it elsewhere. I'm certainly not interested.

The point is I should not have to.

And there we have it. If thats a good enough reason for you, then I'm not going to argue. As I said, I think its a stupid one, but again IMO.

You seem to be quite intollerant of people that have not interest in your views.

Not so at all. The only way to find out if someone has no interest is to ask. If they say, not interested. Its just, ok. What you are proposing, is that I should be censored. I should not be allowed utter anything which mentions my faith.

Why can you not accept that some people have no interest in what you are selling and don't want it mentioned to them?

As above. As far as I'm concerened, its a simple communicative procedure. If you're not interested, you say so. End of story. Instead you want to get yourself worked up that you should have the right not to have been asked in the first place etc. You don't take into account my motives, my heart etc. Yet, my position thinks of all these things, including respect for your position.

Is it really too much to ask that this kind of thing should be opt in rather than opt out?

Yes I believe it is. I think you guys are making a big deal of nothing. Being unreasonably aggresive, and tbh, pretending that its offensive. As I said, the problem is you guys, not us IMO.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

C'mon Mr P, we had a doctor in Canada break loads of rtules back in the 70's performing abortions.

Whilst I agree that abortion should be available to those that think they need them, I would like to think that if caught the doctor would have been disciplined. The rules are there for a reason.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I would suffice it to say that you would agree with what he did.

I might agree with what he did but not how he did it.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

We had loads of Irishmen break the rules at the turn of the 20th century, I'm sure you apllauded their efforts.

I think perhaps there might be a small difference between the two situations. It is a poor argument to suggest that because I believe that one particular rule should be adhered to that I think all rules should and must be adhered to. We live in the real world.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You argument is rather empty.

Whatever you say.

MrP

toiletduck

So the nurse broke the rules, had got a warning about this before, repeated it (at least once) and gets disciplined*. And this is atheism run amok? Wow, some people will do anything to don the victimhood.

'Christians are now becoming the most discriminated-against group of people in our society. It's getting quite frightening and out of hand.'

*I don't think she should get the sack, but if she feels that she can't adhere to the rules and is likely to break them again maybe she should consider different emloyment?

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

Whilst I agree that abortion should be available to those that think they need them, I would like to think that if caught the doctor would have been disciplined. The rules are there for a reason.

I might agree with what he did but not how he did it.

I think perhaps there might be a small difference between the two situations. It is a poor argument to suggest that because I believe that one particular rule should be adhered to that I think all rules should and must be adhered to. We live in the real world.

MrP

So which rules are worthy of breaking and which aren't?

Your argument is weak because yoy keep on about how the nurse broke th erules. However you advocate breaking rules in other situations. That makes your argument empty.

Hypocrisy.

BrianCalgary

toiletduck wrote: »

So the nurse broke the rules, had got a warning about this before, repeated it (at least once) and gets disciplined*. And this is atheism run amok? Wow, some people will do anything to don the victimhood.

*I don't think she should get the sack, but if she feels that she can't adhere to the rules and is likely to break them again maybe she should consider different emloyment?

It is run amock. It is disallowing a person from making a kind offer of prayer to another human being and all the Atheists on this board are applauding her being disciplined.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So which rules are worthy of breaking and which aren't?

Your argument is weak because yoy keep on about how the nurse broke th erules. However you advocate breaking rules in other situations. That makes your argument empty.

Hypocrisy.

Thats it. If this was about rules I think we could all concede. She broke them, and is liable for disciplinary action. Thats it in black and white. I think we all know however, this discussion has tried to deal with why the rule is there, and should it be there at all. Its more about justice than the law.

partyguinness

Is she not being disciplined for breaking her work guidelines (again)?

She is being disciplined as a repeat offender nothing to do with her religious beliefs..

IMO there should be absolutely no interaction between medical personal and religion.

JimiTime

partyguinness wrote: »

Is she not being disciplined for breaking her work guidelines (again)?

She is being disciplined as a repeat offender nothing to do with her religious beliefs..

Yes. The question it raises, is why is it a disciplinary offence.

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So which rules are worthy of breaking and which aren't?

That needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would expect that in cases where the rules being broken are rules that keep a nation under foreign rule that they do not want or perhaps cause death and misery, then perhaps they might be broken.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Your argument is weak because yoy keep on about how the nurse broke th erules. However you advocate breaking rules in other situations. That makes your argument empty.

No, you are using a weak argumentative instrument. You can't argue that because some rules can or should be broken that all rules should be broken. Further, because I am open minded and capable of thinking objectively and can see that in some cases rules may need to be broken, is not grounds to call me a hypocrit and dismiss my arguement.

In general, I think rules are a "good thing." They are there to protect us. But as I mentioned earlier, I live in the real world and I can see that sometimes they need to be broken. I don't see a good reason why this rule had to be broken. Perhaps you can give me one?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Hypocrisy.

I can see how in your narrow minded, "religion is best" viewpoint this might be what it seems, but I obviously disagree.

MrP

partyguinness

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes. The question it raises, is why is it a disciplinary offence.

IMO- religion and medical science are incompatible thats why. I have drawn up similar guidelines in the past. Religion is personal and medical staff should not blurr the lines between medical intervention and religious beliefs. Thats what a priest/rabbi/vicar etc is for.

Interestingly, was it a public or private run institution?

toiletduck

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is run amock. It is disallowing a person from making a kind offer of prayer to another human being and all the Atheists on this board are applauding her being disciplined.

Oh please. Imagine a scenario where an atheist nurse decided, misguidedly, to ease a dying Christians pain by informing him/her that there's no God and no prospect of eternal damnation to face. You'd be ok with that? It's a kind act in their eyes. I wager lots around here wouldn't agree though, they might even advocate a rule similar to the one in place there to avoid such problems....