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

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

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

I remember 5 years ago I was in hospital with suspicion of having meningitis. A priest came up to me while as lying completely invading my space for a prayer session. At the time I was in two minds about what I believed but it was nowhere near Catholicism or even Christianity and unfortunately I wasn't as assertive as I am now in fact I was quite fearful. So we had the prayer and it left me feeling rather uncomfortable, as it was against my will. But hey thats Irish hospitals for ya. Its funny I never found out what I was afflicted with but I'll never forget that awkwardness.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Because not all people share you views and some people get offended, rightly or wrongly, by being exposed to these "other" views.

I know I said earlier that I would not want people offering prayers to me, but I truth, whilst they genuinely would not be welcome, I would not really care about the offer. It would not really offend me. But, just because you or I would not be offended does not mean someone else won't be offended.

Then there is the other side... This nurse appears to have simply offer a prayer in a fairly innocuous manner. But there may be other that are a bit more forward in expressing their views.

Rules have to cater for the extremes of opinion, and this often catches more moderate opinions in the net. So whilst some people won't be offended and some people will offer their prayer in an inoffensive way, the rules are there to take account for those that will get offended and those that are very pushy with their views.

This is an issue that is much bigger than religion in hospitals and other public services. And I am not quite sure how to deal with it. There is no doubt that there is a section of the community that do get offended by things that you or I would not. They are vocal and they are litigious and the agencies are tryign to protect themselves.

MrP

partyguinness

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

So what if he was Christian? Are you sure he was? Maybe he was just pandering to your families beliefs?

Believe it or not they dont teach religion in medical schools...

So he performed the successful operation beacuse he was Christian. Would if have made a difference if he was Muslim, Jewish, Atheist?

Did he learn his skills from the Bible?

Rev Hellfire

MrPudding wrote: »

This is an issue that is much bigger than religion in hospitals and other public services. And I am not quite sure how to deal with it. There is no doubt that there is a section of the community that do get offended by things that you or I would not. They are vocal and they are litigious and the agencies are tryign to protect themselves.

This I suspect is the true reason, its not a desire to create an all inclusive environment but rather to create one free from any possible risk of ligation. Society is becoming emasculated through its willingness to entertain frivolous lawsuits.

Gambler

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Let's look at it this way for a second. I'm an atheist myself and if I was very sick, possibly dying the last thing I would want is people offering to "pray for me". If they feel the need to do that in private then fine, but don't bother me with it, I would have more important things to be dealing with.

In this situation a member of staff at a hospital would potentially be disturbing and stressing me unnecessarily. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want anyone fired for it but I would feel that warning and then disciplining someone for repeated unwanted religious approach is a perfectly reasonable way to reduce the likely hood of disturbing\upsetting someone at what is already a difficult time.

I understand the urge to help and that some people feel that offering to pray is helpful but that's only from their point of view. Surely given the subject matter (someones health and related emotional state) it is better to always err on the side of caution?

sorella

Small thoughts....

I have personally been involved in intercessory prayer for over 40 years now.

Never once has anyone not welcomed prayer. Not once in all those years.

Too many are the actual physical healings Jesus has done through this Nun to list; it is Jesus not we who heal

a few

- leukaemia reversed when the sufferer was comatose and almost dead. Healing was not asked; simply the patient was held in prayer to Jesus. The healing was total, dramatic and startling. She lived another ten years and died of a different ailment completely; at a ripe old age her heart gave out.

- pain of a badly burned hand vanished. The burn was still there and had to be dressed, but never any scrap of pain.

- a wound to the knee that had soaked a trouser leg with blood, vanished without a mark; that was distant healing when the person was being prayed for for another reason entirely; she knew immediately who was praying.

- a lady with such a painful back, unbeknown to us, that she was, after a meeting, to keep an appointment with a chiropractor... she called and told me weeks later that she had left the meeting and worked nine hours cutting turf on the bog. Never another twinge.

Just a few over the years.

Sure people get worse and die - we always pray for the will of God, always. We all get sick and die on this earth. That is how the body works.

Many ask for prayer for peace as death approaches. To be reconciled with Jesus.....

So please do not attempt like this to gainsay and ridicule and deny the power of prayer or the power of Jesus.

All the studies in the world will not avail against the power to heal of Jesus.

Nor do we have to "prove" anything in empirical terms to them; my sincere apologies that I allowed myself to be goaded to that. That will not happen again; we are bidden not to put God to the test.

Skilled people in these matters will aver that the only ones who will attack and deny and try to disprove the power of Jesus are (a) those who have been badly abused in any way by the Church - and that does not mean necessarily sexually; abuse takes many forms. and (b) those who are oppressed or possessed.

It makes no sense else.... Why react if there is nothing there after all?

In this case, it was not the patient who objected but someone else who clearly had an axe to grind. And so prevented prayer.

Deep down these ones are desperately afraid; after all, "if" God exists - as He indeed does - then? So of course they will strive to prove else

Fear not; He is merciful, slow to anger...

So we hold them quietly in prayer.

For their healing...

And we pray most of all that they will turn and see Jesus; Who loves them beyond measure.

And we keep ourselves safe from them. because Jesus loves US beyond measure.

If you read this thread as a whole quietly, you will learn many things.

Two questions concern me; and neither is personal - and oh how typical and humorous it is to see those we gainsay plead " You are attacking me!"

One is why so many attacks are allowed on the Christian forum?
we need to support each other in fellowship here, not allow ourselves to be stoned constantly.
And why is a self confessed atheist a "hosted moderator" whatever that is.

I am very busy just now once more, so will be here less and less. So many tiny babies to care for now...

Sad that this thread has gone as it has gone.

Prayer surrounds all of you.. many here are dear to us over the weeks.......especailly the stray sheep

Always fine to email; we filter mail by the way which we cannot do via PM here easily... anchoresscj at yahoo dot com

Blessings and peace this night..

toiletduck

And why is a self confessed atheist a "hosted moderator" whatever that is.

At least he isn't a nurse! :pac:

Fanny Cradock

partyguinness wrote: »

]
Believe it or not they dont teach religion in medical schools...

I would assume that would be because it is a medical college, not a theological one.

partyguinness wrote: »

]IMO- religion and medical science are incompatible thats why. I have drawn up similar guidelines in the past.

You draw up medical guidelines? Interestingly, while it doesn't directly affect this case, the NHS recognises the need to provide a religious input in the care of some patients.

Chaplaincy: Meeting The Religious And Spiritual Needs Of Patients

So to does the charity Marie Curie Cancer Care - Spiritual & Religious Care Competencies for Specialist Palliative Care

In both cases, care is approached in a more holistic manner, rather than simply dispensing medicines and changing bed pans.

robindch

sorella wrote: »

Two questions concern me; and neither is personal - and oh how typical and humorous it is to see those we gainsay plead " You are attacking me!" [...] One is why so many attacks are allowed on the Christian forum?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you the person claiming you're being attacked?

sorella wrote: »

And why is a self confessed atheist a "hosted moderator" whatever that is.

You're free to ask me directly, if you'd like -- I will answer

robindch

toiletduck wrote: »

At least he isn't a nurse! :pac:

You haven't seen me dressed up...

.

partyguinness

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would assume that would be because it is a medical college, not a theological one.



You draw up medical guidelines? Interestingly, while it doesn't directly affect this case, the NHS recognises the need to provide a religious input in the care of some patients.

Chaplaincy: Meeting The Religious And Spiritual Needs Of Patients

So to does the charity Marie Curie Cancer Care - Spiritual & Religious Care Competencies for Specialist Palliative Care

In both cases, care is approached in a more holistic manner, rather than simply dispensing medicines and changing bed pans.

That is about spiritual and religious needs That is not a nurses job. A nurses job is to provide medical care to patients.

ps Many would argue that theology is not even a genuine subject.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

She wanted to pray with everyone, despite being told not to.

In this instance I trust the people around her to spot a religious fanatic. She sounds like a nut to be honest, and I work down the road from the Scientologists so I have a bit of experience with that. I certainly would not want her being my nurse.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

Yes. She apparently can't follow even the most basic of instructions. Stop discussing your religion with patients. Pretty simple.

To me the fact that she did it once isn't the bit for concern. I could believe that someone would genuinely make that mistake without realising that it could be seen as embarrassing or upseting for the patient.

But once she has been told to knock it off and keeps doing it, then that is very much a concern.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicky reacts, no God doesn't exist and I am so offended by that question that I am going to refuse you treatment.

I certainly would not say that, nor would I feel any complusion to say it.

But the fact that you agree I shouldn't shows you are just being hypocritical about this.

Christians are allow say this stuff, but sure not anyone else that would be offensive.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

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

If the "atheist agenda" is to put the care and comfort of patients over the self-aggrandizing religious needs of the staff then sign me up quick.

A Primal Nut

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.

She was given a warning, ignored it, and continued to do it. In fairness to Christians this smacks more of the insecurities of this nurse needing to express her beliefs even if it is inappropriately (an example you can relate to, an atheist telling people going into church there is not God), rather than some clash between Christianity and the hospital.

The Christians can correct me if I am wrong, but it should be perfectly possible for a Christian to not go around telling people they are going to pray for them when they have been asked not to and they are representing an organisation (the NHS) that is supposed to be secular and not favouring on religion over another. It isn't like some fundamental requirement of being a Christian.

In fairness, you are assuming she said it an official capacity. But it was probably a casual statement said in casual conversation with a patient and shouldn't warrant a warning, particularly if nobody complained. The same way people might say "God help you" its just a figure of speech. The fact she may have actually prayed for the patient, so what.

Imagine a little old lady talks to you about something that happened and said "I'll pray for you". Would you really be offended? Who cares, really. If it was her policy to say it to every patient then fair enough, but one nurse saying it in an off-the-record conversation -thats rediculous.

Some common sense required rather than letter of the law. Whether the hospital loses a perfectly good nurse is more important than petty religious issues.

Fanny Cradock

sorella wrote: »

One is why so many attacks are allowed on the Christian forum?
we need to support each other in fellowship here, not allow ourselves to be stoned constantly.

The Christianity forum is open to all who wish to post within it (assuming they adhere to the charter) - this includes those who think it's all a load of tosh and endless try to find fault with it :pac:. While I admit that it can become tiresome to constantly have to defend your faith, this isn't the place for an unfettered Christian pow-wow. While people may have pressing questions relating to their faith, there are probably better places to find answers than on the interwebs!

Gambler

sorella wrote: »

Small thoughts....

I have personally been involved in intercessory prayer for over 40 years now.

Never once has anyone not welcomed prayer. Not once in all those years.

I would not welcome your prayers..

sorella wrote: »

So please do not attempt like this to gainsay and ridicule and deny the power of prayer or the power of Jesus.

It's not about ridiculing anything, it's about being sensitive to the situation of a person who is sick.

sorella wrote: »

In this case, it was not the patient who objected but someone else who clearly had an axe to grind. And so prevented prayer.

From the original article the patient in question said:

'I have Christian beliefs myself and maybe she meant well. But it could perhaps be upsetting for some other people if they have different beliefs or thought that she meant they looked in such a bad way that they needed praying for.'

She seems to understand why it might be a bad idea for Nurses to offer prayers unbidden..

Zombrex

A Primal Nut wrote: »

In fairness, you are assuming she said it an official capacity. But it was probably a casual statement said in casual conversation with a patient and shouldn't warrant a warning, particularly if nobody complained. The same way people might say "God help you" its just a figure of speech.

She is a nurse, she is always in an official capacity. From the moment she starts work till the moment she stops her responsibility is to the care of her patients, not to her personal religious beliefs.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Imagine a little old lady talks to you about something that happened and said "I'll pray for you". Would you really be offended? Who cares, really.

Patients do!

People must have missed my point about how hospitals in Ireland have been divided down religious lines for years.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

If it was her policy to say it to every patient then fair enough, but one nurse saying it in an off-the-record conversation -thats rediculous.

She tried to ask every patient.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I admit that it can become tiresome to constantly have to defend your faith, this isn't the place for an unfettered Christian pow-wow.

Consider us having to keep explaining evolution to you guys pay back

Fanny Cradock

partyguinness wrote: »

That is about spiritual and religious needs That is not a nurses job. A nurses job is to provide medical care to patients.

Did you read my post? See the part I have highlighted.

Interestingly, while it doesn't directly affect this case, the NHS recognises the need to provide a religious input in the care of some patients.

You where the one who was talking about the generalities of medical care and the role religion should play (see below).

partyguinness wrote: »

IMO- religion and medical science are incompatible thats why.

and

partyguinness wrote: »

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

Pulling back from this position and attempting to hop onto a different track really doesn't help your argument.

partyguinness wrote: »

ps Many would argue that theology is not even a genuine subject.

Yes, some people are rather arrogant.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Consider us having to keep explaining evolution to you guys pay back

Well, I suggest you start expanding that education to the population at large - assuming they will listen. Ignorance of evolution isn't specifically a religious thing. MAybe we can look fordward to Wicknight's Winterval evolution talks on the Beeb?

BrianCalgary

mehfesto2 wrote: »

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

Abortion was illegal at the time of the doctor performing them.

As for Ireland, I believe that working to form an independant country went against the rules of the crown.

BrianCalgary

toiletduck wrote: »

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....

You would lose your wager. Th enurse was not offering to pray while th eperson was on thei rdeath bed either. It was after care had been sdministered.

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

This I suspect is the true reason, its not a desire to create an all inclusive environment but rather to create one free from any possible risk of ligation. Society is becoming emasculated through its willingness to entertain frivolous lawsuits.

Seconded.

BrianCalgary

MrPudding wrote: »

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.

So good to break this rule because you don't think that Ireland should be under the rule of England?

MrPudding wrote: »

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.

I dont think you are open minded at all. You wish to shut Christianity out of public display. You can not think objectively because you are passing judgement on the actions of a person in a private coversation that didn't bother either of thetwo parties and you are calling for a person to be treated with discipline as a result.

MrPudding wrote: »

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?

But you have stated that only some rules are good. Especially those that keep Christianity quiet, because you don't like it. However there are other rules that must be adhered to. Can you not see the double standard and the hypocrisy of your position?

This is the rule: you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" How does offering prayer to someone break this rule?

How is offering to pray for someone not demonstrating a commitment to equality and diversity?

It certainly doesn't sound like you live in the real world.

MrPudding wrote: »

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

MrP

I beat you robin, I have been called narrow minded and close minded in the one post.:)

I find thos eof the Christian faith to be far more open minded than those not of faith.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

She wanted to pray with everyone, despite being told not to..

No she didn't:
Yesterday Mrs Petrie said that she tried to ask every patient if they would like her to pray for them, except if it seemed they may be of a different faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

In this instance I trust the people around her to spot a religious fanatic. She sounds like a nut to be honest, and I work down the road from the Scientologists so I have a bit of experience with that. I certainly would not want her being my nurse..

'Brian shakes his head'

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes. She apparently can't follow even the most basic of instructions. Stop discussing your religion with patients. Pretty simple..

She wasn't discussing her relisgion, she was offering to pray. B=ut what can one expect from someone who doesn't even read teh article properly. (see above)

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the fact that she did it once isn't the bit for concern. I could believe that someone would genuinely make that mistake without realising that it could be seen as embarrassing or upseting for the patient. .

But this wasn't even upsettingfor thepatient. It was upsetting to someone else. 'shakes his head again'

Wicknight wrote: »

But once she has been told to knock it off and keeps doing it, then that is very much a concern..

One could argue that she is fighting for the right to practice her religion. Dr. Henry Morgentaler was told too knock it off with providing abortions, yet he fough on. He broke the rules.

Wicknight wrote: »

If the "atheist agenda" is to put the care and comfort of patients over the self-aggrandizing religious needs of the staff then sign me up quick.

I never said that did I? Quite putting words into peoples mouths.:mad:

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So good to break this rule because you don't think that Ireland should be under the rule of England?

Are you really going to continue to try to use this argument? Are you actually comparing a nurse who was repeatedly warned to keep religion out of her work to the people who were trying to secure Ireland's freedom from occupation?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I dont think you are open minded at all. You wish to shut Christianity out of public display.

Obviously I don't think that medical professionals should mix their personal religious life with their professional ilfe. If that is close minded, then yes, I am guilty as charged.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You can not think objectively because you are passing judgement on the actions of a person in a private coversation that didn't bother either of thetwo parties and you are calling for a person to be treated with discipline as a result.

No Brian. You can't think objectively. To think objectively about this issue you have to think about all possible encounters of this nature, not one. When you think about all possible encounters objectively you should realise that even if the person in this particular instance was not bothered that does not mean that it is not possible for another person to be bothered.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But you have stated that only some rules are good. Especially those that keep Christianity quiet, because you don't like it.

I don't beleive I said that rules to keep christianity quiet are good, especially. But please feel free to point out where I did.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

However there are other rules that must be adhered to. Can you not see the double standard and the hypocrisy of your position?

OK, if having the opinion that at some time, in some cases some rules may not be correct, but generally rules should be adhered to makes me a hypocrit, then again, guilty as charged. Wow, your perfectly black and white life must be so easy.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

This is the rule: you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" How does offering prayer to someone break this rule?

Gee Brian, I don't know. Why don't you ask the people that made the rule and decided that the nurse in question broke it repeatedly?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How is offering to pray for someone not demonstrating a commitment to equality and diversity?

See above.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It certainly doesn't sound like you live in the real world.

Coming from someone like you, I find that oddly comforting.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I beat you robin, I have been called narrow minded and close minded in the one post.:)

Well done.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I find thos eof the Christian faith to be far more open minded than those not of faith.

Wow, now that is a surprise. I can see the headline now... "Christian in "my religion is brilliant and correct" shocker. Anyone have the editoral contact address for the mail?

MrP

Thomas_S_Hunterson

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No she didn't:
Yesterday Mrs Petrie said that she tried to ask every patient if they would like her to pray for them, except if it seemed they may be of a different faith.

Is that a nice way of saying "except if they weren't white"?

toiletduck

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You would lose your wager. Th enurse was not offering to pray while th eperson was on thei rdeath bed either. It was after care had been sdministered.

So you wouldn't mind then, interesting.

JimiTime

Sean_K wrote: »

Is that a nice way of saying "except if they weren't white"?

So now you're trying to make her out to be some kind of racist, and was thanked for it. Feck sake guys, talk about loosing the run of yourselves! Anything to put the boot in. You really need to ask yourselves, are you really these utopian, concerned citizens, trying to uphold the values of intellectualism and open mindedness. Or are you merely just a bunch of closed minded intollerant folk (see bigot), looking for anything to use as a whip against what you hate. I must say, that I'm very surprised at the amount of you being like this. As a christian, its a concern going forward. A few generations time, it'll probably be the flippin Catecombes.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

So now you're trying to make her out to be some kind of racist, and was thanked for it.

Let's not get over excited. It is a fairly valid question. How do you tell, by looking, that a person is not christian?

MrP

toiletduck

Ah donning the victimhood again.

I read it as pointed out above. Not saying she's a racist. What exactly do you think she meant by "except if it seemed they may be of a different faith"?

JimiTime

toiletduck wrote: »

Ah donning the victimhood again.

I read it as pointed out above. Not saying she's a racist. What exactly do you think she meant by "except if it seemed they may be of a different faith"?

You can call it anything you want, but Sean K specifically said, 'except if they weren't white.'. Now for all I know, she could be a rampant racist, I don't know, but for all I know so are you. However, racism was implied, and you well know it. As I said, it seems you're more interested in making a whip, than making sense! In such circumstance you can be sure that the victim card will be played!

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

Let's not get over excited. It is a fairly valid question. How do you tell, by looking, that a person is not christian?

MrP

Maybe by the presence of religious trinkets, or a bible etc. Maybe by the presence of the trinket of another religion etc. I think its a low blow to play a racist card in all this, which was implied.

toiletduck

So how do you tell a persons faith by looking at them? And what did you think she meant by it?

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, it seems you're more interested in making a whip, than making sense!

In fairness, they have been lots of posts claiming this as persecution of Christians/atheist agenda in full swing/bigotry etc. All over a woman getting fired for continually breaking the rules. Any sense in that...?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

JimiTime wrote:

So now you're trying to make her out to be some kind of racist, and was thanked for it.

Well I can't say for definite either way, but I do know that given the nature of British libel laws, the press is often forced to resort to euphemism in its description of events. Phrases such as 'tired and emotional' are prime examples of this.

The nature of the piece is what strongly suggested the above interpretation to me. It's somewhat subtle, but the article makes it quite clear that she did not ask everybody. She asked people who didn't 'seem' to be of a different faith. I would be highly surprised if people of a different faith smelled differently so in the absence of some undocumented sixth sense, it can be assumed that her judgment was based on appearances.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

She wasn't discussing her relisgion, she was offering to pray. B=ut what can one expect from someone who doesn't even read teh article properly. (see above)

Oh don't be silly. "Unless it seemed that that they were of a different faith" That is ridiculous, she finds that out after they recoil in horror at this wacko nurse asking to pray with them

And talking about prayer is discussing religion

BrianCalgary wrote: »

But this wasn't even upsettingfor thepatient. It was upsetting to someone else. 'shakes his head again'

So we wait until it is upsetting for someone and then do something? That is a brilliant code of patient care there Brian. What exactly do we do at this point, hop everyone into our time machine and go back to before the patient was offended?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

One could argue that she is fighting for the right to practice her religion.

One could argue that if they wanted to really silly

She has no right to practice her religion on the NHS's time, serving NHS patients and getting paid by the NHS to do that.

She has a job to do, she is paid to do it, she should do it. If she doesnt want to do it she doesnt have to.

But then again I thought she wasn't practicing her religion, she was just being nice :rolleyes:

This is the nonsense of this Daily Mail type response. On the one hand you guys try make out that this isn't a bit deal at all (sure whats the harm) and then act as if she is having some huge fundamental right taken away from her if she is told not to do this.

She was told not to do this. She kept doing it. She got disciplined. That is pretty much the end of story. We wouldn't be having this conversation if she wasn't a Christian or if it was something other than prayer.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Dr. Henry Morgentaler was told too knock it off with providing abortions, yet he fough on. He broke the rules.

What??

You think Dr. Morgentaler is a hero of mine or something?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I never said that did I? Quite putting words into peoples mouths.:mad:

That is exactly what you are saying.

This woman's right to "practice her religion" while at work over rules the needs of the patients and the hospitals assessment of how to look after them.

Heaven forbid she would have to go a few hours without asking someone to pray with her

"Right to practice religion" Utter nonsense. And people wonder why we need secularism in the laws :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

this wacko nurse asking to pray with them

Now its, 'the wacko nurse'. This thread has thought me alot about some of you I must say.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now its, 'the wacko nurse'. This thread has thought me alot about some of you I must say.

Yes she is a wacko nurse. She went around telling people she would pray for them in a hospital, even after she was specifically told by your employers not to do that. She unnerved both her own fellow staff members and the carers of patients she was dealing with. People tend to have a good reading on the difference between a religious person and a religious wacko. People on this thread are ignoring that people did complain about her. Not the patients, but the people specifically responsible for the welfare of the patients. Unless people want to suggest that the other nurses and the carers themselves are all rabid anti-theist secularists with a distaste for Christianity (rather than the more likely case that they are Christians themselves), I think that is a good indication of how unnerving the nurses comments were to those around her and working with her.

I'm not basing the wacko statement on the fact that she is a Christian, or that she wanted to pray with someone. I'm basing it on the fact that she apparently couldn't stop when she was told to.

If she was a Scientologist you would all be agreeing. But because she is a Christian ...

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes she is a wacko nurse. She went around telling people she would pray for them in a hospital, even after she was specifically told by your employers not to do that. She unnerved both her own fellow staff members and the carers of patients she was dealing with. People tend to have a good reading on the difference between a religious person and a religious wacko. People on this thread are ignoring that people did complain about her. Not the patients, but the people specifically responsible for the welfare of the patients. Unless people want to suggest that the other nurses and the carers themselves are all rabid anti-theist secularists with a distaste for Christianity (rather than the more likely case that they are Christians themselves), I think that is a good indication of how unnerving the nurses comments were to those around her and working with her.

I'm not basing the wacko statement on the fact that she is a Christian, or that she wanted to pray with someone. I'm basing it on the fact that she apparently couldn't stop when she was told to.

If she was a Scientologist you would all be agreeing. But because she is a Christian ...

Whatever. You reveal more about yourself with your last line tbh. An insight into how you think rather than me. But ho hum, I think I've seen enough undesirable opinions in this thread.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

An insight into how you think rather than me.

I certainly hope it is an insight into how I think. I am a secularist, particularly when it comes to people in vulnerable positions, such as the sick. I put their interests first, this nurse's desire to express her religion second.

studiorat

Ho-Hum another undesirable post more like...

JimiTime wrote: »

Now its, 'the wacko nurse'. This thread has thought me alot about some of you I must say.

I'd like to hear an expantion of that point. What have you learnt J?

It would seem to me that the Miss Petrie was told not to offer prayers on a previous occasition and still insisted on doing so. This IMO is a typical Religious response, typically Christian even. The usual "we know God and we know better" bs thats frequently employed and she used this as an excuse to contravene the rules of her employer.

She knew the rules, yet she purposefully went out of her way to break them. If as a Christian she had a problem with this particular rule surely she should have left. She changed her Church obviously for Religious reasons, why didn't she change her job also for Religious reasons? If these rules were so intolerable for her.

The fact of the matter is if the rule she had broken had not had anything to do with prayer or religion and she had for instance done something else to break those rules then there would be no issue at all with her suspension.

One question I'd like answered is why did she offer pray for the paitient? Why didn't she just pray for her and keep her trap shut? I'd like to hear an answer to that because the only reason I can think of is that she wanted to be seen to be a good chrisitan.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

The usual "we know God and we know better" bs thats frequently employed and she used this as an excuse to contravene the rules of her employer.
...
because the only reason I can think of is that she wanted to be seen to be a good chrisitan.

Nail on the head I think.

Is anyone surprised that the paper describes her as a "devout" Christian.

partyguinness

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did you read my post? See the part I have highlighted.


You where the one who was talking about the generalities of medical care and the role religion should play (see below).


and

Pulling back from this position and attempting to hop onto a different track really doesn't help your argument.


Yes, some people are rather arrogant.

TBH I had a comprehensive rebuttal in relation to the above but I realised that it would be a complete waste of time and lost on someone so blinkered and determined to twist and warp my words.:rolleyes:

MrPudding

partyguinness wrote: »

TBH I had a comprehensive rebuttal in relation to the above but I realised that it would be a complete waste of time and lost on someone so blinkered and determined to twist and warp my words.:rolleyes:

Get used to it.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

@ studiorat

I was under the impression that she was disciplined for handing out a prayer card to a patient (something that wasn't objected to), and not specifically offering to pray for him. It would seem that this is the first 'prayer crime' she has committed - or been caught for, at least.

Anyway, while I don't necessarily agree with her decision to offer prayers - this would seem to be a job for the hospital/ local Chaplin - I do think that there has been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from all sides.

It seems unfair to doubt her motives beyond the obvious. Praying is an essential part of Christianity - more so with specific denominations like Pentecostalism and the Baptist Church. I think it is more likely that she firmly believes her prayers work but lacks the good sense to see that not all people feel this way. I'm more curious about her belief a prayer card would have any effect on a patients health.

partyguinness wrote:

TBH I had a comprehensive rebuttal in relation to the above but I realised that it would be a complete waste of time and lost on someone so blinkered and determined to twist and warp my words.

Hyperbole much?

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Get used to it.

MrP

I was just waiting to see who would make the very same reply. Unsurprisingly you were to of the list, Mr P.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Nail on the head I think.

Is anyone surprised that the paper describes her as a "devout" Christian.

It's the Daily Mail. That's meant to make you sympathise with her.

partyguinness

Where is the hyperbole? Perhaps you should learn the meaning of the word and its correct use. Otherwise you sound quiet silly.;)

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I was just waiting to see who would make the very same reply. Unsurprisingly you were to of the list, Mr P.

Wouldn't want to let you down.

MrP

studiorat

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

@ studiorat

I was under the impression that she was disciplined for handing out a prayer card to a patient (something that wasn't objected to), and not specifically offering to pray for him. It would seem that this is the first 'prayer crime' she has committed - or been caught for, at least.

Most likely caught for;)
I'd agree it's the job of the local chaplin, having dealt with both in the past. I've never had an issue with a Chaplin coming in for a chat and a blessing or whatever. However if a nurse arrived in and started the same thing I'd have an issue with that.

It is the Chaplins job to offer spiritual support etc. the nurse is employed to offer physical support primarily. Her offering prayer is purely her offering her opinion and point of view, something which she is not employed to do and has little experience or training in as far as I can tell.

I know I would be very worried if I woke up in hospital to find a couple of nurses praying over me!!!

As I've said before the rules are put there to protect the paitient from un-due stress and discomfort.

I believe the issue is that she broke the rules set out before the event happened. If she didn't like the rules she shouldn't have been there. She knew what she was doing and purposfully broke those guidelines.
The only reason it made the news was because there was religion involved. If she had broken any other rules we would not be having this discussion...

Fanny Cradock

partyguinness wrote: »

Where is the hyperbole? Perhaps you should learn the meaning of the word and its correct use. Otherwise you sound quiet silly.;)

I was referring to the 'so blinkered and determined to twist and warp my words' part of your post.

Is that now clear? Or would it help if I put up a dictionary definition?