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

Fanny Cradock

It's not that I'm ignoring the result of one particular experiment because I don't like the findings. I say the same for the meta-analysis of a number of prayer experiments that finds prayer works. I'm not attempting to coddle my Christian faith by picking and choosing, I'm calling into question the very foundations of these type of experiments.

Consider the unlikely scenario whereby I embarked on the pressing question of the effects aspirin has on beard regrowth. There are 3 test groups - control, placebo and aspirin. Unfortunately, I couldn't guarantee that the drug wasn't being dispensed to the control group. Not only that, but there may or may have not been a calamitous mix-up that meant some or all of the placebo tablets given to the placebo group hadn't accidentally been mixed with aspirin tablets. On such foundations my findings would be laughed out the door.

I don't see why the rigours of science should be suspended in the case of prayer.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Again are you claiming that a Christian nurse cannot care for her patient, cannot be kind to her patient, without discussing religion with her patient?

No, it's the micro-regulation of free conversation that bothers me. I would react the same way if she had been punished for mentioning football, weather or hunting. I don't agree that a religious discussion was had.

If that is the case there is something seriously wrong with Christianity.

Way to clearly law out the motive for your argument!

Bland small talk? As opposed to what? The nurse sitting down beside a patient and blurting out all the problems she is having with her marriage?

False dichotomy ftw.

The purpose of the nurse is to care about the patient (something you guys have apparently forgotten).

As has Petrie's manager, by removing her.

If she engages the patient in discussion she talks about what the patient wishes to talk about. She doesn't talk about what she wants to talk about.

I would speculate that this terrifying offer of a prayer was inspired by the conversation, rather than starting a new one. I don't agree that a religious discussion was had.

The idea that this would ruin the relationship between patient and nurse is frankly ridiculous.

The idea that an offer of a prayer would ruin the relationship between patient and nurse is frankly ridiculous.

Zero-tolerance? She was told to cut it out and she didn't.

Do you think she should be told again, and again, and again and again ...?

There were other instances of Petrie's "crusading"?

sorella

There is a verse in the Bible that warns us not to put God to the test.

We who know prayer works need no "proof" of this kind.

We revere and respect His Power and His love.

Absolutely and totally; trusting His will for each day.

Blessings.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's not that I'm ignoring the result of one particular experiment because I don't like the findings. I say the same for the meta-analysis of a number of prayer experiments that finds prayer works. I'm not attempting to coddle my Christian faith by picking and choosing, I'm calling into question the very foundations of these type of experiments.

Consider the unlikely scenario whereby I embarked on the pressing question of the effects aspirin has on beard regrowth. There are 3 test groups - control, placebo and aspirin. Unfortunately, I couldn't guarantee that the drug wasn't being dispensed to the control group. Not only that, but there may or may have not been a calamitous mix-up that meant some or all of the placebo tablets given to the placebo group hadn't accidentally been mixed with aspirin tablets. On such foundations my findings would be laughed out the door.

I don't see why the rigours of science should be suspended in the case of prayer.

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so perhaps now you will answer my question, would you have the same opinion if the nurse was a white supremicist or perhaps was into bondage and wanted to talk about those?

Did i just enter the twilight zone? You scoff at me bringing football etc up, then you decide to bring in racism and bondage? Its the heart of the issue thats in discussion, not the subject matter. You keep saying we miss the point when its clear that you are. Its why I said that 'you' are making it about religion, not me. Its about the hospitals poor decision making, warped reading of a guidline, and over indulging the people (again, who I've never met), who decide to be offended by things offered in goodness.

Agreed, but several people have said they would be offended, and one even said it had happened to them and they felt very uncomfortable, but did not feel they could express that discomfort. Additionally, whilst I might not be offended, I would question the nurses professionalism and I most certainly would not welcome the conversation.

As I said, so what. These people should be encouraged to communicate their point, not indulged. A simple, no thanks. Rather than legislate for their oversensitive, irrational easily offendible disposition. Again, its perfectally fine not to welcome the 'conversation'. Which would go something like this.

Nurse: Would you like me to keep you in my prayers?
Mr P: No Thanks.

What you want, is to legislate against such 'conversations'? Seriously, I just don't know what else I can say

Or non religious. As I pointed out with the news story the other day, when you have cricket teams changing their name because the old one offended victims of the crusades, we are obviously dealing with people who are very easily offended, sometimes violently so.

And they should not be indulged.

I want to regulate against many things, this happens to be one of them.

And I think its totally ludicrous.

Let's set aside the religion thing for a moment. I agree with you, the world is going PC mad.

Ok.

This has been mentioned a few times. I don't recall from the story that the nurse was punished for communicating with the patient. I thought it was she repeatedly did something which she had repeatedly been told not to do and was in fact in breach of the rules under which her contract of employment was governed. But please, feel free to show me where it says she was punished for communicating.

Stop being obtuse. It essentially comes down to her communicating. Its the communication that the NHS say broke the rule.

No, I think it is a load of crap. You tihnk it should be given a special dispensation from the rules and appear to be incapable of seeing, or perhap unwilling to admit, that some people do see her actions as a form of harrassment.

:rolleyes: It doesn't matter that some people see it as harassment. We don't base it on what people think it is. The short sightedness of the system indulges this thinking though. 'She offered me an orange, I didn't want to eat, so I call this harassment your honour'. 'Why should I have to say no thanks, I should not have been hassled'. People have to be reasonable, and whatever you or anyone says, this nurse did not 'harass' her patient.

I ask again. Why could she not simply have prayed for the person in private and kept it to herself?

And I repeat again, I asked that exact question from the start. Its got nothing to do with whats being discused though. If you think it does, then you are unclear as to what is being said all this time.

ChocolateSauce

That's a bit extreme. I'm as anti-religious as the next guy, but if a nurse offered to pray for me I'd thank her and decline, and be touched that she would offer. It isn't as though she offered to pray instead of healing him!

This kind of hysterical PC-ness only hurts seculaism and is bafflingly illogical.

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That's a bit extreme. I'm as anti-religious as the next guy, but if a nurse offered to pray for me I'd thank her and decline, and be touched that she would offer. It isn't as though she offered to pray instead of healing him!

This kind of hysterical PC-ness only hurts seculaism and is bafflingly illogical.

I've been taken aback that some on here have made this about religion, I'm delighted that one of 'you guys':) can see the sillyness of it all.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Did i just enter the twilight zone? You scoff at me bringing football etc up, then you decide to bring in racism and bondage?

Quite valid really, and actually two separate point, let's try again. You. or another religious type, tried to tell us talking about religion is the same as talking about football or soaps. I simply pointed out that you do not actually believe that your religion is like football or soaps, it is very important to you and likening it to football or soaps cheapens it. Therefore I don't think it is valid to compare being allowed to talk about football or soap to being allowed to talk about religion. Of course I could be wrong. Do you elevate football and soaps to the same level as the religion you follow and hope will give you eternal life?

Then there is the second point, separate to football and soaps. You are saying that they should not make rules that stiffle communication and that people should be able to express their views. My question, which I don't think you have answered yet, was "if the nurse was a racist or into bondage whould you be happy for her to discuss that? She might, for example, think that a lot of the problems in the UK are caused by immigrants, if she believed this she might further think that if a patient was of the same opinion then sharing her thoughts with her might bring some comfort. I presume you would be OK with that?

Please note, I am not saying the nurse was racist, I am not saying problems in England are caused by immigrants, I am not even comparing religion to racism, I am just wonder where you draw the line at communicating ideas and feelings with strangers.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its the heart of the issue thats in discussion, not the subject matter. You keep saying we miss the point when its clear that you are. Its why I said that 'you' are making it about religion, not me. Its about the hospitals poor decision making, warped reading of a guidline, and over indulging the people (again, who I've never met), who decide to be offended by things offered in goodness.

I believe the guidlines actually forbid the "promotion of views not related to healthcare..." or something like that. Regardless of your opinion, prayer is not related to healthcare.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, so what. These people should be encouraged to communicate their point, not indulged.

I will ask this again, why does it have to be opt out?

JimiTime wrote: »

A simple, no thanks. Rather than legislate for their oversensitive, irrational easily offendible disposition. Again, its perfectally fine not to welcome the 'conversation'. Which would go something like this.

Nurse: Would you like me to keep you in my prayers?
Mr P: No Thanks.

What you want, is to legislate against such 'conversations'? Seriously, I just don't know what else I can say

So who decides what can and cannot be discussed? Why is religion special?

JimiTime wrote: »

And they should not be indulged.

Why the special dispensation for religion?

JimiTime wrote: »

Stop being obtuse. It essentially comes down to her communicating. Its the communication that the NHS say broke the rule.

I am not trying to be obtuse, I just struggle to see why religion should get special treatment.

JimiTime wrote: »

:rolleyes: It doesn't matter that some people see it as harassment. We don't base it on what people think it is.

Oh, so would it be ok for me to walk up to a woman at work on compliment her on her perky looking breasts? Again, why the special treatment. Why is religion deserving of it?

MrP

Burgo

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That's a bit extreme. I'm as anti-religious as the next guy, but if a nurse offered to pray for me I'd thank her and decline, and be touched that she would offer. It isn't as though she offered to pray instead of healing him!

This kind of hysterical PC-ness only hurts seculaism and is bafflingly illogical.

It was the fact she had being warned repeatedly not to do so. She ignored the warnings and disciplinary actions were taken,she could have prayed on her own time,there was no need to do so on hospital time. Her repeat offence does raise doubt as to her professionalism,in my opinion anyway.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

The idea that an offer of a prayer would ruin the relationship between patient and nurse is frankly ridiculous.

Seriously are you guys just ignoring this point or do you really,seriously, not get it. Are you that blinded by your devotion to your religion and the belief that it can't upset people.

We know that an awful lot of people WILL NOT go to a hospital where the staff openly proclaim a different religious doctrine to them.

Protestants don't go to Catholic hospitals. Catholics don't go to Protestant hospitals. This isn't even a Christian/Muslim thing, or a Christian/Hindu thing. It is a Christian/Christian thing

We KNOW this happens. It has been happening in Ireland for decades.

Which is the entire reason for secularism in public health care in places like England.

A public hospital should be welcoming to ALL members of the society. It should not, from the upper management to the person cleaning your toilet, express a religious position. Why? Because religious positions alienate people, they divide people.

You guys can pretend all you like that this doesn't happen to try and win an argument. That position is contradicted by the health care in this country.

You guys can debate all you like that it shouldn't happen, that people should not feel alientated or upset by this. That I suspect is clouded by position that your religion is all fuzzy and and nice, so how could anyone be upset by it, but ultimately that discussion is irrelevant. It does happen, irrespective of whether it should or not.

Bougeoir

Well I think she really ought to have asked the patient first but then again couldn't she just pray in private without the patient knowing? I don't think she was being malicious but ought to be working and not praying on her job.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously are you guys just ignoring this point or do you really,seriously, not get it. Are you that blinded by your devotion to your religion and the belief that it can't upset people.

We know that an awful lot of people WILL NOT go to a hospital where the staff openly proclaim a different religious doctrine to them.

Protestants don't go to Catholic hospitals. Catholics don't go to Protestant hospitals. This isn't even a Christian/Muslim thing, or a Christian/Hindu thing. It is a Christian/Christian thing

We KNOW this happens. It has been happening in Ireland for decades.

Which is the entire reason for secularism in public health care in places like England.

A public hospital should be welcoming to ALL members of the society. It should not, from the upper management to the person cleaning your toilet, express a religious position. Why? Because religious positions alienate people, they divide people.

You guys can pretend all you like that this doesn't happen to try and win an argument. That position is contradicted by the health care in this country.

You guys can debate all you like that it shouldn't happen, that people should not feel alientated or upset by this. That I suspect is clouded by position that your religion is all fuzzy and and nice, so how could anyone be upset by it, but ultimately that discussion is irrelevant. It does happen, irrespective of whether it should or not.

LOL. This going back and forth with the whole 'You guys don't get it' is getting to hillarious proportions.



...Oh yeah, And its you who doesn't get it, but why break the habit now.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously are you guys just ignoring this point or do you really,seriously, not get it. Are you that blinded by your devotion to your religion and the belief that it can't upset people.

We know that an awful lot of people WILL NOT go to a hospital where the staff openly proclaim a different religious doctrine to them.

I agree with your post. Hospitals should not take religious positions. However, the incident we are talking about neither occurred in a hospital, nor involved any official adoption of a particular religious position by anyone.

jill_valentine

Okay, yes it would bug me if somebody offered to pray for me, and it always does. But ye gads, this was a massively disproportionate reponse.

sukikettle

Would anyone like prayer?

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

You. or another religious type, tried to tell us talking about religion is the same as talking about football or soaps.

Once again, you think you have the point, or you deliberately miss the point to try further an arguement that I'm not actually having.

Here's my quote:

I believe people are quite capable of speaking for themselves. I don't think we should legislate against people communicating. If someone doesn't want it talked about, it should be left to them to say it. Be it football, coronation street or religion. I don't think this oversensitive kid gloves approach is good.

This quote did not compare the subjects, quite obviously I would have thought. Once again though, it is YOU, that elevates religion to a special place. The quote above was to emphasise, that people should just say be left to communicate their own feelings about things. Be it sport, religion, politics etc. It in no way compares the subject matter. You really ae just looking for an arguement aren't you.

You are saying that they should not make rules that stiffle communication and that people should be able to express their views.

To a degree. The incident in question though, before you drag us off down your little tunnell was not an expression of a view. It was a question.

'Would you mind if I kept you in my prayers'. It had a kind motivation. Earlier it was argued, 'well what if an atheist said, There is no God and when you die, thats the end of it'. As if that is a comparrison to what went on. Its just setting up stupid strawmen scenario's to make a point that is impossible to make. Why? Because its dumb. Your NON-point can't stand without such strawmen.

My question, which I don't think you have answered yet, was "if the nurse was a racist or into bondage whould you be happy for her to discuss that?

Actually I wouldn't. Though I can't see the comparrison

'Can I tie you up and whip you Mam?'

'Do you hate black people Mam?'

Yeah, same thing:rolleyes:

She might, for example, think that a lot of the problems in the UK are caused by immigrants, if she believed this she might further think that if a patient was of the same opinion then sharing her thoughts with her might bring some comfort. I presume you would be OK with that?

Please note, I am not saying the nurse was racist, I am not saying problems in England are caused by immigrants, I am not even comparing religion to racism, I am just wonder where you draw the line at communicating ideas and feelings with strangers.

They should be dealt with under current legislation. The patient communicates to their superior that the nurse is being a racist or crude etc. Then the case is looked at on merit. You don't make legislation based on the most unlikeliest of scenario's such as your point above. If there was an epidemic of Sado-masochist nurses asking their patients if they wanted bondage, or an epidemic of racist nurses, then you may have to consider a robotic approach. I.E. Micro-management of what nurses can say. However, as we live in the real world, where such things are rare, or non existant tbh, we can leave the doors of communication open. Doing this then allows the kind hearted, innocuous, 'Can I keep you in my prayers'.

Now if your point, is that my way leaves the door open to sado masachists and racists, then, yeah, you're right. However, in reality, I don't feel the need to legislate against these sex crazed racist nurses just yet. There are already rules of decency and anti-discrimination for that anyway, so even if these nurses existed, our kind hearted nurse still does not have to be stuck in the net.

I believe the guidlines actually forbid the "promotion of views not related to healthcare..." or something like that. Regardless of your opinion, prayer is not related to healthcare.

Neither is saying, 'I support Man U, who do you support'? I Can't take these stupid points anymore man. Seriously.

So who decides what can and cannot be discussed?

No one.

Why is religion special?

Yawn. Its NOT. Its only special to you! And its not a discussion. Its the mentioning of something. To remind you of context:

'Can I keep you in my prayers?'

Why the special dispensation for religion?

There's none.

I am not trying to be obtuse, I just struggle to see why religion should get special treatment.

You think if a nurse says, 'Can I keep you in my prayers', that there should be a rule against it as you feel this is giving religion a special place.

I think its idiotic, but there you go.

Oh, so would it be ok for me to walk up to a woman at work on compliment her on her perky looking breasts? Again, why the special treatment. Why is religion deserving of it?

MrP

Yeah, defo. Try it tommorow ok. Let me know how that goes for you.

This thread has defo run its course for me now. I don't think I could be any clearer. I'm glad that there are folk on the secular side who see how stupid this is. Gives me a little bit of hope for when we do eventually become secular, we'll at least have some balanced heads there too.

Húrin

MrPudding wrote: »

You, or another religious type, tried to tell us talking about religion is the same as talking about football or soaps. I simply pointed out that you do not actually believe that your religion is like football or soaps, it is very important to you and likening it to football or soaps cheapens it. Therefore I don't think it is valid to compare being allowed to talk about football or soap to being allowed to talk about religion.

So now religion does require special treatment? Consistency? It sounds like not only I do not actually believe that religion is like football or soaps - you don't believe it either.

I believe the guidlines actually forbid the "promotion of views not related to healthcare..." or something like that. Regardless of your opinion, prayer is not related to healthcare.

You had better believe that football teams have agendas to promote, as do their fans!

-
anyway back to the ol' thesis...

sorella

... there is some interestng material in the stickies at the top of the forum...

Bougeoir

sukikettle wrote: »

Would anyone like prayer?

No thank you. But would like me to do a spell for you? lol :rolleyes:

Rev Hellfire

I'm curious does it mention anywhere how the offer to pray for them came up ?

There is after all a world of difference between someone unprompted offering such a service and to say JimiTime feeling poorly in a hospital bed, gets talking to a nurse about religion who then offers to say a wee prayer ?

Not that we wish Jimi ill health or anything

ChocolateSauce

Wicknight wrote: »

Protestants don't go to Catholic hospitals. Catholics don't go to Protestant hospitals. This isn't even a Christian/Muslim thing, or a Christian/Hindu thing. It is a Christian/Christian thing

A public hospital should be welcoming to ALL members of the society. It should not, from the upper management to the person cleaning your toilet, express a religious position. Why? Because religious positions alienate people, they divide people.

It was the fact she had being warned repeatedly not to do so. She ignored the warnings and disciplinary actions were taken,she could have prayed on her own time,there was no need to do so on hospital time. Her repeat offence does raise doubt as to her professionalism,in my opinion anyway.

I agree hospitals should be secular, but this was a private issue between two people. The person in question didn't even complain. Asking someone if they'd like a prayer is just so unobtrusive I don't feel it warrants a dismissal. If people of a particular faith don't want to be prayed for by people of another faith, they should just say so. The irony is that if this was the case, and she didn't ask them but did it anyway, she'd be committing an act against them which would only hurt them if they knew about it!

Furthermore, there are far more harmful practices that go on in some hospitals than the odd prayer, like "therapeutic touch"; a vile act whereby the nurse gives you a massage and claims it heals you when it in fact does not. This is a waste of time far greater than praying for 15 seconds. I just think this prayer business is a storm in a tea cup. As long as it isn't hospital policy to pray for people, I'm happy. Having a secular hospital doesn't mean enforcing secularism this strictly, it just means making sure that religion isn't used for anything it is not suited to do (probably up to circa 50% of people wouldn't mind a prayer), making sure hospital funds aren't spent on anything religious, and making sure that staff are aware that overt displays of religion aren't allowed to be commonplace or otherwise interfere with their duties.

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I agree hospitals should be secular, but this was a private issue between two people. The person in question didn't even complain. Asking someone if they'd like a prayer is just so unobtrusive I don't feel it warrants a dismissal. If people of a particular faith don't want to be prayed for by people of another faith, they should just say so. The irony is that if this was the case, and she didn't ask them but did it anyway, she'd be committing an act against them which would only hurt them if they knew about it!

Furthermore, there are far more harmful practices that go on in some hospitals than the odd prayer, like "therapeutic touch"; a vile act whereby the nurse gives you a massage and claims it heals you when it in fact does not. This is a waste of time far greater than praying for 15 seconds. I just think this prayer business is a storm in a tea cup. As long as it isn't hospital policy to pray for people, I'm happy. Having a secular hospital doesn't mean enforcing secularism this strictly, it just means making sure that religion isn't used for anything it is not suited to do (probably up to circa 50% of people wouldn't mind a prayer), making sure hospital funds aren't spent on anything religious, and making sure that staff are aware that overt displays of religion aren't allowed to be commonplace or otherwise interfere with their duties.

A balanced view IMO. I just don't get how some don't see it that way

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm curious does it mention anywhere how the offer to pray for them came up ?

There is after all a world of difference between someone unprompted offering such a service and to say JimiTime feeling poorly in a hospital bed, gets talking to a nurse about religion who then offers to say a wee prayer ?

Not that we wish Jimi ill health or anything

See u in court:pac:

jill_valentine

This is still mind boggling to me.

Surely it can't be even possible to dismiss somebody for something so silly. Is there more to this? I mean, she didn't drop the prayer thing in as she was pushing a pillow over the patient's face or anything?

Fanny Cradock

Well, apparently it was her second 'prayer crime'*, so I guess that it was this repeat offence that has caused this whole mess.

*Actually, the first time round she gave out a prayer card.

Rev Hellfire

JimiTime wrote: »

See u in court:pac:

My team of crack attack lawyers shall be waiting !

ChocolateSauce

JimiTime wrote: »

A balanced view IMO.

Maybe I'm just not feeling up to much today? :pac:

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Maybe I'm just not feeling up to much today? :pac:

You are a member of the group yeah? You are our mole on the inside yeah? You know about the 'operation'? Give them their first prayer free, then they get dependant, and Ka-Ching! [evil laugh]Muwah ha ha ha ha ha ha[/evil laught] . Mr P, Wickie and Robin, know about us, which is why they meet in underground lair to plot our demise. See Rev Hellfires post here. Now Rev, is not one of us but he is getting too close, which is why we have arranged a little extra kick in his bedtime Co-Coa [evil laugh]Muwah ha ha ha ha ha ha[/evil laught]

Yusuf Mirza

....is this Soviet Russia? Since when is prayer illegal < shocked

Húrin

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

....is this Soviet Russia? Since when is prayer illegal < shocked

Ancient Comrade Phippen was wisited by her Revolutionary Community Nurse, who illegally fed her some opium of the people.

ChocolateSauce

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

....is this Soviet Russia? Since when is prayer illegal < shocked

It isn't. But it does appear to be against hospital policy, which is different.

Jimi:

:eek: Betray my bretheren? I am no Judas!

Although on another note...mmm....Judas Priest concert on Tuesday....:cool:

JimiTime

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

....Judas Priest concert on Tuesday....:cool:

:eek::eek::eek: You know that it is very illogical to listen to Judas priest? In fact, there was a mathematical equasion to prove it so:

A x R + €45 + 7 x Livin after midnight - big hair + 30years = Listening to Judas Priest is illogical.

QED.

Didn't u get the memo?:)

Húrin

She's to be back at work now. It is easy to deplore the "media circus" that has erupted around this case, but without such oversight, cases like this would be prosecuted with impunity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5675452.ece

oh, and she won't stop praying

Fanny Cradock

I wonder will she be back in the news in the months to come.

Rev Hellfire

Húrin wrote: »

oh, and she won't stop praying

Good for her.

Talliesin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient. Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

This isn't a religious issue, this is a very-rude-person-not-knowing-how-to-mind-her-own-business issue.

Fanny Cradock

Talliesin wrote: »

This isn't a religious issue

It isn't? I struggle to think of an issue other than religion (or the reaction to it) that would cause such a reaction.

sorella

Is there an emoticon for a very loud raspberry? :P

Talliesin wrote: »

This isn't a religious issue, this is a very-rude-person-not-knowing-how-to-mind-her-own-business issue.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It isn't? I struggle to think of an issue other than religion (or the reaction to it) that would cause such a reaction.

Essentially it's an issue of repeated workplace misconduct, as defined in her contract.

Had she been stealing opiates, she wouldn't have even got the first warning.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder will she be back in the news in the months to come.

With a nascent talent for self-promotion and no less an organ than the Daily Telegraph behind her, I expect we'll be seeing her again in the years to come, no doubt with further "political correctness gone mad" stories.

Here's the UK's NSS on the issue.

ChocolateSauce

Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS wrote:

, preaching or attempting to convert people at work “can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour”. The guide says that nurses should be allowed to wear religious dress, symbols and jewellery unless they conflict with health and safety procedure.

Looks like a victory for logic and common sense. PC-mania can be annoying, but it can also be harmful, like here where it disrupted the life of this woman and her family over a small issue. Further, the part cited above doesn't apply to this case, as asking someone would they like a prayer cannot be considered (with any degree of rationality) preaching or attempting to convert.

I'd also point out that the guide doesn't even succeed in what it sets out to do, namely avoid offense/religious tension, as it allows nurses to wear religious dresses. This means someone wearing a burqua could treat people, something which can be easily construed as "in your face" religion. It could also hypothetically allow a Hindu to wear a swastica.

GreeBo

What if she had offered to sacrifice some animal to appease *her* God to help the person. I have a feeling that (strangely enough) the Christians on here think she was right only because she was doing something that they agree with. As above, she repeatedly breaks the term of her contract, its irrelevant what/why/how. Its enough to know that she does.

robindch

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It could also hypothetically allow a Hindu to wear a swastica.

Good point. I'd certainly like to see how the "political correctness gone mad" brigade would spin a story about the fallout from Hindu doctor wearing a swastika treating, say an elderly jewish patient...

Mickeroo

robindch wrote: »

Good point. I'd certainly like to see how the "political correctness gone mad" brigade would spin a story about the fallout from Hindu doctor wearing a swastika treating, say an elderly jewish patient...

A swastika is a symbol representing the continuity of life and is found even in christian churches. Yea,I'm takin it back

Fanny Cradock

GreeBo wrote: »

What if she had offered to sacrifice some animal to appease *her* God to help the person. I have a feeling that (strangely enough) the Christians on here think she was right only because she was doing something that they agree with. As above, she repeatedly breaks the term of her contract, its irrelevant what/why/how. Its enough to know that she does.

Don't be preposterous. Asking to pray for somebody is in no way equatable with animal sacrifice. Something that I'm quite sure this woman doesn't practice.

philologos

If anything is political correctness going on, it's this very incident. It's ridiculous, people know that faith is in society, and it is most likely going to stay there.

There are two options:
1) Try and repress this fact as much as possible
or
2) Tolerate the beliefs of others.

I'd personally prefer a society with the latter as it's motivation.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Tolerate the beliefs of others.

You still don't seem to understand that some people find other peoples' religious beliefs and practices offensive. No doubt they shouldn't in many cases, but a lot certainly do. In that context, it's been found that the best way to reduce the chances of conflict is for everybody to agreed to leave their religions (and no religion) at the door. Same with politics. Same with trade union issues. Same with lots of other things.

Do you really believe that somebody can do whatever they like -- say, something like the swastika example above -- and then attempt to avoid fallout by saying that it's their religious beliefs and the other person is at fault for taking offense?

JimiTime

Whatever this Nurses motivations are, I'm delighted the NHS came to the only decision any rational person could.

Talliesin

Jakkass wrote: »

If anything is political correctness going on, it's this very incident. It's ridiculous, people know that faith is in society, and it is most likely going to stay there.

There are two options:
1) Try and repress this fact as much as possible
or
2) Tolerate the beliefs of others.

I'd personally prefer a society with the latter as it's motivation.

Agreed. They should strike this person off.

JimiTime

Talliesin wrote: »

Agreed. They should strike this person off.

Happily though, they decided against irrational, muddled thinking, and followed the sensible options. Though these extreme views some of you guys have you'll be like that woman from Fr. Ted, 'What next ey, Crack Cocaine and drive by shootings?!'

I'm claiming a victory for common sense anyway.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

You still don't seem to understand that some people find other peoples' religious beliefs and practices offensive. No doubt they shouldn't in many cases, but a lot certainly do. In that context, it's been found that the best way to reduce the chances of conflict is for everybody to agreed to leave their religions (and no religion) at the door. Same with politics. Same with trade union issues. Same with lots of other things.

Do you really believe that somebody can do whatever they like -- say, something like the swastika example above -- and then attempt to avoid fallout by saying that it's their religious beliefs and the other person is at fault for taking offense?

Differentiation fail.

The swastika is widely considered an offensive symbol in western culture. Some countries even prohibit it. Prayer is not.

Nor for that matter, is supporting Man United (perhaps not in Liverpool hospitals).

Perhaps some people would be offended by an offer of prayer. More people would be reassured. The patient in this case was not offended.

Let it go.