Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is.....since he is the customer, if at all possible, we must honor his request. You really would not believe some of the requests we get. Although we may think some are outright crazy, we still have to do it.
Wrong...
Hospitals and businesses never honor these requests.
In fact, the hospital legal Dept told them NOT to.
The point is.....since he is the customer, if at all possible, we must honor his request. You really would not believe some of the requests we get. Although we may think some are outright crazy, we still have to do it.
You can't honor a racist request without breaking the law. Period.
Sheena, I'm curious as to how you would treat a religious objection to treatment--such as providing blood to a seriously ill child when the parents object from a religious standpoint? Are you suggesting that the police be called, the child taken into protective custody and given blood products anyway? Would you limit freedom of religion?
I wonder if legally that issue has been resolved.
On the other hand, while I understand this to be a racist motive of this parent that his child only be cared for by a white person, I think the hospital should have the right to provide emergency care only and then to ask the parents to take the child elsewhere.
The hospital is caught in the middle--do whatever is needed to care for the child--or turn a child away (who could possibly die) so that they can fulfill equality issues. It's a moral dilemma that boils down to King Solomon in the OT saying to the two mothers of a child, "Divide him in half and give half to each mother." There is no good answer legally to this situation. And no legislation is in place to provide guidance to the hospital, the parents, the nurses, or the judges.
I'm reminded of the story of Earl Long, brother of Huey Long of Louisiana, who served as governor of Louisiana three times. When a group of black people came to him to complain that about half the patients at Charity Hospital were black but the hospital would not employ black nurses, Earl said, "I'll get the jobs for you, but you won't like how I do it."
He went on a visit to Charity and when taken to the wing housing black patients feigned shock and said, "My God, do you have white nurses taking care of "N"s???? This is an insult to white people." The hospital immediately dismissed a number of white nurses and hired black nurses to care for black patients. A black minister later said of Earl that he understood racism and was able to use it to provide jobs for blacks who were in sore need of the work.
Making simplistic answers to complex problems generally creates more confusion and complexity based on each individual's definition of what is "moral" and what is "right."
If I were sitting on the bench, I would probably declare "no foul" and dismiss the nurses' lawsuit while instructing the hospital to come up with a written guideline to follow in future situations. At least with a written guideline, neither side is faced with a potential last second, life-threatening decision sure to be challenged by someone. Then if someone wants to sue over the written guideline, go for it. There is plenty of time to go to the courts and haggle over saving lives versus protecting equality. A decision made in the heat of the moment was unlikely to have been deliberately racist.
The bad choice that was made was was not on the part of the court, but on the part of the hospital in not protecting both it's patient and it's professional staff from the arbitrary whims or a racist parent,, to insure continuity of care to one of it's smallest, most fragile, and voiceless patients, the infant. The nurse in question had worked in this hospital for seventeen years, any employee who has practiced her profession faithfully, acquired skills in a specialty that required a level of expertise to permit her to work in a NICU, is a valuable resource to a hospital and deserves to be treated as such. The hospital made the bad choice and now, they are likely to pay for it.
My guess is that the racist father was an intimidating guy. Let's see, he was covered with symbols of hate - swastikas. He wore his hatred and bigotry "on his sleeve", as it were. There is no doubt in my mind that he was one intimidating individual.
However, the professional nurse who made the bad discussion to capitulate to his demands is in error.
The choice of how people, including this nurse are treated in the work place is not a matter of judgement, opinion, or anything else. It's a matter of law.
A court decision rendered nearly fifty years ago ( The Civil Rights Act of 1964) made this the law of the land. One can be a racist as one wants in their own homes. No one can legislate how one feels. However, once that family took the child to the hospital, they are no longer in their own homes. They are in a healthcare facility and a workplace. As Mark, an attorney, said before me if you don't like it, then "don't go to the hospital". Any thinking and law abiding person would agree. You don't need to like it, you do need to abide by it.
You asked me a direct question about what I would do as a nurse, if a family was a member of a sect that forbid blood transfusions. I'd be happy to tell you.
The decision to order a blood transfusion is not a Nursing decision, but a Medical decision.In other words it is not under the Scope of Practice of the Nursing profession. My medical , I mean it is under the Scope of Practice of Medical Doctors and not nurses.
The denomination best known for objecting to blood transfusions are the Jehovah's Witnesses. I can tell you how this was handled in my home state of NY, and I expect in most states.
If an "infant child" ( person under the age of eighteen) is the child of JWs, and is in a in a situation where a doctor deems a whole blood transfusion medically necessary, and plasma will not suffice ( for reasons that I do not know, the JWs objection is with whole blood, not plasma) the parents are informed that this is medically needed. If they adhere to their religious prohibition against transfusions of whole blood and will not relent, there is a protocol already in place, since these situations are usually time sensitive and "life or death matters".
The protocol is goes as follows. The child is temporally removed out of the guardianship of the parents and becomes a ward of the court. The parents in effect, loose custody of the child temporarily, and the transfusion is administered. After the child is stabilized medically, custody is given back to the JW parents.
In this way. the parents have not sinned in the eyes of their faith, and the child is given the care that has been deemed medically needed. No harm, no foul.
The JW parents with who I have encountered do not obstruct the care of their child, and cooperate in these situations.
Your inclusions of the anecdote concerning a Charity hospital over eighty years ago, a hospital with separate wings for black and white patients is a bit bizarre.
This was in the Jim Crow segregated south. Since those laws are illegal in the US, by the court ruling of 1964. Not sure what your point is.
kayanne,. I believe all your points have been addressed ad nauseam already in this thread.
I've read every post in this thread, and I don't yet understand the distinction between the various scenarios I proposed. That's why I asked.
Lizita is saying that BOFQ allows for differential treatment in some cases. So, I was wondering if the patient is required to give a reason for asking for a male or female (or whatever). If I simply don't want a man looking at my hoo-hah because I'm modest or embarassed, that's ok? But if a man is sexist and doesn't want a woman poking up his privates, that's not ok?
Does anyone know if a hospitalized patient is required to state a reason?
I know that whenever I have moved to a new city, and I'm using a physician organization's website to find a new doctor, one of the questions it asks me is if I want a male or female. It doesn't ask why. Now granted, I'm not a hospitalized patient at that point, so apparently I can be sexist in selecting a doctor at that point.
My guess is that the racist father was an intimidating guy. Let's see, he was covered with symbols of hate - swastikas. He wore his hatred and bigotry "on his sleeve", as it were. There is no doubt in my mind that he was one intimidating individual.
I hate to imagine what might have happened if racist father's request was ignored. Let's say no notes were put in the chart, it was business as usual in assigning nurses to various patients, and a black nurse came into this infant's room. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that violence against the nurse could have ensued.
Quote:
One can be a racist as one wants in their own homes. No one can legislate how one feels. However, once that family took the child to the hospital, they are no longer in their own homes. They are in a healthcare facility and a workplace.
Absolutely true that no one can legislate against racism in a person's heart. But racists don't have to keep their racism within their homes: the KKK is allowed to rally, racists can choose the line at the grocery with the white clerk every time, they can request a white server's table at a restaurant, racists can and do choose with whom they will associate in every aspect of their life. As much as I disagree with racism, and as much as I think it was an ignorant request, I think the father should have the right to have his request honored. I don't see it as the hospital violating the Civil Rights Act; the hospital did not initiate the reassignment of the nurse; the hospital did not have a policy of assigning AA nurses differently than any other nurses. It was an ignorant request of a racist man, who is legally allowed to be racist. And although the Patients Bill of Rights may not currently enumerate this right specifically (yet), that Bill of Rights is (partially) to prevent patients from feeling like they have no control over their healthcare and decisions while they are in the hospital.
Only time will tell which way the court decides.
It's a sad situation, especially for this baby growing up with such hate.
I'd just like to offer a comment of my own. There is no rational basis for such a request, but the patient's request should be honored. The hospital exists to serve the patient; patients do not exist to serve the hospital. If I am uncomfortable with a nurse, or do not want to be treated by a particular nurse, then another nurse that I am comfortable with should be provided, no matter what the reason is. Any hospital stay, particularly childbirth, is an intimate and stressful experience, and the last thing patients need is for hostile perspectives to be rammed down their throat.
Just speaking for myself, if a hospital forced me or my newborn baby to be treated by nurses I'm not comfortable with, and did not honor my wishes, then I would never patronize that particular hospital again. It's not the sort of behavior I'm looking for in any business or other establishment.
As for the lawsuit, as far as I'm concerned no wrong was committed aside from bad taste. This nurse is operating under the assumption that she has the right to treat patients and their babies even if the patient says no, which is the very essence of slavery. The ultimate court verdict is less clear, but I'd say the cards are stacked in the favor of the black nurses.
I'd just like to offer a comment of my own. There is no rational basis for such a request, but the patient's request should be honored. The hospital exists to serve the patient; patients do not exist to serve the hospital. If I am uncomfortable with a nurse, or do not want to be treated by a particular nurse, then another nurse that I am comfortable with should be provided, no matter what the reason is. Any hospital stay, particularly childbirth, is an intimate and stressful experience, and the last thing patients need is for hostile perspectives to be rammed down their throat.
Just speaking for myself, if a hospital forced me or my newborn baby to be treated by nurses I'm not comfortable with, and did not honor my wishes, then I would never patronize that particular hospital again. It's not the sort of behavior I'm looking for in any business or other establishment.
As for the lawsuit, as far as I'm concerned no wrong was committed aside from bad taste. This nurse is operating under the assumption that she has the right to treat patients and their babies even if the patient says no, which is the very essence of slavery. The ultimate court verdict is less clear, but I'd say the cards are stacked in the favor of the black nurses.
Racist behavior is more than "bad taste." It happens to be against the law.
I know that whenever I have moved to a new city, and I'm using a physician organization's website to find a new doctor, one of the questions it asks me is if I want a male or female. It doesn't ask why. Now granted, I'm not a hospitalized patient at that point, so apparently I can be sexist in selecting a doctor at that point.
I am sure there isn't a question asking you if you want a black or white physician.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
