Jehovah's Witness nurses in the critical care unit?

[asdf88]

Hello

This is my first time posting a thread. I was just wondering if anyone is or knows of a Jehovah's Witness nurse who works in a critical care unit. Also if you dont mind can you tell me at which hospital? The reason I am asking is that I am also one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I just passed my NCLEX. Yay I really want to work in the critical care unit, specifically the CCU. However, when I explained to the supervisor of the ICU/CCU about the issue with the blood transfusion, she said she couldnt hire me on to the critical care unit. Yes, this hospital is offering critical care positions to new grads. I was really devastated because i wanted to really work in the CCU. So I was wondering if it's the same for other hospitals. I explained to the supervisor that I am willing to care for the patient who is receiving the blood transfusion, but that I would need a second nurse(most likely the nurse who would be verifying the blood with me) to spike the blood and press the start button. I do understand why the critical care environment may not want to have a nurse who cannot initiate the blood transfusion. So I was just wondering if I do not have a chance at all in a critical care unit. For now I am orienting in the med-surg floor and I still have lingering feelings for the critical care unit.

Thank You

[BabyLady, BSN, RN]

Think long and hard about this. Things can go bad, fast. There may be multiple codes on your current unit. I've seen it happen and there never are enough staff to manage them. I'm sure you can see where this is going. What if there is no one to spike and start your blood? Would that cause an otherwise preventable death? I fully respect my co-workers and patients religious views although I am agnostic. I wouldn't want to see a nurse lose her livelihood over unforeseen circumstances. I hope you can find the answers within yourself you are seeking.

Codes are run by multiple people...there should always be enough people to spike the blood because an emergency doesn't mean that all safety measures, such as verification, are thrown out the window. It is merely a matter of her switching places with another nurse.

[Up2nogood RN, RN]

This is what nursing is about. Not jumping all over your coworkers because they can't do something - physically, mentally, spiritually, or emotionally. In my hospital we are taught to treat eat other like we treat our patients. I think it's a great concept.

It's a wonderful thought and practice to "do unto others as you would want done to you" theory. I try to behave that way, I would not jump on my co-worker for not believing in starting blood. I would do everything in my power to help and trade tasks. But let's face it, there may be times where one may not work on a nursing school dream unit. It's great the OP is tackling this probable obstacle early in her career. Reality happens.

[Up2nogood RN, RN]

Codes are run by multiple people...there should always be enough people to spike the blood because an emergency doesn't mean that all safety measures, such as verification, are thrown out the window. It is merely a matter of her switching places with another nurse.

That should you wrote in your 1st line is the reason I wrote what I did.

[Vikingkitten]

I'm going with those of you who say "it's about the patient"! I can remember being assigned to do a D and C on a pt. because the assigned nurse "dosn't believe in abortion". I don't either, but it isn't about me in that case, it's about the Patient! It does seem kind of strange for one with your religious tenants to want to be a nurse (although, Welcome to the Profession and congrats!) and we do need more of us in the world. Kind of like a pilot that gets airsick or a sailor that gets seasick.

Just my $.02.

[BunnyBunnyBSNRN, ASN, BSN]

Just a thought for those who thought there might be a discrimination issue...

In order for a discrimination suit to go forward based on anything, including religion, the person must prove the following:

1) they belong to a minority group (in this case JW?)

2) they (the employee) was performing the job at the level that met the employer's legitimate expectation

3) the employee suffered adverse employment action

4) other employees, nonmembers of the same minority group, did not suffer adverse employment action

After that, it is up to the plaintiff to prove their case. Keep in mind, presednce as been set several times - examples are Nead v. Eastern Illinois University in 2006, and Praigrod v. St. Mary's Medical Center. In Nead, the court upheld the discrimination case saying that the employer would not suffer undue hardship if the nurse couldn't administer a certain medication because others at the facility could. In Praigrod, however, the court favoured the employer in not hiring a Jewish nurse for a position because they were able to show that a non-Jewish nurse was better suited for the position, even though her qualifications were the same or less than that of the Jewish nurse.

[Emergency RN]

This thread sort of reminds me of what the military has to deal with in soldiers' who claim Conscientious Objection and wish to be excluded from combat duty. Those soldier nonetheless all want to be entitled to military pay, veteran's benefits, and the right to be called a soldier... even as their conscience does not allow them to do what soldiers are most often called upon to do, ie. to kill the enemy.

Sometimes, one just has to get their hands dirty and do what has to be done, despite one's personal or moral disagreement with the action. When one signs on for this job, IMHO, one cannot fully advocate a patient's best outcome if their own practice actions are consistently hampered by moralist caveats, especially if it's to the patient's disadvantage; sometimes we all have to look to the greater good and not focus so exclusively on minor facets that we lose sight of the trees.

I wish the OP the best; despite reading all the entries here (advocating collegial workarounds), I'm still of the belief that her best options probably remains afield of the acute clinical arena.

[gracedRN, BSN, RN]

Good for you for standing by your beliefs.

While it always will require 2 RN's to verify blood, thereby having another RN present when you hang blood anyway, sometimes in the ICU, or CCU, someone is hypovolemic and we are pupming in blood rapidly, manually. I can say with confidence I've done this > 100 times in the past year.

So there is no start button.

Something to think about regarding critical care.

Good luck, and keep standing up for your beliefs!

[BabyLady, BSN, RN]

That should you wrote in your 1st line is the reason I wrote what I did.

I don't know about you, but at our hospital, whenever a code is called there is no less than 15 people to assist.

You are not going to walk away from a patient to order blood and call the blood bank while a patient is sitting there coding.

Airway, Breathing, Circulation...all the blood in the world isn't going to do you any good if the patient has no heartbeat.

So no, you are not going to be by yourself.

[Penelope_Pitstop, BSN, RN]

For nurses we do a lot for pts that sometimes we do not personally approve of. Prolonging life for a painful pt, drug addicted pts who come in seeking more, parents who don't believe in proper healthcare for their children. We have to look past issues of this type everyday, and still provide unbiased care. If your religion prevents you from looking beyond your beliefs and giving an ordered treatment than yes, this could be a hindrance to your career on any unit with pts that need blood products.

I agree 100%...but I will add...

Sounds, to me at least, that the OP would have no problem with the transfusion except for actually spiking the bag. Therefore, because of a second nurse needing to be involved anyway, I don't see this is a real issue.

I think if one's only objection is physically spiking a bag of blood, that is no big deal. If a nurse can care for a patient without judging him or her for receiving blood, then I don't see any hitch whatsoever.

The dilemma appears when the nurse's beliefs end up discouraging a patient from receiving a transfusion. That's what I think. I am not a JW by any means, but I think that if I were I would try to PREVENT a patient from receiving a transfusion. Therein lies our trouble...

If the OP is certain he or she can care for these patients without judgement, without discouraging livesaving measures, then I think critical care would be just fine.

[klone, MSN, RN]

I'm going with those of you who say "it's about the patient"! I can remember being assigned to do a D and C on a pt. because the assigned nurse "dosn't believe in abortion". I don't either, but it isn't about me in that case, it's about the Patient! It does seem kind of strange for one with your religious tenants to want to be a nurse (although, Welcome to the Profession and congrats!) and we do need more of us in the world. Kind of like a pilot that gets airsick or a sailor that gets seasick.

Just my $.02.

I'm vehemently opposed to routine infant circumcision. Nevertheless, I've participated in dozens of circs, enough that I could probably perform one myself.

It's not about me. That baby's going to get circed, whether or not I participate. At least I know that if I do, the baby's getting the best, most compassionate care he's going to get under the circumstances.

[canoehead, BSN, RN]

If the OP is working in ICU there are going to be multiple things that she won't agree with. Like keeping bodies alive when their souls have fled. Giving narcotic pushes to IV drug abusers. Taking care of people that have caused their own illness over time and expect sympathy for bad luck. Entitled families that break all the rules...the list goes on. Oh, and the most heinous- coding people with a documented DNR because of family wishes, or because the doc wants to do a little science experiment at their expense.

The OP wants her coworkers to respect her beliefs, I don't think giving blood is going to be even in her top ten of conflicts if she stays there more than a year. I am voting that life will be difficult enough, just push the button. You will be respecting the patients' wishes, and that's a good reason to put your personal feelings aside.

[rn/writer, RN]

If the OP is working in ICU there are going to be multiple things that she won't agree with. Like keeping bodies alive when their souls have fled. Giving narcotic pushes to IV drug abusers. Taking care of people that have caused their own illness over time and expect sympathy for bad luck. Entitled families that break all the rules...the list goes on. Oh, and the most heinous- coding people with a documented DNR because of family wishes, or because the doc wants to do a little science experiment at their expense.

The OP wants her coworkers to respect her beliefs, I don't think giving blood is going to be even in her top ten of conflicts if she stays there more than a year. I am voting that life will be difficult enough, just push the button. You will be respecting the patients' wishes, and that's a good reason to put your personal feelings aside.

Not sure how you can extrapolate all of the above from the refusal to give blood. Disagreeing with an action philosophically is different from adhering to a faith that prohibits that action.

As for the inquiry about whether or not the OP would be able to do Accuchecks, why wouldn't she? Her prohibition is against receiving blood, not drawing it for a finger stick.

I understand that JWs don't want to receive blood themselves, but would like to understand better how this carries over into the transfusion setting. We can participate in all kinds of things without "agreeing" with them. How does assisting someone else reflect badly on you?

The exception to this is abortion. I would not participate in an abortion because I believe I would be helping to end another person's life. I could, however, care for the patient afterward, as that doesn't cause me to do something wrong.

Perhaps the OP could clarify.