A Catholic nurse sued Duke University Hospital in Durham, N.C., alleging it discriminated against her religious beliefs by failing to accommodate her objections to abortion, birth control and giving vaccinations.
Sara Pedro, a Catholic nurse, moved from New York City in August 2016 to take a job at Duke University Hospital. Soon after she began work at Duke, Sara asked for and got an exemption from receiving hospital required vaccines. She also told hospital administration that she was "unable" to assist with abortions as well as administering contraceptives and "any vaccines" based on rulings by the Catholic Church.
In December 2016, Sara was placed on unpaid leave. She has moved back to New York City and claims she has been unable to return to work as she is suffering from post-traumatic stress.
Quote
The lawsuit contends Duke violated the religious-discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to give Pedro a "reasonable accommodation" for her beliefs.
Like it or not, people are legally protected to live according to their beliefs. They should be respected on the same level as healthcare professionals expected to respect the choices legally protected for their patients. No one person is more important than the other. And it does seem like most commentors on here stating the "if she cant do all parts of the job, she should get another job" are not of a faith that clearly prohibits the termination of a life. That being said, we should all respect others stances enough to accept that there are those who will and those who won't be willing to do certain things in their line of work. And that doesn't make them better or worse than the next person.
NNM
I am sorry, but people in this country aren't given carte blanche to live according to their beliefs.
For instance, many people believe in the practice of female genital mutilation. But if you practice it here, and carry it out as a health care provider, you will arrested, as was an MD in Michigan recently.
Yes, we can argue if the nurse in question can't carry out her job duties due to religious concerns, perhaps she find another line of work. Nobody is forced to become a nurse, or pharmacist or MD. Those are choices.
I am sure if she chose to work on the assembly line at Toyota, she would have few to none, ethical decisions to make.
But again, this case really isn't about a specific nurse and her job duties. This case is really an effort to further support the notion of "Religious Freedom."
I honestly don't see why people can't understand that. It is so blatantly obvious. This case is about making America more religious, let's face it, Christian, according to conservatives.
And when Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, refused to sign the marriage licenses of gay couples in Kentucky because it violated her religious faith, the courts sided against her, and now the state must pay court fees and damages to the couple in question. HOORAY!
Why would she lose her license? She isn't telling patients what they can or can't receive, she is objecting to be the nurse giving certain kinds of care.
She should have made her objections and limitations known before hiring on.
I don't think employers are allowed questions about religious beliefs when interviewing potential hires, are they? Therefore, she should have made her situation before hiring on.
What a load of crap that she is so stressed that she can no longer work.
What vaccines were/are developed in fetal tissue?
Individuals are free to make their medical decisions, nurses however cannot impose the decisions they would make for themselves onto their patients. It's one thing to make the personal decision not receive any vaccinations, it's another to impose that view onto your patients, this violates basic nursing ethics.
Well I agree she should have made her future employer aware that she could not participate in abortions or the other things based on her religion. That way they could have placed her in a position where she would not have to do those things. And from the EEOC website: An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. So if her religious beliefs infringed on the rights of other employees then they did not have to accommodate her. Sorry kinda late for me and kinda mad at the PTSD part... maybe if she is that sensitive, she should find a different job. On a side note...being a victim of harrassment from my last job, has anyone ever had a problem with their employer once they admit the harrassment did occur, offering any counseling? Just wondering
Speaking after reading a decent part of the court documents, as well as coming from a Christian perspective here are my two cents...
Do I think some of accomidation asked for was slightly excessive? Yes. Does the Church teach not to receive/give vaccines? Not that I am aware of.
The crux of the matter; was there some kind of religious discrimination taking place? I am inclined to say yes. The facts of the case add up to where a certain degree of discrimination can be proved.
I do feel bad for nurses who are placed in this position. However, a certain degree of wisdom should be used on the part of said nurse to A: Ask for a transfer or B: Not have accepted the job to begin with.
Sounds like Duke dodged a bullet by letting this nurse go--she was always going to put her personal beliefs above her patients' welfare. Also sounds to me like someone desperately in need of attention...
guest52816
473 Posts
I am sorry, but people in this country aren't given carte blanche to live according to their beliefs.
For instance, many people believe in the practice of female genital mutilation. But if you practice it here, and carry it out as a health care provider, you will arrested, as was an MD in Michigan recently.
Yes, we can argue if the nurse in question can't carry out her job duties due to religious concerns, perhaps she find another line of work. Nobody is forced to become a nurse, or pharmacist or MD. Those are choices.
I am sure if she chose to work on the assembly line at Toyota, she would have few to none, ethical decisions to make.
But again, this case really isn't about a specific nurse and her job duties. This case is really an effort to further support the notion of "Religious Freedom."
I honestly don't see why people can't understand that. It is so blatantly obvious. This case is about making America more religious, let's face it, Christian, according to conservatives.
And when Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, refused to sign the marriage licenses of gay couples in Kentucky because it violated her religious faith, the courts sided against her, and now the state must pay court fees and damages to the couple in question. HOORAY!