Hi, I have just joined the forum, I have been qualified 2 years now.
I was wondering if anyone can help me with some insight with the following.
I was working a nightshift with another SN that is a jehovah witness, there was a patient who had been admitted earlier that day with a low HB and needed 3 x RCC transfusion asap. The nurse whom I was working with told me that because of her beliefs she would not check or have anything to do with this duty:o. I had to arrange for the hospital co-ordinator at night to come down to the ward to assist me in setting up and checking the RCC. This caused a delay in the pt treatment as I had to wait till the co-ordinater was free to assist:-{
My question is was she right to put her beliefs and values before patient care. I know that there is issues in connection to JW not wishing transfusions for themselves etc., but surely as a nurse practitionare she should be putting the pt needs first?
I wanted to challenge this but being newly qualified at the time I was a bit unsure of my knowledge in this:uhoh3:. The nurse co-ordinater was also reluctant to do this due to political correctness, I have since researched this and have found nothing that forbids them performing this duty for others. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places for this information.
Thanks in advance for any insight anyone can give:up:
Thank you bestbabynurse, I will be honest I did get that impression from reading the the prior post, and I wanted to say thank you for your apology it actually wasn't the fact of you posting just more of my interpretation of some of the information within the post that I rather not elaborate on because I dont think it would be appropiate to do so and I wanted to ask you to accept my apology if I misinterpreted your intentions.
What I was saying was simply, for me I hold God near and dear to me just as I am sure you do as well, with that being the case and with me examining myself I just do not feel comfortable asking someone else to do something I may not do, not that it is right or wrong for anyone else just my preference.
another example is I do not support the death penalty, so therefore, I would have nothing to do with the choice of the death penalty, I would not sit on a trial of this type, nor would I work in this capacity, because of the nature of were this moral comes from. Now some can say do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But I would rather avoid the situation all together by not getting involve and not asking anyone else to get involvle as well. I dont know if this is the way you see it. I am not saying that I would or would not hang the blood, what I am saying is that as for me, the question would never be an issue because I could never ask that of someone else, for the simple importance of it. Now if I had another JW nurse ask me this question, because of my love for God as well, I would honesty have to ask why, because of my feeling towards the issue.
Now if it was a matter of trading assignments because another nurse had something else to do, then yes I would be more opt to trade, however that is not a spritual issue ( I hope that makes sense).
Sure I am always happy to share the word, I dont know if this is the best forum for that however, you can PM me:yeah:
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my lack of tact in suggesting that you are not a team player a few posts ago. I was getting tired and realized soon afterward, that I needed a break from the online thing. My apology is public because my original posting was public.
It is true that there are many people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses that do not accept blood transfusions, which is why non-blood treatments are offered to anyone who desires them. (A non-Witness acquaintance of mine just inquired of them this morning.)
I am wondering if I am correct in understanding that you would not hang blood for another nurse even though you would transfuse a patient if the patient was assigned to you. Would you rather trade assignments (if given advance notice) in such case, so that you were completely responsible for that patient's care? If my understanding is correct, then I get where you're coming from. (The only thing is sometimes our care has to be a little fragmented due to admissions, breaks and lunches, in which case another nurse needs to step in to provide for another nurses assignment.) I am comfortable in asking someone to do this task for me or else trade assignments, whichever the other nurse is O.K. with. (There is a scripturally based reason for my being O.K. with it if you want to hear it. But another witness may not want to ask anyone else either, for her own reasons.)
Just wanted to add that the details I provided earlier in this thread (granted a little off the subject), was to offer some additional background information into Jehovah's Witnesses on blood, not to compare or put down anyone else's beliefs. Again, I apologize if you got the impression that there was some other reason for elaborating on the beliefs.
O.K. hope we get each other now. And I really do wish you success.
She has the right to refuse. If a nurse did not believe in abortion, she would have the right to refuse to participate in one. JW's are very firm and inflexible in their religion. There should be a policy in your hospital that addresses this issue of refusal on religious grounds.
Then the nurse in question should be working in a field that accomodates that issue.
I do not believe in abortion, therefore I work in a speciality that accomodates that issue. That is what the responsible person of conscience does.
I could not do something to a patient which I believed to be harmful.
I would not feel comfortable working with a nurse, who believed giving blood is wrong, if she participated in giving blood.
The withholding of blood by a nurse who feels that giving blood is beneficial would be equally wrong.
If either case above were to occur, I think that person should consider another profession.
It is not always possible to find a nursing specialty where ethical dilemmas can be avoided. If you find that you encounter frequent ethical dilemmas, I feel that you are a responsible person of conscience, because you are paying attention. Please continue in your current choice of specialty and ask for assistance when you are uncomfortable with a treatment.
Specializes in OR, and more recently PACU and SDC.
There are some situations that may qualify for being a "conscious objector". Respect should be given to persons in this situation. There are however, as I have witnessed, some who play these "cards" for a couple of reasons. The biggest reason is lack of knowledge and familiarity with the process or procedure. Respect and caring to these colleagues must also be given. They are afraid of looking incompetent. Gentle guidance and reassurance works well. We all need to play the role of preceptor now and then, even if our colleagues have 20 years more experience. Maybe this poor SN mentioned by the OP was just plain scared!?
Moral and or personal belief systems in the terms of patient care must be left at the door of the hospital on your way in. I often think it is difficult when who we are in our personal life interferes with who we are as nurses. The religious argument could go on an on, as not any two people interpert the Bible the exact same way. However, most hospitals do have policies in place for those nurses who do not feel comfortable in participating in morally objectable procedures. Which is put into place upon hiring of the nurse. Charges nurses need to be aware of this, most preferably at the start of a shift, in that an alternate plan can be put in place prior to the last minute "I won't do that" and you have a patient in front of you. I am not a JW, and seemingly no two are the same as far as how much or how little their personal religious beliefs fall into play, but personally I have thoughts about what I would do and not do to my own body, however, I am unwilling as a patient advocate to tell someone else (and usually under very tense circumstances anyways) about their right to choose a medical treatment or procedure themselves. That is between the patient and their doctor.
I couldn't have stated this over and over better than you just did.
Point in case: the original question has been answered and this thread still do not agree. We all wont agree for this same reason, which is why it is best to leave one's religion at the door let the nurse be who they are and the patient be who they are.
The religious argument could go on an on, as not any two people interpert the Bible the exact same way.
Moral and or personal belief systems in the terms of patient care must be left at the door of the hospital on your way in. I often think it is difficult when who we are in our personal life interferes with who we are as nurses. The religious argument could go on an on, as not any two people interpert the Bible the exact same way. However, most hospitals do have policies in place for those nurses who do not feel comfortable in participating in morally objectable procedures. Which is put into place upon hiring of the nurse. Charges nurses need to be aware of this, most preferably at the start of a shift, in that an alternate plan can be put in place prior to the last minute "I won't do that" and you have a patient in front of you. I am not a JW, and seemingly no two are the same as far as how much or how little their personal religious beliefs fall into play, but personally I have thoughts about what I would do and not do to my own body, however, I am unwilling as a patient advocate to tell someone else (and usually under very tense circumstances anyways) about their right to choose a medical treatment or procedure themselves. That is between the patient and their doctor.
Ackteal, you stated this well. BUT, for the sake of this thread, I will point out that it ascribes moral stature to an issue that may be only pragmatic. Again, I want to say that you've stated well the pragmatic and workable solution. But this is a good moment, for the sake of all of us clarifying our thinking and issues, to make some distinctions that I think we often do not make.
There is a distinct, identifiable difference between what is moral, what is pragmatic, and what is personal opinion or preference. They may all overlap, to be sure; but they are not the same at all and play different roles in decision making. They also play different psychological roles in how well we can tolerate someone else's position.
A moral position, though subscribed to by a particular individual, does not depend on that individual. In a sense, a moral position cannot, by definition, be individual. A moral position derives its authority (for those who accept it) precisely from the idea that it is an expression of a larger truth. Religious philosophers will attribute a moral position in some fashion to a deity. Simplistically put for our sake, what is moral is what conforms to the deity's will applied to that circumstance. We can ignore for now 'how would we know that'. Non-religious and/or atheist philosophers, recognizing that a moral position is compelling only if it is rooted in a higher truth, have to first establish that there is such a higher truth. And they do indeed lay that foundation first. Bertrand Russell may be one of the more famous modern logicians and non-religious philosophers who struggled mightily to articulate how that works. (Interestingly, at a later point in his life and career, Russell seemed to change his view to ascribing ethics to a more subjective source.) The point is, most great thinkers seem to agree that a moral idea or position is not individual and is derived or expressive of some greater objective truth.
Having said that, we might better see how one cannot 'park their morals at the door'. I may suspend the application of the morals I subscribe to, but I cannot simply wholly put them aside for 12 hours. To do so would do violence to my human personality; it would require me to be someone else. Furthermore, by not applying my morals (not merely 'mine' according to my beliefs) I may have created a moral dilemna and be acting immorally. Of course, I don't mean only 'me', but any ethical person. Of coure, in a hierarchy of values, one might argue that they have a moral position which somehow advocates the altruistic position that 'the good of the other is always the greater good.' I've never heard of such a thing; but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. Again, though; in order to be a moral position, that would have to be posited as coming from some higher truth than individual experience or preference.
That brings us to preference and opinion. People, all people, have preferences. Those likes and dislikes aren't always rational, or well thought out, or thought out at all. They don't have to be. I like green chile; you like red. The fact that you have bad taste is not a moral issue. Taste and preference don't have to be moral issues; and we shouldn't treat them as such. Often we formulate opinions, not the same as taste or preference, (through necessity or laziness) based on partial information or partial thought processes. Mere preferences are not moral or immoral. Period. Opinions may be; but they also may not be, given that they may not be thoroughly thought out. Russell struggled with the lack of authority of likes and dislikes when he wrote to the effect that 'I cannot accept that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.' He recognized that compelling morality cannot be based on personaly preferences or emotions, while he struggled to anchor morality in a higher truth that wasn't deistic/theistic. On the other hand, he recognized the revulsion plays a role. Our visceral response to wrongdoing sets us looking for the higher truth that declares what is right or wrong. But personal preference (and often opinion) and morality are not the same at all. We often confuse them; but we do so at great peril.
That leaves pragmatism. What ackteal correctly (in my opinion) and clearly described as 'hospital policy' is a pragmatic position. It recognizes that we aren't going to come to a complete moral consensus. Society is diverse. So we find solutions that make things mostly workable for most people. Some would even argue that in a diverse society such an approach is moral, since it allows for common struggle in the service of public good. At the end of the day, though, the perceived need for pragmatism shouldn't blind us to what is trully moral or immoral; nor should we confuse the applications and issues.
Personally, I find that achieving some clarity on these matters makes me more able to tolerate working with divergent positions, even as I don't agree with them. We also cannot forget that some positions or acts are so clearly immoral and abhorent to us that we not only cannot participate in them, we must protest and struggle against them. Many of history's monsters (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Phot, etc.) have succeeded in their crimes because at some point not enough people have moral clarity and take a moral stand. I suggest, however, that this extreme is simply not likely to be experienced often, if ever, in the environments most of us work in.
This topic has centered on a religious tenet, but it's really about respect.
A nurse with any conscientious objections should live out that respect by informing her employer at the time of hire (or as soon as possible with a new situation) that this boundary exists. She should respect the co-workers who switch assignments with her or who step in momentarily to relieve her of the objectionable part of a task by offering appreciation, flexibility and assistance in return. Above all, she should not hide laziness, fear, or a hidden agenda (making a public stand for her "rights" or her religion) behind what should be a simple and straightforward adjustment to accommodate her moral imperative or other need.
An employer can demonstrate respect by taking the nurse's convictions seriously and resisting the urge (if any) to pressure, mock or otherwise intimidate the employee. They can encourage good attitudes and creative solutions among their staff members, reminding them that they, too, may need a helping hand at some point.
All of this together can work to achieve the ultimate goal--respect for the patients who are in the vulnerable position of needing what they need regardless of the circumstances and situations of their caretakers.
These principles apply whether the nurse is a JW who won't hang blood, a nurse who has a patient who reminds her of an abusive ex, a pregnant nurse who can't handle certain types of meds, a nurse returning from a medical LOA who needs breaks at certain times to take her own meds, a nurse who has serious family concerns that are weighing heavily on her heart and mind, and the list goes on.
We need and deserve each other's respect and support. When we look out for each other and operate out of kindness and decency and a spirit that looks for ways to get the job done, we cultivate compassion that can't help but spill over and benefit everyone in the equation.
Why not just let people be who they are, as long as the main goal of patient care is not neglected, then why such the long post of over and over again, I think they should or I think they should not, ect.....
not to be rude or anything I forgot what we were talking about
is not a moral issue. Taste and preference don't have to be moral issues; and we shouldn't treat them as such. Often we formulate opinions, not the same as taste or preference, (through necessity or laziness) based on partial information or partial thought processes. Mere preferences are not moral or immoral. Period. Opinions may be; but they also may not be, given that they may not be thoroughly thought out. Russell struggled with the lack of authority of likes and dislikes when he wrote to the effect that 'I cannot accept that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.' He recognized that compelling morality cannot be based on personaly preferences or emotions, while he struggled to anchor morality in a higher truth that wasn't deistic/theistic. On the other hand, he recognized the revulsion plays a role. Our visceral response to wrongdoing sets us looking for the higher truth that declares what is right or wrong. But personal preference (and often opinion) and morality are not the same at all. We often confuse them; but we do so at great peril.
1stloveistobeanurse
150 Posts
Thank you bestbabynurse, I will be honest I did get that impression from reading the the prior post, and I wanted to say thank you for your apology it actually wasn't the fact of you posting just more of my interpretation of some of the information within the post that I rather not elaborate on because I dont think it would be appropiate to do so and I wanted to ask you to accept my apology if I misinterpreted your intentions.
What I was saying was simply, for me I hold God near and dear to me just as I am sure you do as well, with that being the case and with me examining myself I just do not feel comfortable asking someone else to do something I may not do, not that it is right or wrong for anyone else just my preference.
another example is I do not support the death penalty, so therefore, I would have nothing to do with the choice of the death penalty, I would not sit on a trial of this type, nor would I work in this capacity, because of the nature of were this moral comes from. Now some can say do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But I would rather avoid the situation all together by not getting involve and not asking anyone else to get involvle as well. I dont know if this is the way you see it. I am not saying that I would or would not hang the blood, what I am saying is that as for me, the question would never be an issue because I could never ask that of someone else, for the simple importance of it. Now if I had another JW nurse ask me this question, because of my love for God as well, I would honesty have to ask why, because of my feeling towards the issue.
Now if it was a matter of trading assignments because another nurse had something else to do, then yes I would be more opt to trade, however that is not a spritual issue ( I hope that makes sense).
Sure I am always happy to share the word, I dont know if this is the best forum for that however, you can PM me:yeah: