heron

After 7 years, I suspect the poster is long gone.

Curious take on the subject when "anti-PC" sentiment is just another way of refusing to take any responsibility for what comes out of your mouth.

Google "Christian Nationalism"

Are we too PC? Nope. In my opinion, the whole anti-PC schtick is just an excuse to be as offensive and intellectually lazy as you want. Thinking begins and ends with language.

Wouldn't have a clue ... the issue might be that the morgue was never set up to allow public access, for administrative, financial or even forensic reasons. It's a pity that the facility had no mechanism for visiting remains that had already been transported out of the ED or off the unit. That exposure to the physical reality of death is important, in my view, in helping survivors cope with the fallout of such a big loss.

It takes an expert, even gifted, manager to know when a power struggle over enforcing a rule will just escalate the damage being done and to go ahead and break it. Compassion (not pity) + skills = a truly kick-ass nurse. Without this intervention, that family might have been suffering from their totally natural denial for way too long. Impacted grief is not a good thing.

Old dead thread, overworked slam against large nurses. Run a search.

The red flag here: "We must force nurses to stay put ..." OP, your approach to the problem of retention kind of gives me the willies. Who is the "we" doing all that forcing and driving and not allowing?

Thanks ... I had visions of people raiding supermarket spice shelves or calling the cops on someone's garden!

Get your facts straight: the sage used in cooking is salvia officinalis, aka garden sage. There are almost a thousand species of Salvia, many of which used ornamentally in Southwest gardens. Don't conflate them.

I think it's doubleplusungood to hijack this thread.

That's true, as far as it goes. Don't ignore the possibility of dysfunctional grieving. Yes, it's a thing and can trigger major emotional and physical problems. When a family/POA is making decisions that are clearly not the wish or in the best interest of the person doing the dying, they could be working their way through denial - it does take time - or they could be stuck in it, which is no bueno. Ignoring that is a disservice to them.

The argument is basically promoting a war of religious dominance, which has a long and honored place in Christian history dating back to the take-over of the pagan cultures of Europe at the point of a sword, thru the crusades and inquisitions of the Middle Ages, leading to hundreds of years of religious warfare after the Protestant reformation and extending to the physical and cultural obliteration of indigenous cultures here in the Americas. It continues even now, in ways that include calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. All of it under the sign of the cross. Militant Islam vs. militant Christianity. Nope, I just don't see a world of difference between the two. Now, the hate mongers want to co-opt a grieving community's tragedy to rationalize their war. Shame!

Not much different from the bible with very similar passages justifying pretty much the same behavior. To rid the world of a religion you don't like requires killing off it's believers - all of them. Leaving aside the fact that many of our most rabid islamaphobes can't tell the difference between Muslims and Sikhs, a Christian crusade against Islam - which is what you're calling for - is no different from the terrorists' "jihad" and both are religiously motivated genocide. I'm not going to change your interpretation of the Orlando murders. But I will never agree with it or provide ethical cover for a call to genocide - I don't care how politically incorrect you think I am.

No, it isn't - it is about religious extremism that uses cherry-picked references to a holy book to rationalize hate.

You watch way too much Bill Maher.

Skeptic - a couple of points: I didn't call you hateful ... I called your blanket condemnation of Islam hateful. It is. You simply have no clue what you're talking about. Your analysis of diversity is identical to that of people who seek to erase a problematic history by pretending that it was all in the past and, after all we're all human and equal now, tra-la, so none of that matters. The so-called "color-blind" boast is a prime example of that. No one is color blind. Let a non-white person express anything white folks are uncomfortable about, and it becomes very obvious. Whole books are written on the subject of cultural erasure, so I'm not going into it here. It's a can of worms that needs it's own thread ... or website. With regard to Orlando, what many of us object to is the attempt to disappear the long history of violence against lgbt people in this culture, justified and still being promoted by the dominant religion of this culture. Yes, of course my personal experience is with Christians because I live in this culture. That was my whole point. What was hateful about your argument was the illogical assertion that, since the lunatic who perpetrated this particular atrocity was a Muslim, then we must agree that Islam is evil and must be wiped out. And that most certainly is using us as ethical cover for a call to genocide. And I object to that.

Skeptic - not buyin' it. Christianity is a political ideology, too, for large swathes of our citizenry. Muslims don't have a corner on that, either. Read your history. You are partially correct in that the biggest threat to lgbt people is Muslim extremism - in majority Muslim countries. But the US, where this crime occurred, is not and is unlikely to become majority Muslim. Here at home, Christian extremists are a far greater threat and have been since Europe invaded this continent. Find another another rationale for your Holy Crusade. This one doesn't work. Every single homophobic threat to my life, safety and welfare in the 40 years I've been out has come at the hands of self-described Christians. I don't believe for a minute that your argument has anything to do with any real concern or compassion for lgbt people being slaughtered elsewhere. You don't get to use me and my people as ethical cover for something hateful. ETA: Now, if you want to discuss religious extremism and the blurring of the line between church and state, we'd have something to agree about, I suspect. I most definitely would agree that religious extremism and resulting theocracies are a huge threat to human rights and freedoms.

A little aside, there are a mumber of threads about firearms over in the Breakroom. Those who want to discuss the technology might have a better experience in those threads. End of hijack ... Carry on:)

Mfs1 - what ideology are you referring to, specifically? If it's Islam, I really have to challenge your generalization. This has nothing to do with being PC. It's about an inaccurate and incomplete stereotype of who is doing what to whom. Did the shooter use bits and pieces of Islamic religious thought to rationalize his evil? Probably - though the only direct evidence I know of is his statement of allegiance to Muslim terrorist groups. I also have read that he expressed loyalty to groups that actually oppose each other philosophically, so I tend to question his grasp of both his own religion and the politics of Middle Eastern terrorists. This is why I find the stereotype inaccurate. I also find the reference terribly incomplete because you seem to be ignoring the fact that, over time, at least as many homosexuals have been abused and slaughtered in the name of Jesus as Allah. They, too, cherrypick bits and pieces of Christian thought to justify themselves. And no, these murders are not just buried in the distant past - there are Christian clergy actively preaching today that Christians greatly please God by killing "the abominations", both here and abroad. The firebombing of the Upstairs Lounge in 1973 is a case in point. The perpetrator was never caught, so we cannot know how the SOB rationalized the act - but I'm fairly sure there wasn't a Muslim in sight. Given the heavily Christianized culture of the US, it's also a pretty fair bet that s/he would identify as Christian. 32 people were burned alive in that attack. One article I checked reports that churches - Christian churches - refused to bury the victims. The article also reports a popular joke that made the rounds about burying the queers in fruit jars. Sorry, but Muslims do not have a corner on hate. So, if it's Islamic thought you're naming as an ideology of hate, then the same name has to be applied to Christianity. It's kind of a chicken or egg question: does the religion cause the hate ... or is the religion being used as political cover for the underlying hate and lust for dominance? I think it's important and valuable to look at just how foreign terrorists are able to radicalize American citizens here at home, born and raised with all the rights and benefits of being born here. I certainly agree that religiously based terrorism played a big part in the Orlando crime. I do not agree that the religion of Islam caused the murders. I think that a real root cause analysis would show a perfect storm of homophobia, a dysfunctional and abusive personality, a closet case's psychotic projection of his own self hate and easy access to lethal technology, all of it kicked into overdrive by a misused and poorly understood religion. This post is probably too long. Sorry.

Well ... at least it took 6 pages before we started getting bashed with religion, howls of "politically correct" and boasts about being politically incorrect. All of which seem to be consistent precursors to being deliberately hateful and demeaning while attempting to avoid the usual consequences of being exceptionally offensive. Being accused of being politically correct is supposed to make us shut up. Ummm ... no. Don't wanna, don't hafta, not gonna. For that matter, it seems to me that the only posts trying to enforce "political correctness" in the first place were the ones that scolded us for being somehow "un-American" for sharing that the lgbt community has experienced this event as a hate crime and that we get to talk about that. Sorry, not going to erase our history because it makes some people uncomfortable. More than one poster has expressed their acceptance of and respect for viewpoints that focused on the factors of terrorism or gun access or the human tragedy of a mass murder. What the OP has asked is that the thread as a whole stay on the general topic of Orlando or relate back to it somehow. If that's not good enough for you, then you have a problem coping with difference without feeling threatened. Excessively rigid thinking is not a good symptom. ()

Did I mention that erasure is a huge issue ... can't think about a thing if you're not even allowed to talk about it. Maybe a transfer to the Blue side is in order.

Candy crush has addled your brain - the thread is about the Orlando murders, not Obama.

Your first point involves a bit of a leap for me, but is not the topic of this thread, I think. We should start another thread if you want to discuss it from that angle. Your second is more germane to this thread. Would you explain to me how making it easier for a terrorist - or an unhinged lunatic - to obtain lethal technology is being responsible for my own safety?

Which, in a way, is exactly my point: is that ok with you?