Religion Needed to be a Good Nurse?

saadb · Nov 4, 2005

Kinda sounds like your instructor is taking a little liberty there. Have been an RN for over 20 yrs, am spiritual to believing in god/supreme being because mankind sure isn't smart enought to figure it out. Have taken care of all sorts of pt's from christians,jewish,muslim,and even buddhists. All we have is to respect their religious beliefs. My buddhist pt who passed the family asked me if he could be kept in the room(and not refridgerated) for 8 hrs and could their priest/holy man come, which i complied with. Ultra-orthodox jews if they die after sundown on Friday can not be touched til the sabbath is over, plus any removal of life-support, IV's etc must be done by someone of their faith only(we used to stand and instruct family what to do for removal). 7 yrs of Oncology made me question God sometimes as to why good people can die so horribly vs scumbags that go on forever. When I first became a nurse my older pt's would say "God bless you" while thanking me for something I did, made me think "hey, I didn't sneeze"- but realized that religion and God were important to them. A nun wanted to pray for once and asked what parrish I was with, told her I was protestant, she said"you'd still let me pray for you?", told her yes indeed(a good word with God or whomever my people believe in has to be a good thing. Sometimes you will learn things from people of different faiths, respect their faith(ask questions if there is something you don't understand;ie Jehovah witness refusal to accept blood etc), your own, and avoid deep seated religious debates unless you got lots of time on your hands(have gotten this from born-again people). Always treat your pt's with dignity, respect, and exactly the way you'd want to be treated if it were you in that bed. flaerman:wink2:

Amen sister!

Indy, LPN, LVN · Nov 4, 2005

I don't think I need religion, necessarily. My family intended to give me a religious upbringing, and what they forgot was that 13+ years of severe abuse tends to undermine any "official" message they may have been trying to get across. When I originally rebelled against christianity, I was rebelling against the control mechanisms that I saw.

When I felt the need to belong, to have purpose, etc. I would try on some other form of religion along the way. I found some weird stuff, a lot of intolerant belief systems, some who wanted me to get an entire new soul, and lots of talk about relationships with higher beings. None of these things was for me, because I didn't have a relationship with myself.

I've decided that the roots of any belief system should be compassion for your fellow man, and that compassion can't be contradicted by action, it must BE the action. So I get along with even the most fundamental of christians when we are working together to help other people in a physical way, for example, to provide free health care. We're in the same boat lane there, if not on the same ship.

As for purpose and belonging, well I have family and nursing, so I'm less interested in religion now than I have ever been. I like to say I'm a heathen if anyone asks, because that implies no affiliation (not even pagan, they don't use the word heathen either).

Now in nursing practice, what happens? Well, I won't be offended if someone prays for me, I think it's sweet. No one has yet tried to save my soul, but I'd have to nip that conversation in the bud if I couldn't turn it around. When faced with a situation where it occurs to me that the family or patient would want religious intervention, I'll make a suggestion and let them do their thing, or call the chaplain. Most families and patients I've seen so far don't want or need me to pray for/with them; they're very happy with my hand holding, forehead-wiping, hold the puke bucket brand of compassion.

jailnurse1033 · Nov 5, 2005

In 15 years of nursing in a variety of settings I've seen a lot of diversity in people. Different things comfort different people. I'm an atheist myself, but I haven't ever found this to conflict with nursing. For me, my role is clear - I try to facilitate what is comforting to you (the patient), what ever that may be. It's not about my beliefs, it's about what brings the patient a sense of peace and safety, and this varies by the person. I think acceptance of peoples differences is needed to be a good nurse.

RN Buzz · Nov 5, 2005

what i have learnt from my nursing education it to provide care in a holistic manner in which i take into account the pts physical, mental and spiritual needs. this is what has set my university apart from other in our state.

stevenking, BSN, RN · Nov 5, 2005

fergus51 said:
There is a great deal of diversity in Christianity and what each church teaches. A catholic and a baptist will differ greatly on what it takes to get into heaven so I don't think universalists can be dismissed so easily.

Without becoming overly theological...Webster's definition indicates that to be "christian", one must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. If Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but through me..." - it was either a true statement or it was not. The Bible (which has to become an objective standard to its followers...)indicates that there is "...no other name given by which people can be saved..."

So...to be a Christian means you profess a belief in the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. Period. Any other take makes you something other that "christian". Like my seminary professor used to tell us...you can claim to be a horse all day long...but unless you're walking around a meadow; neighing at the neighbors, and eating oats from a feed bag...well, you just might be something else...

Christian = saved relationship through Jesus Christ.

stevenking, BSN, RN · Nov 5, 2005

In 15 years of nursing in a variety of settings I've seen a lot of diversity in people. Different things comfort different people. I'm an atheist myself, but I haven't ever found this to conflict with nursing. For me, my role is clear - I try to facilitate what is comforting to you (the patient), what ever that may be. It's not about my beliefs, it's about what brings the patient a sense of peace and safety, and this varies by the person. I think acceptance of peoples differences is needed to be a good nurse.

The "acceptance" argument is a classic way of saying, "I'll just invalidate your beliefs...". Sorry. It does not work for me. I certainly respect people's differences about many things. I do not hide the fact that I am Christian when I work with anyone.

Maybe I am missing something here - but haven't we all agreed that religion is not a necessary tenet for providing nursing care?

Tigger Nurse · Nov 5, 2005

thekingster said:
I try to live my beliefs so I don't have to speak them...
I, too, respect people's religious beliefs...even those I believe to be dead wrong.

I appreciate your 2 cents and your common sense. I also try to live my beliefs and respect those that I beleive to be "dead wrong." Sometimes it's all I can do to keep from laughing because some are so "unbelievable!" :uhoh3:

LovelyLady01 · Nov 5, 2005

You can be a spritual or religious person with out following a certain type of religion. I dont think that you have to be either of these to be a good nurse. I do think it helps you understand people and their feelings while you are caring for them. I dont think the patients would notice which one you were as long as they are provided with the best care possible. There are too many people these days claim to belong to a certain religion but dont practice what they preach.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Nov 5, 2005

Tigger Nurse said:
I appreciate your 2 cents and your common sense. I also try to live my beliefs and respect those that I beleive to be "dead wrong." Sometimes it's all I can do to keep from laughing because some are so "unbelievable!"

Me too. Especially televangelists. They are so funny and dead wrong they are downright entertaining.

nurse4theplanet, RN · Nov 6, 2005

fergus51 said:
Off topic, but there are Christians who do not believe in the exclusive rightness of Christianity. I was raised going to UU church, which was founded as a Christian church and many members would still call themselves Christian, but the "universalist" part of UU means that a person would not be denied salvation or heaven or whatever simply because they didn't believe in Jesus.

I live in the "Bible Belt" and as far as I know all the denominations that make up the Christian religion accept Christ as the son of God, and believe he is our only way to salvation. (I have been to multiple samplings of Methodist, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Catholic, and non-denominational Christian Churches)

Isn't this what would make a CHRISTian different than a Jewish follower or an Islamic follower???? If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, how can you call yourself a CHRISTian??? :rolleyes:

fergus51 · Nov 6, 2005

asoldierswife05 said:
I live in the "Bible Belt" and as far as I know all the denominations that make up the Christian religion accept Christ as the son of God, and believe he is our only way to salvation. (I have been to multiple samplings of Methodist, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Catholic, and non-denominational Christian Churches)
Isn't this what would make a CHRISTian different than a Jewish follower or an Islamic follower???? If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, how can you call yourself a CHRISTian???

You can be a universalist and still believe in Christ as your savior. The UU church's universalist stance developed partly because of God's overwhelming love being described again and again in the Bible, along with Christ's messages of love and forgiveness. If we have an unconditionally loving father, would he damn someone for eternity simply for not saying "Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation" when they were living? In my heart, that doesn't make sense and it didn't make sense to them either. They believed that everyone would be saved in the end. Their way to salvation can be through their belief in Christ, that's their personal path and what makes them call themselves Christian. But that doesn't mean they believe a jew or muslim would be sent to hell simply for being a jew or muslim.

The simple fact is no Christians actually believe or follow all of his teachings. If it was that simple, there would be only one Christian church. People who believe that Christ is the only way to salvation usually say so because of Christ basically saying the only way to God was through him. Universalists would argue that point. It does make them seen as heretics by some, but they would argue that all Christians read the Bible and interpret what God wants. It isn't black and white, especially when you take the historical perspective that the Bible has been translated, retranslated, passed down, etc. for 2 thousand years. If everything in the Bible should be taken literally, you'd have to cut off your hand if you sinned with it. (Matthew 18:8-9 (Mark 9:43-47)

"And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire). No Christian I know would argue that should be taken literally. They would say, well Jesus said a lot of other things that outweigh that and he often spoke in parable and metaphor, etc. Universalists take that same view to the statement that people only reach God through Christian worship in life.

Does that make any sense? I'm no religious scholar, and those are just the beliefs of one church as I understand them. Today's UU church actually teaches more and more that religion is a personal path. You can believe in Christ as your savior and be welcome in that church (and their sermons are usually heavily reliant on Christianity), as long as you don't hold the view that everyone else is damned unless they believe what you believe. It's not a church geared towards fire and brimstone at all. People of other faiths are also welcome there, again as long as they hold certain beliefs.

nurse4theplanet, RN · Nov 6, 2005

fergus51 said:
You can be a universalist and still believe in Christ as your savior. The UU church's universalist stance developed partly because of God's overwhelming love being described again and again in the Bible, along with Christ's messages of love and forgiveness. If we have an unconditionally loving father, would he damn someone for eternity simply for not saying "Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation" when they were living? In my heart, that doesn't make sense and it didn't make sense to them either. They believed that everyone would be saved in the end. Their way to salvation can be through their belief in Christ, that's their personal path and what makes them call themselves Christian. But that doesn't mean they believe a jew or muslim would be sent to hell simply for being a jew or muslim.
The simple fact is no Christians actually believe or follow all of his teachings. If it was that simple, there would be only one Christian church. People who believe that Christ is the only way to salvation usually say so because of Christ basically saying the only way to God was through him. Universalists would argue that point. It does make them seen as heretics by some, but they would argue that all Christians read the Bible and interpret what God wants. It isn't black and white, especially when you take the historical perspective that the Bible has been translated, retranslated, passed down, etc. for 2 thousand years. If everything in the Bible should be taken literally, you'd have to cut off your hand if you sinned with it. (Matthew 18:8-9 (Mark 9:43-47)
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire). No Christian I know would argue that should be taken literally. They would say, well Jesus said a lot of other things that outweigh that and he often spoke in parable and metaphor, etc. Universalists take that same view to the statement that people only reach God through Christian worship in life.
Does that make any sense? I'm no religious scholar, and those are just the beliefs of one church as I understand them.

It is very confusing. I accept all religions but I have a hard time accepting the fact that some UU members do NOT believe in Christ, but still call themselves a "Christian". To me it seems a little hipocritical, you know? Yes, not all of the Bible's teachings are taken literally, like the eye for an eye, but the New Testament is based off the teachings of Jesus Christ...how can you be a Christian if you don't believe he even existed...seems like you would miss many of the teachings the entire religion is based upon. Yes, there will be different interpretations even between the various Christian denominations, but the acceptance of Jesus Christ as son of God and Savoir is a fundamental teaching/truth within the values of the Christian Religion. I am just confused and astounded by this new knowledge. I had never heard of a Universalist before...I will have to look into it more to understand better. Knowledge is power you know.