Specializes in Medsurg/ICU, Mental Health, Home Health.
So if you are able to refuse care to this person, who isn't able to?
What I mean by this is, if you're able to do this, then so are all of your coworkers. Unless this person threatens you personally, you really have no reason to be able to refuse to care for him more than anyone else does.
A good idea may be (in addition to the behavior contract) to have staff rotate with him in the assignment. That way no one has to deal with him for an extended period.
Healthcare is a human right and people don't lose their human rights because we don't agree with their views/behavior/attitude.
That wasn't the question.
"Can a nurse refuse to care for a patient based upon moral objection?"
The question was not whether a Nazi has a right to health care, the question was whether a holocaust survivor has the moral or ethical obligation to care for the Nazi.
While obviously an extreme example, the argument only holds water, one way or the other, if it applies to the extremes. Otherwise, the question would be: "How offended does a nurse have to be before the nurse can refuse care".
"Can a nurse refuse to care for a patient based upon moral objection?"
The question was not whether a Nazi has a right to health care, the question was whether a holocaust survivor has the moral or ethical obligation to care for the Nazi.
While obviously an extreme example, the argument only holds water, one way or the other, if it applies to the extremes. Otherwise, the question would be: "How offended does a nurse have to be before the nurse can refuse care".
The principle still applies even if you want to extend the argument ad absurdum. The fact that no Holocaust survivors are of the age to be providing healthcare and almost no original Nazis are still alive does not diminish the point. Ideally, they wouldn't be the best match in terms of patient assignment but there are lots of examples of healthcare providers giving care to people they otherwise would not get along with or disagree with out of a sense of professional duty. If it's only you and the patient, you care for the patient. Providing healthcare isn't an endorsement of one's worldview, behavior, lifestyle, or anything else. It is recognizing and responding to the humanity of the individual.
To put it a different way. The effect of ideologies like white supremacy or Nazism is to dehumanize some "other". By refusing to provide care (a human right) is to deny the humanity of the person holding that ideology and, in a perverse way, they exact same thing you despise about them albeit in your own special flavor.
BTW - for one real life example of a Holocaust survivor caring for Nazis (although not nursing care in particular) take a look at Corrie ten Boom and her book The Hiding Place.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
That wasn't the question.
"Can a nurse refuse to care for a patient based upon moral objection?"
The question was not whether a Nazi has a right to health care, the question was whether a holocaust survivor has the moral or ethical obligation to care for the Nazi.
While obviously an extreme example, the argument only holds water, one way or the other, if it applies to the extremes. Otherwise, the question would be: "How offended does a nurse have to be before the nurse can refuse care".
Years after his last campaign I clearly remember former governor George Wallace on the Merv Griffin show apologizing for his racist and segregationist actions.
He explained that years after being shot he realized that all the night shift nurses and aides in the hospital were Black.
He said, "I was helpless and afraid. I couldn't even scratch my itchy nose. They told me what to expect when they turned me.
I know thy knew who I was and care for me with kindness every night.
The fear and hatred of Negros finally left me."
He had apologized to John Lewis and other leaders and wanted to tell everyone how sorry he was.
I still read and hear of the evil he did without mentioning how he changed.
The principle still applies even if you want to extend the argument ad absurdum. The fact that no Holocaust survivors are of the age to be providing healthcare and almost no original Nazis are still alive does not diminish the point. Ideally, they wouldn't be the best match in terms of patient assignment but there are lots of examples of healthcare providers giving care to people they otherwise would not get along with or disagree with out of a sense of professional duty. If it's only you and the patient, you care for the patient. Providing healthcare isn't an endorsement of one's worldview, behavior, lifestyle, or anything else. It is recognizing and responding to the humanity of the individual.
To put it a different way. The effect of ideologies like white supremacy or Nazism is to dehumanize some "other". By refusing to provide care (a human right) is to deny the humanity of the person holding that ideology and, in a perverse way, they exact same thing you despise about them albeit in your own special flavor.
BTW - for one real life example of a Holocaust survivor caring for Nazis (although not nursing care in particular) take a look at Corrie ten Boom and her book The Hiding Place.
I like the use of the term "ad absurdem".
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that healthcare is a basic human right. Personally, I am not even sure breathing is a basic human right, as there are humans I don't think are entitled to breathe. But, assuming that healthcare is a basic human right.......
My refusal to provide nursing care does not necessarily deny another human their basic rights. Clearly there are instances in which a nurse could validly say, "I cannot provide professional and competent care for this person, so somebody else will need to do it." Let's take an "ad absurdem" example of a woman who has had a baby murdered being asked to care for a unrepentant baby murderer. Any rational person would agree that this is not a reaonable request, and that that nurse could decline. If we can agree on that example, than the only question is when this is appropriate, not whether it is ever appropriate.
I think that that is a moving target, and would be pretty difficult to quantify.
Would you expect this nurse to accept this assignment?
Personally, I am not even sure breathing is a basic human right, as there are humans I don't think are entitled to breathe. But, assuming that healthcare is a basic human right.......
I think we've found the problem. Since you've already appointed yourself judge and jury on when people lose their basic human right, it would logically follow that you wouldn't have a problem taking away people's rights because of how you feel about them. Once you've decided you get to choose who deserves what, not only have you missed the whole point of having basic human rights but, with all due respect, you're no better than those you would condemn.
Let's play this out. So, according to you, if someone does something atrocious, they can lose their most fundamental rights inherent in being a human. But they justified violating someone else's rights by claiming they were or did something that made them less worthy of those rights. It's all gradations of the same "standard." You will claim yours is different because of popular support but lots of horrible things in history have also had popular support. The real problem lies in people deciding who does and does not deserve to be considered a person. Once you cross that line, its all shades of gray from refusing healthcare to genocide.
This is exactly why you misconstrue it as some sort of moving target. Because while I'm talking about recognizing and respecting people as fundamental human, you're trying to nail down exactly when they stop being human.
I think we've found the problem. Since you've already appointed yourself judge and jury on when people lose their basic human right, it would logically follow that you wouldn't have a problem taking away people's rights because of how you feel about them. Once you've decided you get to choose who deserves what, not only have you missed the whole point of having basic human rights but, with all due respect, you're no better than those you would condemn.
Let's play this out. So, according to you, if someone does something atrocious, they can lose their most fundamental rights inherent in being a human. But they justified violating someone else's rights by claiming they were or did something that made them less worthy of those rights. It's all gradations of the same "standard." You will claim yours is different because of popular support but lots of horrible things in history have also had popular support. The real problem lies in people deciding who does and does not deserve to be considered a person. Once you cross that line, its all shades of gray from refusing healthcare to genocide.
This is exactly why you misconstrue it as some sort of moving target. Because while I'm talking about recognizing and respecting people as fundamental human, you're trying to nail down exactly when they stop being human.
Nope.
I accept your premise as valid. Not even sure I disagree with it. I don't know whether healthcare is a basic human right, but, I think it's a valid argument.
My point is that for a nurse to decline to care for a patient is not the same as denying that patient health care. On the other hand, to require a nurse to care for any patient regardless of his or her personal beliefs and experience- that might be encroaching on their rights.
In an earlier post, I clearly stated my willingness to care for somebody I find repugnant. I personally will provide professional care to anybody, regardless of how much of a scumbag they are. That does not mean I thing nobody has a right to refuse a particular patient.
So- Is there ever any possible situation in which a particular nurse can deny to care for a patient?
No, you cannot refuse care to ANYONE based on moral objection. It is way too subjective and the one thing that comes to mind is refusing care to a gay person because of moral objection. What's next after that?
Any nurse who refuses care to a patient based on moral objection, (you might as well state the fact that you are a religious nut) should have their license revoked immediately. There would be no questions asked because there is no valid argument for refusing care to anyone... ever.
No, you cannot refuse care to ANYONE based on moral objection. It is way too subjective and the one thing that comes to mind is refusing care to a gay person because of moral objection. What's next after that?
Any nurse who refuses care to a patient based on moral objection, (you might as well state the fact that you are a religious nut) should have their license revoked immediately. There would be no questions asked because there is no valid argument for refusing care to anyone... ever.
Well, I am a little tempted to put this in all caps, because I am not sure if you are missing this point, or disagree with it:
An individual nurse refusing to care for a patient is not the same as refusing a patient care.
Nobody in this thread has advocating terminating the basic human right of healthcare to anybody.
So- the next school shooter ends up in a hospital. A mother whose child was just murdered by this shooter is assigned to care for him. She requests that he is re-assigned.
Assuming you are her supervisor, what is your move?
If I am her supervisor, I am going to respect her rights as a human, and re-assign this patient.
My point is that for a nurse to decline to care for a patient is not the same as denying that patient health care. On the other hand, to require a nurse to care for any patient regardless of his or her personal beliefs and experience- that might be encroaching on their rights.
So- Is there ever any possible situation in which a particular nurse can deny to care for a patient?
I'm not sure if you're aware than nurses provide heathcare. So a for a nurse to decline to care someone is for a nurse to deny HEALTHcare. I'm sure you're going to argue that it's different because someone else can do it. But that is not necessarily always the case and, more importantly, is a laughable ethical argument. How can someone claim that behavior they consider unethical and morally unacceptable is just fine for someone else.
Again, you're having trouble nailing down a cogent viewpoint here because you've already based the idea on selling out basic humanity. I appreciate your claims that you personally don't deny to care for the people you're willing to dehumanizes but the major problem is the dehumanization.
So- the next school shooter ends up in a hospital. A mother whose child was just murdered by this shooter is assigned to care for him.
You would actually force this mother to cleanse the wounds of her child's killer? Is she entitled to consideration as a human being, or did she lose certain rights when she got her nursing license?
If I am her supervisor, I am going to respect her rights as a human, and re-assign this patient.
I'm not sure for where you're claiming a human right to be vindictive but I'm genuinely curious. I'm familiar with a lot of the arguments about basic human rights but have never come across this one.
Regardless, even if there was such a right, ones professional obligation as a nurse would supecede such a right in that moment. For instance, the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights recognizes a right to freedom on movement (Article 13) which doesn't mean a nurse has an untempered right to go on a road trip mid code.
Your colorful examples of the worst possible patient assignments are moot because no one is suggesting that if you have a pt who is a Nazi or a school shooter, that the Holocaust survivor or parent of the victim is the best nurse to be assigned. But if, like the example from Grey's Anatomy, someone comes in that you don't happen to agree with (even on the extreme end such as they're an avowed white suppremacist and you're an ethnic minority) and you're the only one who could provide the care they need, then you do it. To do otherwise would be to claim that your prejudice against them is more important than their prejudice/bad behavior because .... idk you have letters behind your name, the ball is in your court, your stars are aligned... it really doesn't matter what BS excuse you make up.
I'm not sure for where you're claiming a human right to be vindictive but I'm genuinely curious. I'm familiar with a lot of the arguments about basic human rights but have never come across this one.
Regardless, even if there was such a right, ones professional obligation as a nurse would supecede such a right in that moment. For instance, the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights recognizes a right to freedom on movement (Article 13) which doesn't mean a nurse has an untempered right to go on a road trip mid code.
Your colorful examples of the worst possible patient assignments are moot because no one is suggesting that if you have a pt who is a Nazi or a school shooter, that the Holocaust survivor or parent of the victim is the best nurse to be assigned. But if, like the example from Grey's Anatomy, someone comes in that you don't happen to agree with (even on the extreme end such as they're an avowed white suppremacist and you're an ethnic minority) and you're the only one who could provide the care they need, then you do it. To do otherwise would be to claim that your prejudice against them is more important than their prejudice/bad behavior because .... idk you have letters behind your name, the ball is in your court, your stars are aligned... it really doesn't matter what BS excuse you make up.
"I'm not sure if you're aware than nurses provide heathcare. So a for a nurse to decline to care someone is for a nurse to deny HEALTHcare. "
Interesting take. I would be interested to see how many nurses who work providing patient care agree with your last statement.
Thanks for reminder that nurses provide healthcare. Especially bolding "health". I am actually aware. I spend at least 36 hours a week providing competent healthcare to all patients, regardless of how I feel about them. Racists, bigots, abusers, gang members from other areas who have moved to my area to expand their drug trade...
What area of nursing do you work in? You make some excellent philosophical points, and I am curious how you apply your philosophy in the real world.
Somewhere in there, I missed your answer. As the manager, did you allow her to refuse the assignment?
Penelope_Pitstop, BSN, RN
2,369 Posts
So if you are able to refuse care to this person, who isn't able to?
What I mean by this is, if you're able to do this, then so are all of your coworkers. Unless this person threatens you personally, you really have no reason to be able to refuse to care for him more than anyone else does.
A good idea may be (in addition to the behavior contract) to have staff rotate with him in the assignment. That way no one has to deal with him for an extended period.