Trump's 'religious conscience'

Nurses General Nursing

Updated:   Published

You are reading page 8 of Trump's 'religious conscience'

CamMc

128 Posts

46 minutes ago, Asystole RN said:

I understand the sentiment but to be honest that is a very narrow and bigoted viewpoint yourself.

People have different cultures and religions. The problem is that there is no universal definition of "care" or "right." Most people want to do what is right and not cause harm but not everyone agrees what is right and what is harm.

Abortion and euthanasia, although rare, are the clearest examples. Some would see assisting an abortion or euthanasia to be assisting in harming patients, including the fetus.

In some cultures ritualistic scaring is considered the social norm and baseline. As a very outside and exaggerated example, what if your employer wanted you to take a ritual semi-dull, non-sterile knife to a 6 month old's face and make several cuts? Would you feel comfortable doing that?

Some of these items discussed make others just as uncomfortable.

While I understand your point and yes, being respectful of other cultures is extremely important. I don't understand why someone who holds these beliefs would go into nursing then. I highly doubt that most people in the medical field are super comfortable with helping a known murderer or rapist, but unless we are just going to let those people die then how can you start saying well your religion protects you from helping this individual, but you over there since you're an atheist even if you have very strong morals, you get to be the one to always help with the cases of the people who no one else will help. There are ways to not have this happen, if you're against abortion, as someone else mentioned, go work at a nursing home, go work in a dermatology office, go work as a dental hygienist. Not everyone loves every part of their job. I work at a very boring office job that I'm sure hardly anyone would find religious or moral objection to, but it is not the right job for me.

CamMc

128 Posts

38 minutes ago, Asystole RN said:

The problem with your line of argument is that it is also used to discriminate against protected classes. "Don't like being sexually harassed? Don't work in a male predominant place of employment."

There must be a balance to protecting individuals and protecting organizations.

I do not think these kind of laws are aimed at someone who is opposed to abortion seeking a job at Planned Parenthood. These kind of laws are aimed at the OR nurse who is forced to participate in an abortion the 1 time in the last 10 years one was done at whatever hospital. Stuff like that.

Sometimes people work at a single hospital for years and sometimes they are transferred or floated to other units. Maybe someone does not believe in breast augmentation so instead works in GI but on some random day the hospital wanted to float her to plastics to help with breast augmentation. These laws are there to protect those nurses.

Yes, there does need to be a balance, but if we put these regulations into place, how are we to assure that there is always someone available to work in these cases that some may find controversial? Are hospitals going to have a checklist of who each nurse will treat and won't treat?

More importantly...what does this do for patients? If a transgender patient arrives unconscious because they went into anaphylactic shock in a small town and there's only one nurse in the ER and doesn't believe that he or she should treat this patient, then the patient dies? If a lesbian woman gets into a car accident and someone won't treat her because her female partner comes in and makes her identified as a lesbian, is there anything right about that? The laws may protect the nurse or the medical professional, but then what does it do for the patients? Nurses get to choose to work as nurses, patients don't get to choose when and where they will need care.

Guest219794

2,453 Posts

36 minutes ago, Asystole RN said:

The problem with your line of argument is that it is also used to discriminate against protected classes. "Don't like being sexually harassed? Don't work in a male predominant place of employment."

There must be a balance to protecting individuals and protecting organizations.

I do not think these kind of laws are aimed at someone who is opposed to abortion seeking a job at Planned Parenthood. These kind of laws are aimed at the OR nurse who is forced to participate in an abortion the 1 time in the last 10 years one was done at whatever hospital. Stuff like that.

Sometimes people work at a single hospital for years and sometimes they are transferred or floated to other units. Maybe someone does not believe in breast augmentation so instead works in GI but on some random day the hospital wanted to float her to plastics to help with breast augmentation. These laws are there to protect those nurses.

If the rules were limited to those instances that you use as examples it might be more acceptable. Personally, I would rather see a hospital take one of two paths:

1- Explicitly state the range of health care services an employee might be required to participate in. The employee can choose not accept a position if they object to a job requirement.

2- Make accommodations ahead of time for an employees "conscience rights". This is, in fact, done at some places, and is completely reasonable. There is no reason that most facilities should need to float an anti-abortion nurse into a that position. On the other hand, if you work nights at a critical access hospital, that just might not be the job for you.

And, regarding

Quote

The problem with your line of argument is that it is also used to discriminate against protected classes. "Don't like being sexually harassed? Don't work in a male predominant place of employment."

Not a good analogy. Sexual harassment is illegal, and is not a part of anyone's job discrimination. Apparently providing abortion related care is a part of some job descriptions.

Also- the examples you give are quite sympathetic. It would be horrible for somebody who truly holds certain beliefs to have to participate in an abortion. But, do you believe that these rules are limited to these sympathetic examples? Where do you believe "consciences rights" end?

More important, how far will the new rules, or interpretation of rules allow an individual healthcare worker to decline to provide care?

BTW- I appreciate your viewpoint, and willingness to discuss rationally an emotional issue. And to deal civilly with somebody, despite disagreeing.

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/18/2019 at 2:59 PM, Asystole RN said:

Arguing religion with your own beliefs is a losing proposition. Might as well argue blue is better than red. Your ethnocentrism is not universal. Your beliefs were created by your unique culture, upbringing, social status, family, friends, and other experiences, as they are for everyone.

Religious beliefs are personal and variable.

Not sure what your point is. Of course beliefs are variable and personal, which is exactly why they shouldn't be the basis for refusing to care for a class of patients.

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

And BTW, after working in the OR iver 30 years, I have never seen or heard if a nurse forced to work on an abortion...never. Not sure why this concept is even included in thus thread.

Asystole RN

2,352 Posts

On 6/19/2019 at 3:35 PM, CamMc said:
While I understand your point and yes, being respectful of other cultures is extremely important. I don't understand why someone who holds these beliefs would go into nursing then. I highly doubt that most people in the medical field are super comfortable with helping a known murderer or rapist, but unless we are just going to let those people die then how can you start saying well your religion protects you from helping this individual, but you over there since you're an atheist even if you have very strong morals, you get to be the one to always help with the cases of the people who no one else will help. There are ways to not have this happen, if you're against abortion, as someone else mentioned, go work at a nursing home, go work in a dermatology office, go work as a dental hygienist. Not everyone loves every part of their job. I work at a very boring office job that I'm sure hardly anyone would find religious or moral objection to, but it is not the right job for me.

I can understand your feelings but people make the same arguments when it comes to the ADA, sexual harassment etc. There is a balance to things and the pendulum will tend to swing.

Despite everyone's shock however, these laws have been in place since the 70's at a federal level and have been amended and added to up to 2005 with the Affordable Care Act.

Considering these laws have existed for so long, have you seen any disruptions? Ever heard of any?

This is honestly much ado about nothing due to a slow news cycle in my opinion.

Again, these laws are aimed at the feds and your employers. We get our license from the state and if we act unprofessional or put our patients at risk the state still reserves the right to punish us.

Asystole RN

2,352 Posts

1 hour ago, CamMc said:

Yes, there does need to be a balance, but if we put these regulations into place, how are we to assure that there is always someone available to work in these cases that some may find controversial? Are hospitals going to have a checklist of who each nurse will treat and won't treat?

More importantly...what does this do for patients? If a transgender patient arrives unconscious because they went into anaphylactic shock in a small town and there's only one nurse in the ER and doesn't believe that he or she should treat this patient, then the patient dies? If a lesbian woman gets into a car accident and someone won't treat her because her female partner comes in and makes her identified as a lesbian, is there anything right about that? The laws may protect the nurse or the medical professional, but then what does it do for the patients? Nurses get to choose to work as nurses, patients don't get to choose when and where they will need care.

Banning an employer from forcing you to take certain assignments, remember it is not all issues only certain issues, does not mean you are exempt from your legal state requirements.

Asystole RN

2,352 Posts

1 hour ago, subee said:

Not sure what your point is. Of course beliefs are variable and personal, which is exactly why they shouldn't be the basis for refusing to care for a class of patients.

You had to have read the post I was replying to for context. My reply concerned a post that was arguing religions interpretation.

I understand your sentiment and even agree with it but I also understand there is a balance to protecting people's religious and cultural needs.

No one is saying that a nurse can pick or choose their patients. What the federal government is saying, for the past 50 years now, is that an employer who accepts certain federal funding cannot force a nurse to do certain things.

Asystole RN

2,352 Posts

1 hour ago, subee said:

And BTW, after working in the OR iver 30 years, I have never seen or heard if a nurse forced to work on an abortion...never. Not sure why this concept is even included in thus thread.

Exactly, which is why this thread is somewhat silly. Just because laws exist does not mean it is an actual issue. This is purely media hype.

Everyone is freaking out over essentially non-existent issues.

It is like the anti-sodomy laws that still exist in some states and cities. Yes they exist but damn if I have ever heard of someone being arrested for some cunnilingus.

subee, MSN, CRNA

1 Article; 5,430 Posts

Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.

Gotcha. Difficult to interpret nuance in a forum..at least for me:(

CamMc

128 Posts

On 6/19/2019 at 5:43 PM, Asystole RN said:

I can understand your feelings but people make the same arguments when it comes to the ADA, sexual harassment etc. There is a balance to things and the pendulum will tend to swing.

Despite everyone's shock however, these laws have been in place since the 70's at a federal level and have been amended and added to up to 2005 with the Affordable Care Act.

Considering these laws have existed for so long, have you seen any disruptions? Ever heard of any?

This is honestly much ado about nothing due to a slow news cycle in my opinion.

Again, these laws are aimed at the feds and your employers. We get our license from the state and if we act unprofessional or put our patients at risk the state still reserves the right to punish us.

I don't know if you were referring to patients not getting turned away with these rules in place or nurses/med professionals playing this card, but actually, yes I have heard of plenty of transgender people who don't get care because they are transgender. With the current administration taking away rights and changing wording to make it so we don't have protections it is VERY much a real concern for me. I have been fortunate enough to be in good health since beginning my transition, but I reached out to friends in the community to give you their experiences:

1. A trans male, experienced chest pain after starting on testosterone, he went to urgent care where the doctor told him, it was likely due to starting testosterone and that he should stop hormones and learn to accept himself. Three days later, he went to his primary care doctor and found out that he was having structural rib problems due to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. This same man then later had a physical therapist refuse to treat him and he had to drive to one much further away which he couldn't do due to his disability. (Yes, I realize PT's may have a different code of ethics, but the point is being trans can set someone up for an increased risk of not accessing the care they would otherwise access if not transgender).

2. A trans female slipped and fell in the shower and broke her leg. She called 911 and the paramedics when they realized she was transgender declined to transport her and threatened to have her charged with exposure because they sent in a female paramedic to help her get covered because she had told them that she is a woman (which she is). She had to have her family member drive 30 minutes home to take her to the hospital. (Again, I realize paramedics may vary in their oaths of care, but still this woman could have been helped much sooner)

In the state that I live, in the last year 2 incidences at different chain pharmacies, one of a transgender woman who was told the pharmacist would not fill her prescription for her hormones and did not follow the protocol in place to have a second pharmacist fulfill the order. A second occurrence happened when a woman had been pregnant and was told by her doctor her fetus no longer had a heartbeat and was prescribed medication to induce a miscarriage. The pharmacist refused to fill this order and the woman who was distraught about losing her child, had to be publicly humiliated while the pharmacist had to track down another store for her to go to in order to get the medication.

And here's an article from National Geographic explaining this issue https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/transgender-health-emergency-rooms-training-hospitals-science/

This is not just people over-reacting, these are peoples lives. Being transgender is not a mental illness, it is not a perversion, it has nothing to do with one's sexuality, there is no reason to not treat these people as people.

Healthcare professionals do not get to "play god" and determine who gets health care and who doesn't. By adding additional clearances for people to continue to use religion to not treat we put some of our most vulnerable populations at risk.

vetpharmtech

217 Posts

On 6/19/2019 at 3:35 PM, CamMc said:
While I understand your point and yes, being respectful of other cultures is extremely important. I don't understand why someone who holds these beliefs would go into nursing then. I highly doubt that most people in the medical field are super comfortable with helping a known murderer or rapist, but unless we are just going to let those people die then how can you start saying well your religion protects you from helping this individual, but you over there since you're an atheist even if you have very strong morals, you get to be the one to always help with the cases of the people who no one else will help. There are ways to not have this happen, if you're against abortion, as someone else mentioned, go work at a nursing home, go work in a dermatology office, go work as a dental hygienist. Not everyone loves every part of their job. I work at a very boring office job that I'm sure hardly anyone would find religious or moral objection to, but it is not the right job for me.

I don't understand, either. I guess that is how religion like Christianity is.

I bet this religious conscience will get uglier with pronouns. I wonder how fundamentalist Christian nurses deal with non-binary patients who want to be called with a specific pronoun that is outside ordinary ones.

+ Add a Comment