Im a male CNA and I've worked In a facility where males were not even allowed to have female residents. If there were females in the assignment they would swap them for a male with a female CNA.
I've recently joined another facility and I don't think it's the same.
For religious reasons I cannot do females.
I cannot understand how, in a non life/death situation, where a male and female CNA is available, a male CNA is changing/toileting, cleaning and dressing a woman, while on the other side of the curtain, a woman is doing the same for a man. Thats crazy and there's no explanation for this.
Does anyone know any facilities in NYC or queens where they don't give male CNA's females?
Specializes in RN critical care,traveler,critical care float,CNA5.
But you are than doing the exact thing you don't like, imposing your values. Culture sensitivity is something that is currently emerging in our nation, if you feel something doesn't go against what is morally acceptable to you, who are you to than impose that value on someone else. I had a gay patient that refused care from female aides, it made things difficult yes but that's what he wanted. If this persons religion is important to them , just as is caring for others even if it is just males, who are you to tell them to evolve and find another profession. Cultural sensitivity applies to patients as well as workers, as everyone will not always have the same beliefs, that doesn't negate their beliefs and make them deserving of ridicule.
I am just curious as to whether or not, on DAY ONE, the OP was told that there would be individuals from all walks of life, including females, that he'd have to provide care for even if it went against his personal preferences. After certification, he is surely presented with an anti-discrimination form of some sort requiring his signature. Did not the instructors tell the class that having biases for any reason would make for a long and difficult job search?
I mean, in simply looking around the class of CNA hopefuls, did you see more females than males, and did it not register that you might find it difficult to find a facility that served only one specific population based on sex? Did this question ever surface before you had invested time and dollars into this certification?
I remember way back when I was an LPN student, we had orderlies who were only allowed to care for male patients. That was during the days of glass IV bottles, stainless-steel needles that remained after IV insertion, and morphine-for-the-terminally-ill-only usage. Those days are long gone. As for religion, to each his or her own. But to hold fast to a male-only assignment in healthcare is to pretty-much create your own dead-end job in a field loaded with endless advancement opportunities. To go further in healthcare, such as to become licensed as a nurse, you will be required to care for all individuals. Even as a supervisor, you would have to be competent to perform the duties of all of your subordinates...that includes inserting Foley catheters into female patients and doing anything else that females would need and doing it regularly on a non-emergent basis.
Several posters have suggested the VA. This would not necessarily be a viable option because the VA cannot (should not) discriminate. If they allow you to choose male-only veterans to care for, they would have to do the same for the female employees, and as mentioned, there are very few female veterans at the VA. I would say that your issue with finding a predominately male-patient population to serve in the 'real world' would be exactly the same with female CNAs looking for females-only in the VA system.
The VA has been under scrutiny for some time now for shady practices and cover-ups. If you list ANY reason why you may not be able to perform ALL of the duties of the job and to hire you would mean to create an atmosphere of discrimination against others (CNAs and nurses are pulled to other units daily...you will not be exempt to this), you may find yourself still searching the want-ads. This is just my opinion.
Now, I just have to ask. Why on earth would you choose a profession with a strong female presence on both sides of the bed if you don't want to provide care for them? It makes no sense to me that an individual would deliberately place himself or herself in such a position, especially in today's world where everyone expects to be cared for regardless of what their nationality, religious beliefs, or sexual preferences are. In healthcare, you will find that it is more about the paying customer, i.e. THE PATIENT, and rarely about the person delivering the care to that customer. Did you not know this before choosing healthcare? As a CNA, your choice could not possibly have been motivated by dollars.
Your best bet is home health through an agency that offers 1:1 ratios where you can have more of a choice in the assignments you accept. Again, just my opinion...and my very best advice.
Certainly we must be culturally sensitive to the needs of our patients. It is a cornerstone of taking care of the whole patient. If a patient has religious beliefs that they cannot be touched by a member of the other sex we need to try to accommodate their needs when at all possible. However, we as care providers can't expect out patients to reciprocate. After all they are in our care and not the other way around. Once again I hope this guy finds a place that only takes care of men but in 2017 (except for prison & then a woman who is a guard or a visitor may need help) I have no idea where that would be. Can you imagine this scenario a woman patient asking for help and a male care provider refusing based on his beliefs. It raises the question of why he is there if not to help all the patients?
The whole idea of "I can't (won't) take care of _______ patients because of my religious beliefs" just seems so incongruous with the idea that health care workers are not supposed to be judgmental or inflicting our beliefs on others. I was taught to leave my personal beliefs and biases at the door while caring for my very diverse patient population. Expecting the patients or the facilities to cater to the many personal beliefs and feelings of all the different employees seems just completely unreasonable to me. This one thinks divorce is a sin so he doesn't want to care for divorced patients. The other one thinks abortion is a sin, so she doesn't want to have anything to do with a patient who has had an abortion. The other gal thinks homosexuality is a sin, so she shouldn't have to get anywhere near a gay patient. That guy over there says his transgender patients offend his religions sensibilities, so no go taking care of THAT one over there.
Where does it stop?
I can't imagine wanting to go into healthcare while also saying that I can't do specific tasks needed for half of the population.
Sounds like the OP has been given plenty of good ideas so that he doesn't have to compromise in any fashion.
I'm frankly pretty flabbergasted at the number of posters who have given legitimacy to the OP's issue. One can entertain whatever supernatural beliefs one wants in their own private time, but that stuff needs to be checked at the door.
I'm frankly pretty flabbergasted at the number of posters who have given legitimacy to the OP's issue. One can entertain whatever supernatural beliefs one wants in their own private time, but that stuff needs to be checked at the door.
And, yet, there is Federal law that protects the right of healthcare providers to decline/refuse to participate in procedures/care to which they object on religious grounds (specifically written to protect anti-choice healthcare providers), so there is legal precedent and legal protections in place for individuals who have religious objections to particular aspects of healthcare.
I'm surprised at how many people here have posted that, if the OP has religious objections to some aspects of providing care, and his religious beliefs don't permit him to provide care for everyone, then he has not business going into healthcare. When anti-choice people come here to say that they want to go into healthcare but they have religious objections to abortion and are unwilling to participate in abortions, no one tells them that they shouldn't go into healthcare -- people practically line up here to assure them that they will be fine, there is law that protects their beliefs, they can't be compelled to participate, and all they have to do is work in a setting that won't involve abortion. That is all the OP is doing -- asking for suggestions about healthcare settings that would not conflict with his religious beliefs and observance.
And, yet, there is Federal law that protects the right of healthcare providers to decline/refuse to participate in procedures/care to which they object on religious grounds (specifically written to protect anti-choice healthcare providers), so there is legal precedent and legal protections in place for individuals who have religious objections to particular aspects of healthcare.
I'm surprised at how many people here have posted that, if the OP has religious objections to some aspects of providing care, and his religious beliefs don't permit him to provide care for everyone, then he has not business going into healthcare. When anti-choice people come here to say that they want to go into healthcare but they have religious objections to abortion and are unwilling to participate in abortions, no one tells them that they shouldn't go into healthcare -- people practically line up here to assure them that they will be fine, there is law that protects their beliefs, they can't be compelled to participate, and all they have to do is work in a setting that won't involve abortion. That is all the OP is doing -- asking for suggestions about healthcare settings that would not conflict with his religious beliefs and observance.
Well, I still find his viewpoint somewhat ridiculous based on my experience. However, your rational and eloquent statement makes it hard for me to justify my view.
And you're right: He's not asking for accommodations, only for recommendations about workplaces where he might not face a personal dilemma.
I would be delighted if more people would take such responsibility.
As to the Federal law, well, while I must always recognize its authority, I often question its legitimacy.
And, yet, there is Federal law that protects the right of healthcare providers to decline/refuse to participate in procedures/care to which they object on religious grounds (specifically written to protect anti-choice healthcare providers), so there is legal precedent and legal protections in place for individuals who have religious objections to particular aspects of healthcare.
I'm surprised at how many people here have posted that, if the OP has religious objections to some aspects of providing care, and his religious beliefs don't permit him to provide care for everyone, then he has not business going into healthcare. When anti-choice people come here to say that they want to go into healthcare but they have religious objections to abortion and are unwilling to participate in abortions, no one tells them that they shouldn't go into healthcare -- people practically line up here to assure them that they will be fine, there is law that protects their beliefs, they can't be compelled to participate, and all they have to do is work in a setting that won't involve abortion. That is all the OP is doing -- asking for suggestions about healthcare settings that would not conflict with his religious beliefs and observance.
Yes, and it's a Federal Law to which I am vehemently opposed. As for your assertion that "When anti-choice people come here to say that they want to go into healthcare but they have religious objections to abortion and are unwilling to participate in abortions, no one tells them that they shouldn't go into healthcare -- people practically line up here to assure them that they will be fine, there is law that protects their beliefs, they can't be compelled to participate, and all they have to do is work in a setting that won't involve abortion.", au contraire, I don't believe they should go into healthcare either, and that would be my position if I ever read a post regarding the issue. Abortions are a part of women's healthcare and one shouldn't be able to pick and choose for whom they provide care, particularly based on supernatural beliefs.
This reminds me a male nurse aid I worked with when I was on Med-Sur as an RN. When he had a female patient he didn't want to take care, he often reported me that the patient requested female staff only. I had to do tasks which could be done by a nurse aid on top of my duties (could be done by a nurse only) and it made my shift really difficult. It not just consumed my time, but I had to prioritize the tasks which were usually on the bottom of my list.
I understand some people have religious work restriction, but you have to consider consequences of it especially if it affects other team members excessively (I shared the story above to show an example even though it is not religion related.)
This reminds me a male nurse aid I worked with when I was on Med-Sur as an RN. When he had a female patient he didn't want to take care, he often reported me that the patient requested female staff only. I had to do tasks which could be done by a nurse aid on top of my duties (could be done by a nurse only) and it made my shift really difficult. It not just consumed my time, but I had to prioritize the tasks which were usually on the bottom of my list.
I understand some people have religious work restriction, but you have to consider consequences of it especially if it affects other team members excessively (I shared the story above to show an example even though it is not religion related.)
Well, that sounds like a serious drag. However, again, the OP is "consider(ing) consequences of it," and specifically asking for suggestions on where he might find all male healthcare settings specifically so his religious requirements would not create additional burdens on coworkers.
JudiB4004
2 Posts
GO to the VA where the patients are mostly males. They do have female patients but they are a relatively small portion of the census.