UK Nurse faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient

Run_to_da_hills

Its quite unusual to come across a story like this from the British Tabloids,

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient. Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

She now faces disciplinary action, even though the patient involved did not make a formal complaint.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133423/Persecuted-praying-Nurse-faces-sack-offering-pray-sick-patient.html

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Dismissal would be very harsh.

A verbal/written warning and a polite reminder of the terms of her employment would suffice imo.

/edit: I see she already received a warning. This complicates things.

Mickeroo

That ain't right

Fanny Cradock

Granted it was her second 'offence', but it seems quite bizarre that her employers should become so hysterical over the possibility that someone may become upset by such a gesture. Really, there are worse things happening in the world.

Zombrex

Whether or not the person complained or not is rather irrelevant. The purpose is to stop this sort of thing before it upsets someone, not wait till it upsets someone and then do something about it.

She was given a warning, ignored it, and continued to do it. In fairness to Christians this smacks more of the insecurities of this nurse needing to express her beliefs even if it is inappropriately (an example you can relate to, an atheist telling people going into church there is not God), rather than some clash between Christianity and the hospital.

The Christians can correct me if I am wrong, but it should be perfectly possible for a Christian to not go around telling people they are going to pray for them when they have been asked not to and they are representing an organisation (the NHS) that is supposed to be secular and not favouring on religion over another. It isn't like some fundamental requirement of being a Christian.

sorella

You are funny sometimes:)

Wicknight wrote: »

Whether or not the person complained or not is rather irrelevant. The purpose is to stop this sort of thing before it upsets someone, not wait till it upsets someone and then do something about it.

sorella

Well, we pray for everyone we meet.

No need to say so though:)

Prayer is the life-breath for a Christian.

As for all, did they but know it.

Blessings this day

Nodin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its quite unusual to come across a story like this from the British Tabloids,

Actually, it isn't, particularily the Telegraph and Mail.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A nurse could be sacked and even struck off for offering to say a prayer for an elderly patient. Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and devout Christian, has already been suspended for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

A bit petty. In the event she did manage to offend somebody, a quick apology would presumably suffice. The Brits tend to go mad with procedure now and again.

Zombrex

Nodin wrote: »

Actually, it isn't, particularily the Telegraph and Mail.

Yeah I did think that comment was a bit funny. This sort of stuff is bread and butter for the Daily Mail.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Granted it was her second 'offence', but it seems quite bizarre that her employers should become so hysterical over the possibility that someone may become upset by such a gesture. Really, there are worse things happening in the world.

There certainly are worse things happening, but the whole point of a religion-free hospital system is that nobody has to be put into the difficult situation of having to deal with somebody else's religious views, when one is already ill oneself.

Reversing the position, I wonder how an ill christian or muslim fundamentalist would feel if an atheist doctor told him that there was no god out there helping him? I would imagine that most religious would be then be quite happy to have the doctor disciplined (as he should be).

Also, and at least as importantly, there's good research out there which strongly suggests that if people know that they're being prayed for, that they tend to fare worse than people who aren't being prayed for (or equivalently, being prayed for, but not knowing of it). By telling this patient that she was praying for her, evidence suggests that she may well be doing the patient harm and I can't imagine that too many people are in favour of that.

Nodin

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah I did think that comment was a bit funny. This sort of stuff is bread and butter for the Daily Mail.

O yes.

From the Article wrote:

A source close to the current case told the Daily Mail: 'Caroline Petrie is being disciplined under equal opportunities and "diversity" policies - and there is a growing tendency to use such policies to single out for attack our own Judaeo-Christian customs and culture.
'Christians are now becoming the most discriminated-against group of people in our society. It's getting quite frightening and out of hand.'

OoooOOOoooo - a 'source'.

Only thing missing from it is a mention by way of comparison of a 'Mad Imam in Inmate Madhouse' or some such. And free bikes for Romanians.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

Reversing the position, I wonder how an ill christian or muslim fundamentalist would feel if an atheist doctor told him that there was no god out there helping him? I would imagine that most religious would be then be quite happy to have the doctor disciplined (as he should be).

Are you seriously comparing the two ?
I can only surmise that the nurse offered to pray for the person in the hope it would offer them some comfort, it wasn't done out of malice. Its hard to see how a doctor would telling someone that there's no god could be seen as an act of comfort.

Quite frankly its acts like this which harm the atheist agenda, since people can see it for the petty nitpicking that it is.

MrPudding

At the end of the day it is a simple disciplinary matter. There are rules and regulations, she has been warned before and chose to ingnore the rule. I would expect she is also not allowed to have a whiskey with her patients, is that wrong too?

Rules are rules. Why should religion be somehow above or exempt from the rules?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Reversing the position, I wonder how an ill christian or muslim fundamentalist would feel if an atheist doctor told him that there was no god out there helping him? I would imagine that most religious would be then be quite happy to have the doctor disciplined (as he should be).

I actually think that an analogy whereby a Wiccan doctor (or someone of a different faith) tried to force their views on a patient would be better understood. Hope derived from the belief in a deity wouldn't be removed in such a case as it would in your example, robin; it would merely be replaced. As it stands, I don't think that the woman objected, nor did the nurse brazenly force her views on the patient - I believe she asked if it would be OK to pray for her. This said, while I believe that a nurses duty goes beyond simply dispensing meds, I do believe that she overstepped the mark. While I see no problem with the nurse praying with the somebody if they asked for it, it must be recognised that there is an imbalance of power in such a relationship. She is clearly passionate about here beliefs, but also very naive in how she goes about practising them.

Nodin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Quite frankly its acts like this which harm the atheist agenda, .

Theres an agenda now?

Dear me. I haven't received a copy. Don't suppose you could fill me in....?

MrPudding

Hmmm, I registered on the Evil Atheist Conspiracy site, but I still have not received my badge, decoder ring and agenda.

MrP

Rev Hellfire

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, I registered on the Evil Atheist Conspiracy site, but I still have not received my badge, decoder ring and agenda.

MrP

Your application was rejected because you used one of those stamps with a baby Jesus on it it. I suggest you reapply.

MrPudding

Cheers for the update, rookie mistake.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing the two ?
I can only surmise that the nurse offered to pray for the person in the hope it would offer them some comfort, it wasn't done out of malice. Its hard to see how a doctor would telling someone that there's no god could be seen as an act of comfort.

Quite frankly its acts like this which harm the atheist agenda, since people can see it for the petty nitpicking that it is.

Indeed, It does seem that the patient didn't object to the prayer offer for her own sake, rather it was lodged for someone who might be offended. That seems like a rather odd reason to me, but what the nurse did was completely different than trying to argue someone out of their faith.

As an aside, I find it amusing that the nurse is being disciplined for being in breach of 'diversity' policies.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I find it amusing that the nurse is being disciplined for being in breach of 'diversity' policies.

Why?

MrP

LolaDub

Did the article not say that the patient who the prayer was offered to was a Christian? If so then its not the same as a muslim or athiest pushing their beliefs on another. There was no pushing of anything just a kind gesture from one person of faith to another.

Fanny Cradock

I'll let you ponder that, Mr P. It's not too difficult.

LolaDub wrote: »

Did the article not say that the patient who the prayer was offered to was a Christian? If so then its not the same as a muslim or athiest pushing their beliefs on another. There was no pushing of anything just a kind gesture from one person of faith to another.

Apparently she is a Christian, but felt it inappropriate. Not sure how reliable the facts are in this story, though.

LolaDub

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll let you ponder that, Mr P. It's not too difficult.



Apparently she is a Christian, but felt it inappropriate. Not sure how reliable the facts are in this story, though.

Did she feel it was inappropriate or just surprised by it?

Peoples hands are tied with everything nowadays i'd probably find it surprising too but not in a negative way.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'll let you ponder that, Mr P. It's not too difficult.

I think you are missing the point, which christians seem to when they put on their persecuted hat.

The diversity policy is unlike to tell her she is not allowed to be a christian, what she wants to do in her own time is her own business, I would expect that it simply states it should be a private matter.

Her actions are against her companies policies. End of story. If she believes she should be able to offer prayers to her patients then I would presume there is a mechanism for trying to make changes to policy, her union perhaps? But if an employee repeatedly breaks policy, regardless of whether they or anyone else agrees with that policy, then they can rightly expect there to be repercussions.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you are missing the point,

MrP

No, Mr P, you are missing my point. I have already stated that I think that she acted inappropriately. You are too quick to assume that Christians are going to form ranks on this one.

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing the two?

Er, yes. Religious and irreligious views of any kind should stay out of hospital.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Quite frankly its acts like this which harm the atheist agenda, since people can see it for the petty nitpicking that it is.

I'm with MrP on this one -- can somebody CC me on this "agenda"?

And neither is this about atheism either. It's about letting people hold whatever religious or irreligious views they want, without interference from other people.

Fanny Cradock

LolaDub wrote: »

Did she feel it was inappropriate or just surprised by it?

Peoples hands are tied with everything nowadays i'd probably find it surprising too but not in a negative way.

I'm not sure, tbh. I would guess that she felt it inappropriate.

JimiTime

IMO, ridiculous policy anyway. I hate this idea of choking people with silly red tape. If a Wiccan or a muslim or whatever, said to me that they were going to say a prayer, or whatever the wiccan equivalent is, It will provoke one of a few things:

a) I'd merely say, Thanks.
b) I'd politely say, I'd rather you didn't.
c) Use it as an opportunity to share my own faith.

Why they need to legislate against this, is just so annoying. Can't people just speak for themselves?

Fair enough, if someone is pestering you in your hospital bed with religion, it can become an issue of complaint. However, saying, 'Do you mind if I pray for you?' Its flippin laughable.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I actually think that an analogy whereby a Wiccan doctor (or someone of a different faith) tried to force their views on a patient would be better understood.

Perhaps, but the usual religious response in this kind of exchange is that "it's all one god" or something similar, hence the choice of an atheist doctor.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While I see no problem with the nurse praying with the somebody if they asked for it, it must be recognised that there is an imbalance of power in such a relationship. She is clearly passionate about her beliefs, but also very naive in how she goes about practising them.

I think we can agree on that

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

It's about letting people hold whatever religious or irreligious views they want, without interference from other people.

Incredibly stupid IMO. People should just speak for themselves. It should not be legislated for! If someone has issue with it, they should just say it. If they are then pestered, then make a complaint. Your views, and that of some other atheist posters in matters like these are just ridiculous IMO. Such an oversensitive bunch of cowards you seem to be. Always needing some legislation to fight some imaginary battle. You'll find that most people will be receptive to polite conversation. Sheesh, grow a set guys!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I find it amusing that the nurse is being disciplined for being in breach of 'diversity' policies.

It would be hard to think of any other policy she would be in breach of

The "diversity" applies to the patients, not the staff. The hospital should be welcoming to all (and that is defined by the patient, not the staff). All the staff are supposed to operate in a secular fashion because they do not know, nor should it matter, the religion of the people they are caring for. To assume they are all Christians would be a mistake and possibly insulting.

We in Ireland should know all about this as there is a long history of people simply not going to a hospital if it run by a different religious denomination.

People may think it is unreasonable or irrational, put some people have trouble being in a place of care, such as a hospital, if they feel that the staff are a different religion to them. The staff have a responsibility to project a secular front (that is not the same as an atheist front) to give the impression that they are religion neutral.

LolaDub

Tbh i was just as, if not more, concerned by the centre article where an airline work was banned from wearing a cross. When she took it to the employment tribunal it was thrown out!

sorella

Amen, Jimitime

And we have rights of freedom also, which are being stamped on here....

Many of us are challenged by other faiths and we welcome the chance to speak of Jesus.

It was only a few years ago that a Crib was removed at a big Dublin hospital, lest it "offend" non-Christians.

JimiTime wrote: »

IMO, ridiculous policy anyway. I hate this idea of choking people with silly red tape. If a Wiccan or a muslim or whatever, said to me that they were going to say a prayer, or whatever the wiccan equivalent is, It will provoke one of a few things:

a) I'd merely say, Thanks.
b) I'd politely say, I'd rather you didn't.
c) Use it as an opportunity to share my own faith.

Why they need to legislate against this, is just so annoying. Can't people just speak for themselves?

Fair enough, if someone is pestering you in your hospital bed with religion, it can become an issue of complaint. However, saying, 'Do you mind if I pray for you?' Its flippin laughable.

LolaDub

Wicknight wrote: »

To assume they are all Christians would be a mistake and possibly insulting.

How do you know the nurse assumed? Its easily possible the patient might have had a cross, bible or any any number of things in her room that may have identified her as Christian. I would think most religious people would have something concerning their faith with them in hospital.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

I'm with MrP on this one -- can somebody CC me on this "agenda"?

I think most people can recognise the agenda to separate religion of the running of the state and its agencies.

Though perhaps agenda is too strong a word since it may summon up visions of people in underground bunkers with pictures of Dawkins hanging on the walls while robin and mr. pudding huddle together while pushing small figures around a map of Ireland as they set their master plan in operation.

sorella

"Reversing the position, I wonder how an ill christian or muslim fundamentalist would feel if an atheist doctor told him that there was no god out there helping him? I would imagine that most religious would be then be quite happy to have the doctor disciplined (as he should be)".

Not at all...and it has happened frequently to this Nun. Why discipline a dr for that? Or take offence?

"Also, and at least as importantly, there's good research out there which strongly suggests that if people know that they're being prayed for, that they tend to fare worse than people who aren't being prayed for (or equivalently, being prayed for, but not knowing of it). By telling this patient that she was praying for her, evidence suggests that she may well be doing the patient harm and I can't imagine that too many people are in favour of that.[/quote]"
.
"Actually, the reverse is true and has been proved over and over again. Prayer can never, ever do harm.

And often the reverse. healings and lifting of heart

So this is totally untrue

How could that be?

Jesus is love and life and light.....

You need to refind your stats in this conclusion.

JimiTime

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

people in underground bunkers with pictures of Dawkins hanging on the walls while robin and mr. pudding huddle together while pushing small figures around a map of Ireland as they set their master plan in operation.

I Knew it!

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair enough, if someone is pestering you in your hospital bed with religion, it can become an issue of complaint. However, saying, 'Do you mind if I pray for you?' Its flippin laughable.

I would be worried about this scenario arising. If you are sick in bed you might not be able to simply say 'Get lost, Tom Cruise. I'm not converting to Scientology.' As the balance of power lies with the carer they should have to adhere to a structure. Despite this, I don't think that care for others should necessarily be a religious free occupation, but only if any religious discussions are requested by the patient. As she apparently asked about prayer rather than giving it out, I do have a bit of sympathy for the nurse.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It should not be legislated for! If someone has issue with it, they should just say it.

That is the thing, they don't say because it is uncomfortable to complain. They just get upset and then don't go to the hospital again.

The purpose of the staff of a hospital is to make the patients feel welcome. It is not up to the patients to accommodate the staff's need to proclaim publicly religious views.

JimiTime wrote: »

Always needing some legislation to fight some imaginary battle.

I would hardly call it imaginary. This woman was asked not to do this and she did it anyway.

What exactly is it about religious people that they have some uncontrollable urge to be constantly telling people about their religion. I find it perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone without blurting out that there is no God.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

What exactly is it about religious people that they have some uncontrollable urge to be constantly telling people about their religion. I find it perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone without blurting out that there is no God.

It's the power of the meme

Look at the third item in Jimi's message above -- religion is very effective at getting its adherents to think about propagating it.

sorella

A Christian cannot be spilt in two in this way. Faith is not a coat to be left at the door. It is an integrity.

You see prayer as "interference" ?

We pray for all who do not know Jesus every day, Robin.

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes. Religious and irreligious views of any kind should stay out of hospital.I'm with MrP on this one -- can somebody CC me on this "agenda"?

And neither is this about atheism either. It's about letting people hold whatever religious or irreligious views they want, without interference from other people.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think most people can recognise the agenda to separate religion of the running of the state and its agencies.

Though perhaps agenda is too strong a word since it may summon up visions of people in underground bunkers with pictures of Dawkins hanging on the walls while robin and mr. pudding huddle together while pushing small figures around a map of Ireland as they set their master plan in operation.

Oh, the fun you could have doing a Hitler bunker spoof!

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Though perhaps agenda is too strong a word since it may summon up visions of people in underground bunkers with pictures of Dawkins hanging on the walls while robin and mr. pudding huddle together

Dawkins on my wall? Yuk.

But Ariane Sherine? Now yer talkin.

Zombrex

sorella wrote: »

Acutally, the reverse is true and has been proved over and over again. Prayer can never, ever do harm.

That isn't true. While studies have found prayer does nothing to improve a persons recovery or survival, there is some statistical suggestion that people who have been informed they are being prayed for are more likely to suffer worse.

A possibly explanation for this is that being informed people are praying for you introduces an extra level of stress in the patient. Rather than being a comfort it does in fact reaffirm to the patient that they are at risk.

After all why would people praying for you if you were going to be fine anyway?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

The "diversity" applies to the patients, not the staff.

I understand that, but on the face of it it appeared amusing to me. I wonder what would happen if a patient asked to pray for a nurse?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

But Ariane Sherine? Now yer talkin.

Seconded :pac:

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would be worried about this scenario arising. If you are sick in bed you might not be able to simply say 'Get lost, Tom Cruise. I'm not converting to Scientology.'

First of all, picking an extreme example of someone not being able to speak, and someone trying to 'convert' them, is completely different. If the said Scientologist said, I've got a device that will get rid of your thetans, do you mind if I use it on you? Then even then, you merely say, I'm not interested. Trying to 'convert' is alot different to asking if someone minded if you prayed for them.

As the balance of power lies with the carer they should have to adhere to a structure. Despite this, I don't think that care for others should necessarily be a religious free occupation, but only if any religious discussions are requested by the patient. As she apparently asked about prayer rather than giving it out, I do have a bit of sympathy for the nurse.

As I said, I just think we treat people as if they're idiots at times. It should be a personal thing. If someone wants to complain, let them. Don't remove peoples feelings from them. Its secularism gone mad. Personality sanitisation IMO.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Now yer talkin.

"Now yer stalkin'" more like

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I understand that, but on the face of it it appeared amusing to me. I wonder what would happen if a patient asked to pray for a nurse?

Nothing, the diversity applies to the patients not the staff. You want the patient disciplined?

robindch

sorella wrote: »

Actually, the reverse is true and has been proved over and over again. Prayer can never, ever do harm. So this is totally untrue. You need to refind your stats in this conclusion.

With respect, the world's largest and best-funded study (it was a multi-million dollar study) into the effects of intercessory prayer produced two significant conclusions which refute your position completely:

STEP wrote:

First, intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred after CABG. Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer.

It's the second effect that I'm referring to. The full report with methodology, outcome and conclusion is available for download here:

http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html

robindch

Crumbs, 50 posts in and not a single poster has said that it's political correctness gone mad (even if Jimi came quite close).