Church should fund NHS chaplains

Fanny Cradock

Let me start of by pointing out the unnecessary. This is not a persecuted Christians thread. I'm simply trying to garner the opinions of people regarding a service paid for by the NHS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7988476.stm


I would think that while there could be efficiencies brought in (certainly in regards to the organists etc.), the basic service offered by chaplains should be purchased by the NHS just like any other service.

Gambler

Without meaning to be a "typical Atheist" I have to say my initial reaction is that the Health service is there to provide medical help and support.

I'm not sure why the tax payers who fund the NHS should have their money spent on what is a Spiritual Service?

Gambler

While I think of it is something like this happening in the Irish Health System?!

Fanny Cradock

Gambler wrote: »

Without meaning to be a "typical Atheist" I have to say my initial reaction is that the Health service is there to provide medical help and support.

I'm not sure why the tax payers who fund the NHS should have their money spent on what is a Spiritual Service?

And mental health is not part of this service? It's not just about opening a patient up, fiddling about with some internal organs, patching them up and shipping them out. Such a singular view of the role that healthcare should provide (whatever the country) is lacking.

Gambler

Absolutely mental health is part of the service, that is why there are also counsellors on staff. If there aren't enough counsellors to deal with things then there should be more brought on board and that's where money that is currently going to chaplains could possibly be better spent surely?

I'm not trying to say that people aren't also entitled to spiritual counsel if that is what they are looking for but it is not up to a country's health service to provide that imho. Personally I would agree with this point put forward in the article:

But the NNS says these services are part of churches' own "fundamental responsibility", and as such should be paid for out of their own pockets

Fanny Cradock

Gambler wrote: »

Absolutely mental health is part of the service, that is why there are also counsellors on staff. If there aren't enough counsellors to deal with things then there should be more brought on board and that's where money that is currently going to chaplains could possibly be better spent surely?

I'm not trying to say that people aren't also entitled to spiritual counsel if that is what they are looking for but it is not up to a country's health service to provide that imho. Personally I would agree with this point put forward in the article:

Spiritual counsel is regarded as a necessary service by the NHS (if the patient desires it). I certainly wouldn't object to there being a review of the service - cutting out efficiencies and whatnot - but the notion that a counsellor would have the time to do the rounds and have a chat with every Tom Dick and Harry doesn't fly.

It's anecdotal stories like this that make me think that this is actually an invaluable service.

Gambler

I fully appreciate what you are saying, and to be fair that link you posted does offer a strong argument. Who can argue with a kind person being there in someones time of need.

I guess my problem is the old "Church and state" chestnut. I'm a secularist when it comes to these kinds of things. If people are being paid to do this job then I would much rather see the money being spent on a new form of counselling service (if it doesn't exist then lets create it) where there are trained counsellors hired specifically to do exactly what the chaplains are currently doing going on the rounds and having a chat with every Tom Dick and Harry but with no religious component.

In my personal opinion tax payers money shouldn't be spent on spiritual matters because when it comes down to it not everyone shares the same beliefs in any country.

[Edit]Oh - I also meant to say that if the church\mosque\ synagogue\[Enter another House of Worship here..] still want's to have chaplains in the hospital doing the rounds as well then by all means give them full access but let them pay the wages themselves..[/Edit]

Fanny Cradock

Also, after hearing from people who are engaged in hospital chaplaincy, it appears that their duties are a lot less religious orientated then one might assume and actually spill over into more of a counselling roll as well as being a liaison between patient, family members and medical staff.

lostexpectation

that problem with the church state in ireland is there no line, look what happened when the prison chaplin looked for help after being attacked neither the church nor the state would take responsibility

Gambler

Yeah, I have to say the brother who performed my wedding ceremony does a weekly shift in the hospital and he has said the same thing himself. He does end up filling a lot of "other roles" when he's in there, and often finishes a shift very emotionally worn down.

Again I can't argue with what the churches are doing in there, they do provide an invaluable service in many ways.

Fanny Cradock

Gambler wrote: »

I fully appreciate what you are saying, and to be fair that link you posted does offer a strong argument. Who can argue with a kind person being there in someones time of need.

I guess my problem is the old "Church and state" chestnut. I'm a secularist when it comes to these kinds of things. If people are being paid to do this job then I would much rather see the money being spent on a new form of counselling service (if it doesn't exist then lets create it) where there are trained counsellors hired specifically to do exactly what the chaplains are currently doing going on the rounds and having a chat with every Tom Dick and Harry but with no religious component.

In my personal opinion tax payers money shouldn't be spent on spiritual matters because when it comes down to it not everyone shares the same beliefs in any country.

Well, ignoring all the other things that chaplains do beyond the religious stuff (and I believe that this could be easily overlooked). What if a patient wanted a spiritual dimension to their care? Certainly a counsellor wouldn't be able to offer this service, and it seems reasonable to assume that many patients who are very sick or dying would actively seek such care.

With respect the other 'secular' services the chaplains offer, it seems unreasonable to assume that the slack could be taken up by simply employing more counsellors. Would they visit a terminally ill patient, or keep in touch with family members after a loved one has died? Besides, how much does a professional counsellor earn a year?

kiffer

I think if the Chaplin is also a properly trained counselor rather than just a preacher then I have no problem with them being employed by the state in that role, but it may lead to a conflict of interests.
*** I may edit this post after I get my 8 hours sleep, as then my muppetry battery will be recharged ***

Gambler

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, ignoring all the other things that chaplains do beyond the religious stuff (and I believe that this could be easily overlooked). What if a patient wanted a spiritual dimension to their care? Certainly a counsellor wouldn't be able to offer this service, and it seems reasonable to assume that many patients who are very sick or dying would actively seek such care.

I guess for me the question is does the state bare a responsibility for a patients spiritual care? And if they do does that mean they have a right to say what is and isn't OK when it comes to the spiritual care of their citizens?

For me the church is there to provide spiritual care and nurture for anyone that wants it. If that spiritual care is required by one of the churches members then they have a responsibility to provide it. I'm just not sure if that responsibility is something that is owed by the state.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With respect the other 'secular' services the chaplains offer, it seems unreasonable to assume that the slack could be taken up by simply employing more counsellors. Would they visit a terminally ill patient, or keep in touch with family members after a loved one has died? Besides, how much does a professional counsellor earn a year?

If the current system doesn't provide for those sorts of things (visits to terminally ill patients and at the least the organisation of support groups for family members of patients who are dead or dying) then that should be implemented and I would hope that the £40,000,000 currently being spent would help towards paying for those services.

Gambler

kiffer wrote: »

I think if the Chaplin is also a properly trained counselor rather than just a preacher then I have no problem with them being employed by the state in that role, but it may lead to a conflict of interests.
*** I may edit this post after I get my 8 hours sleep, as then my muppetry battery will be recharged ***

Yeah, I would agree with this alright. No reason why a spiritual person couldn't fulfill that role but personally I would also fear situations like the one where a nurse was dismissed for offering to pray for someone. (Desperately hoping this thread doesn't go the way that one did!)

Fanny Cradock

Gambler wrote: »

(Desperately hoping this thread doesn't go the way that one did!)

It wont!

Upon penalty of torture :eek:

Fanny Cradock

Gambler wrote: »

I guess for me the question is does the state bare a responsibility for a patients spiritual care? And if they do does that mean they have a right to say what is and isn't OK when it comes to the spiritual care of their citizens?

Possibly! If one chooses to look at spiritual care as being an important factor to the patients general well being. And as discussed, it is very possible that a chaplain may be of use outside the spiritual realm.

Gambler wrote: »

For me the church is there to provide spiritual care and nurture for anyone that wants it. If that spiritual care is required by one of the churches members then they have a responsibility to provide it. I'm just not sure if that responsibility is something that is owed by the state.

What if a patient didn't attend religious services and suddenly decided they wanted comfort? Or what if the patient was transferred to another hospital away from their local church, mosque or wherever?

PDN

I would prefer chaplains to operate on a voluntary capacity rather than a paid capacity. I don't think it is the job of the State to pay to provide for the spiritual needs of prisoners, patients or soldiers.

The reason for the separation between Church and State in a secular democracy is not to suppress religion, but to prevent one form of religion from suppressing the others.

For example, I have a friend who ministers as a prison chaplain on a voluntary basis. He does excellent work and there is always a stream of requests from prisoners for him to visit. However, he often has to get official permission to carry out those visits from the paid chaplain, who is a Catholic priest.

Sometimes that permission has been denied, apparently because the priest does not like my friend's brand of Christianity. That means his visit to the prisoner is classed as a regular visit - which means the prisoner is allowed one less visit from friends or family.

So, I would prefer a system where chaplains, all voluntary, are placed on a register (similar to the one the Registrar's Office operates for solemnising weddings) and have the same rights of entry irrespective of denomination. I think it wrong that non-Catholic ministers should have to go cap in hand to a Catholic priest before they can engage in chaplaincy work.

MatthewVII

Well in the hospital I work I know the chaplains provide an excellent service. Most of their work isn't really religious, they just provide company, talk to patients who need someone to talk to etc. It's great to have someone who isn't snowed under with stuff who actually has time to listen to everything a patient has to say, concerns etc and take proper time to sit with them, it's a very comforting thing. It's pretty much along the lines of other workers in hospital such as hairdressers who aren't strictly a necessity but increase the quality of care and make the patient's stay in hospital a little more bearable, which makes life easier on everyone. Not sure what the story is with funding over here but it's definitely something worth keeping around.

Rev Hellfire

Well as someone who spends quite an amount of time in hospitals I'm all on for hospital chaplains. Sure there are times when you mightn't be in the mood for them, but any I've met seem to be a good sort.

I'd totally agree with the idea that patient care goes beyond simply administering to their immediate medical needs.

I think it's money well spend, you don't need to be one of the faithful to get benefit from a friendly ear.

JohnMcMann

Why have any sort of religious worship-place in Hospitals at tax payers expense? Surely those religious organisations can afford to fund their holier-than-thou buildings and rooms themselves?

Also-do you want the NHS to fund Minarets as well? Why stop there? Do you know how much it costs to feed the statues at a Hindu Temple? It isn't cheap you know. This is a snowball idea, once you justify the smallest room with the cheapest scam artist wearing the black'n'collar, you will have to fund the rest of it.

Keep religion out of hospitals!

MatthewVII

JohnMcMann wrote: »

Why have any sort of religious worship-place in Hospitals at tax payers expense? Surely those religious organisations can afford to fund their holier-than-thou buildings and rooms themselves?

Also-do you want the NHS to fund Minarets as well? Why stop there? Do you know how much it costs to feed the statues at a Hindu Temple? It isn't cheap you know. This is a snowball idea, once you justify the smallest room with the cheapest scam artist wearing the black'n'collar, you will have to fund the rest of it.

Keep religion out of hospitals!

I totally understand where you're coming from. To be honest, I'm against having churches in hospitals. But having people to talk to and listen to people is always a good idea. Non-denominational would be nice, but I'm not sure how it would work.

JohnMcMann

MatthewVII wrote: »

I totally understand where you're coming from. To be honest, I'm against having churches in hospitals. But having people to talk to and listen to people is always a good idea. Non-denominational would be nice, but I'm not sure how it would work.

Either a professional councillor or some decent volunteers (usually found in the form of an elderely person or a lively student-I wouldn't mind). That's what I would do anyway.

Kipperhell

I have no problem which religion within hospitals but by no means should the state fund it. I am sure there is a value to some people but they are church employees effectively doing their own duties.
If the church has a diminishing revenue and increasing costs then it will die out as the religions of the past did.

kiffer

JohnMcMann wrote: »

Either a professional councillor or some decent volunteers (usually found in the form of an elderely person or a lively student-I wouldn't mind). That's what I would do anyway.

Calling for volunteers is all very well... that would be great. Will you be volunteering?

JohnMcMann

kiffer wrote: »

Calling for volunteers is all very well... that would be great. Will you be volunteering?

I would but I already volunteer at the hospital entertaining children-something which I highly enjoy.

There are a lot of people who volunteer also so we could get the numbers going, I live in Scotland so I don't know what it's like in Ireland but I spose the numbers are similar.

mdebets

Chaplains play a vital role in the hospitals, I think however that they should be funded by the church rather than by the state.

State funding would reduce the services offered as it would be impossible to pay a chaplain for each denomination, let alone for each religion. The hospitals should however provide rooms for them (as much multidenominational as possible).

I also think that volunteers are not a good idea, as you need properly trained people, especially for counseling, which would be hard to find as volunteers.

Rev Hellfire

mdebets wrote: »

Chaplains play a vital role in the hospitals, I think however that they should be funded by the church rather than by the state.

If they've vital then the hospital should pay for them.
I certainly agree that a greater mix of denominations would be better (it may be the case already, but not from my experience). But I guess coverage of the main religion(s) makes economic sense.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If they've vital then the hospital should pay for them.
I certainly agree that a greater mix of denominations would be better (it may be the case already, but not from my experience). But I guess coverage of the main religion(s) makes economic sense.

Well, if we are talking about the NHS, then the term chaplaincy covers all the main religions.

eoin5

mdebets wrote: »

Chaplains play a vital role in the hospitals, I think however that they should be funded by the church rather than by the state.

State funding would reduce the services offered as it would be impossible to pay a chaplain for each denomination, let alone for each religion. The hospitals should however provide rooms for them (as much multidenominational as possible).

I also think that volunteers are not a good idea, as you need properly trained people, especially for counseling, which would be hard to find as volunteers.

For counciling yes but you dont need formal training to keep someone company. Maybe a short interview and some vetting would do the trick for hospital voluntary staff.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, if we are talking about the NHS, then the term chaplaincy covers all the main religions.

Indeed it does, I was referring to the health service here.
Which from my experience is pretty much exclusively Christian.
Though I live in hope of encountering either an Islamic or Buddhist Chaplin, it only a matter of time for the former given the growth of the religion.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Indeed it does, I was referring to the health service here.
Which from my experience is pretty much exclusively Christian.
Though I live in hope of encountering either an Islamic or Buddhist Chaplin, it only a matter of time for the former given the growth of the religion.

Exactly! In this regard we are catching up with the UK.

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Exactly! In this regard we are catching up with the UK.

Though to our defence, its only recently that other faiths have gained the numbers to warrant it.

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Though to our defence, its only recently that other faiths have gained the numbers to warrant it.

Yes, sure it wasn't 15 years ago that horses and carts would come to a crashing stop in the streets or people would drop their potatoes and pints of Guinness if they saw a black face walking down the street. (And I'm not talking about the frequent Al Jolson impersonators)

mdebets

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But I guess coverage of the main religion(s) makes economic sense.

That's the problem if the state pays for it.
Who decides what the main religions are?
Why would the state be allowed to discriminate against a minority religion?
The state should either cover all or cover none. To cover all would be prohibitive expensive, so cover none and let the churches pay for it would be the fairest system.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

Who decides what the main religions are?
Why would the state be allowed to discriminate against a minority religion?
The state should either cover all or cover none. To cover all would be prohibitive expensive, so cover none and let the churches pay for it would be the fairest system.

Supply and demand.

mdebets

eoin5 wrote: »

For counciling yes but you dont need formal training to keep someone company. Maybe a short interview and some vetting would do the trick for hospital voluntary staff.

But if you split it, you would need more people. Some for counceling and some for keeping company. Which wouldalso mean more disruption for the patients. First comes the counsilor, than the one who keeps you company and so on.
A volunteer based services would also mean less continuity for the patient, as you would probably get different people every time, which means they have to start from the beginning again, to get to know the patients.

Rev Hellfire

mdebets wrote: »

That's the problem if the state pays for it.
Who decides what the main religions are?
Why would the state be allowed to discriminate against a minority religion?
The state should either cover all or cover none. To cover all would be prohibitive expensive, so cover none and let the churches pay for it would be the fairest system.

As fanny states you cover those for which it makes economic sense to cover and provide cover where possible for the others.
When you've a finite set of resources you don't exclude everyone simply because a few fringe elements can't be covered.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

mdebets wrote:

Who decides what the main religions are?

Supply and demand.

An excellent answer!

Fanny Cradock

I see Unite - one of the largest unions in the UK - has criticised the criticism. I must say that they could have done a better job of highlighting the 'added value' chaplaincy brings to patients and the NHS.

http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/secular_attack_on_nhs_chaplain.aspx

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, sure it wasn't 15 years ago that horses and carts would come to a crashing stop in the streets or people would drop their potatoes and pints of Guinness if they saw a black face walking down the street. (And I'm not talking about the frequent Al Jolson impersonators)

Pints of Guinness, it was bottles of stout back then !

kiffer

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Pints of Guinness, it was bottles of stout back then !

And a pig under your arm...

wolfsbane

Gambler wrote: »

I fully appreciate what you are saying, and to be fair that link you posted does offer a strong argument. Who can argue with a kind person being there in someones time of need.

I guess my problem is the old "Church and state" chestnut. I'm a secularist when it comes to these kinds of things. If people are being paid to do this job then I would much rather see the money being spent on a new form of counselling service (if it doesn't exist then lets create it) where there are trained counsellors hired specifically to do exactly what the chaplains are currently doing going on the rounds and having a chat with every Tom Dick and Harry but with no religious component.

In my personal opinion tax payers money shouldn't be spent on spiritual matters because when it comes down to it not everyone shares the same beliefs in any country.

[Edit]Oh - I also meant to say that if the church\mosque\ synagogue\[Enter another House of Worship here..] still want's to have chaplains in the hospital doing the rounds as well then by all means give them full access but let them pay the wages themselves..[/Edit]

I strongly agree! It is an imposition on the citizen to have his taxes paid to any religion for their services. All a religion ought to have is access to those who wish it.

Provision of a place of quietness - a chapel room or whatever you call it - seems a reasonable provision and is open to all, religious or not.