Church-run hospitals told to ditch holy symbols

Samuel Vimes

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/churchrun-hospitals-told-to-ditch-holy-symbols-37863963.html
Patients should be able to seek the removal of crucifixes or other religious symbols from hospital wards run by the Catholic Church, according to a Government report.

The independent review of voluntary organisations insists health services run by religious orders should be "cognisant of the impact of decor" on patients and "strive to ensure" their personal preferences are met to the "greatest extent possible".

The report also raises serious questions over whether the State should continue to fund faith-based hospital services if they refuse to provide abortions or prescribe contraceptives.

It also says there should be an onus on all organisations that refuse to provide certain services based on ethos to tell patients where they can receive such services, even if it is against their ethos.
About time too, hopefully this will be extended to all publicly funded services including schools.

rgodard80a

> Patients should be able to seek the removal of crucifixes or other religious symbols from hospital wards run by the Catholic Church, according to a Government report.


So one patient dictates it ?
I'm not a fan of the church/any organised religion, but it certainly provides comfort to people in their last days.

Maybe patients can bring in their own religious artifacts for their own beds.

One eyed Jack

Misleading thread title OP. Hospitals with a religious ethos weren’t told to do anything. It was suggested in the report that they should.

I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

orourkeda1977

What I don't understand about this is the health service is falling down and people still have a horn about religious relics.

If I were seriously ill I really couldn't care less about some statue on the wall

i71jskz5xu42pb

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

What I don't understand about this is the health service is falling down and people still have a horn about religious relics.

Most people can be concerned about more than one thing simultaneously.

And I doubt the concern is just about the religious relics, probably more to do with general Church interference in state funded hospitals. Specifically when/if these hospitals start to push back on abortion services.

orourkeda1977

Estrella Hissing Racket wrote: »

Most people can be concerned about more than one thing simultaneously.

And I doubt the concern is just about the religious relics, probably more to do with general Church interference in state funded hospitals. Specifically when/if these hospitals start to push back on abortion services.

How does that work?

Surely the religious ethos of a given church doesnt supercede the law.

Feisar

I don't know why the church doesn't tell the government to jog on. They should shut up shop. Not a fan of religion however if the church owns it shouldn't they be allowed to dictate the rules?

One eyed Jack

Estrella Hissing Racket wrote: »

Most people can be concerned about more than one thing simultaneously.

And I doubt the concern is just about the religious relics, probably more to do with general Church interference in state funded hospitals. Specifically when/if these hospitals start to push back on abortion services.

You have that backwards. This is an attempt by a small lobby group to interfere in the running of hospitals owned by religious organisations which receive funding from the State, in exchange for the provision of their services to the State.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Samuel Vimes wrote: »

The independent review of voluntary organisations insists health services run by religious orders should be "cognisant of the impact of decor" on patients...

Seriously ... the "impact of the decor" on patients?

Most people in hospital want good doctors and timely, effective treatment, and couldn't give a toss about the "decor."

Bannasidhe

rgodard80a wrote: »

> Patients should be able to seek the removal of crucifixes or other religious symbols from hospital wards run by the Catholic Church, according to a Government report.


So one patient dictates it ?
I'm not a fan of the church/any organised religion, but it certainly provides comfort to people in their last days.

Maybe patients can bring in their own religious artifacts for their own beds.

But other patients can be very upset by it. Few years ago my great-grand uncle was seriously ill in hospital (he died exactly a year ago aged 99) and he, a life long atheist and 'survivor' of the Christian Brothers was very distressed by the amount of 'religious' imagery surrounding him. That, plus regaining consciousness to find a priest administering last rites ( it wasn't the possibility he might die that upset him, he served in the RAF through the whole of WWII as a medic so was very sanguine about death), genuinely delayed his recovery as it brought up awful memories and also made him feel powerless as if his personal beliefs and wishes didn't matter.
It was a publicly funded teaching hospital - he was brought there by ambulance so didn't have a choice.

I have zero issue with religious imagery in religiously owned and funded hospitals but I strongly believe that State funded hospitals should respect that not all citizens of the State are members of one particular religious organisation and have the right to not be greeted by the religious iconography of one particular religion when they are sick and vulnerable. Or be subjected to the rituals associated with it without express permission.

Also - if hospitals take the State's money they should perform any procedures legal in the State. If that clashes with any religious ethos they should provide their funding from within their own resources.

Essentially - all citizens should be treated equally by State funded services and that includes not being subjected to the ethos of one religion - or it's imagery.

i71jskz5xu42pb

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

How does that work?

Surely the religious ethos of a given church doesnt supercede the law.

You'd think so, wouldn't you

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7f6edc3c-8f7f-11e8-8c1a-b63727488402

gctest50

Rayne Attractive Pocketknife wrote: »

Seriously ... the "impact of the decor" on patients?

Most people in hospital want good doctors and timely, effective treatment, and couldn't give a toss about the "decor."

It's a bad influence on staff, they are there to work

Not be daydreaming about some fairytale they'll end up in with angels and cherubs and their favourite dead relative if they get enough "likes" from a dead carpenter

AudreyHepburn

If your biggest concern while you or someone you know is in hospital is the crucifix over the bed you really need to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities in life.

VeryTerry

The church shouldn't be running anything. If they payed out proper compensation to their victims they would be bankrupt instead of just morally bankrupt and we would all be the better for it.

ohnonotgmail

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If your biggest concern while you or someone you know is in hospital is the crucifix over the bed you really need to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities in life.

who said it was the biggest concern?

endacl

I’d like this one, please.



3, 2, 1, Bunjesus!

AudreyHepburn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who said it would as the biggest concern?

It clearly is for some based on the OP. And frankly I think it should be your last concern of you or someone you know is unwell enough to be in hospital.

ohnonotgmail

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It clearly is for some based on the OP. And frankly I think it should be your last concern of you or someone you know is unwell enough to be in hospital.

Not eveybody in hospital is at deaths door.

Fr_Dougal

It’s all fun and games until a patient needs an exorcism.

‘The spirit of Christ compels you’

‘Lol, lose the crucifix, Priest’

Bannasidhe

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If your biggest concern while you or someone you know is in hospital is the crucifix over the bed you really need to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities in life.

So the elderly victim of clerical abuse, or survivor of a Magdalene laundry, or industrial school, finding themselves in hospital - possibly terrified, definitely worried - confronted by the same imagery they had seen while incarcerated should 'reevaluate their priorities'?

WOW.

VeryTerry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the elderly victim of clerical abuse, or survivor of a Magdalene laundry, or industrial school, finding themselves in hospital - possibly terrified, definitely worried - confronted by the same imagery they had seen while incarcerated should 'reevaluate their priorities'?

WOW.

There's a high possibility that Audrey got married in a church so as not to upset her mother, had her kids baptised to get in to school, goes to mass at Christmas for tradition etc. Lots of people want to keep these dickheads around.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the elderly victim of clerical abuse, or survivor of a Magdalene laundry, or industrial school, finding themselves in hospital - possibly terrified, definitely worried - confronted by the same imagery they had seen while incarcerated should 'reevaluate their priorities'?

WOW.

Well it's illogical, no?

I don't know if a statue of Mary does terrify anyone, but I'd have thought that such a visceral reaction were symptomatic of PTSD or similar. It sounds to me like the solution there is to provide that person with any counselling that might trigger their reaction, and not to remove something that may be of comfort to the majority, especially elderly patients.

I'm neither Catholic, nor religious, and have never heard anybody complain about such symbolism. Of all the things to be concerned about in our hospital, to quote the young people: this ain't it.

One eyed Jack

VeryTerry wrote: »

The church shouldn't be running anything. If they payed out proper compensation to their victims they would be bankrupt instead of just morally bankrupt and we would all be the better for it.

And who gives you the authority to determine what’s best for anyone else but yourself?

VeryTerry wrote: »

There's a high possibility that Audrey got married in a church so as not to upset her mother, had her kids baptised to get in to school, goes to mass at Christmas for tradition etc. Lots of people want to keep these dickheads around.

I see.

Well, you don’t sound like a dickhead at all.

gctest50

It's also a symbol for dodgy workmanship

If i nailed the b*$***d to the cross he'd still be there today

Not like the Romans with no pride in their work

The_Kew_Tour

It would be terrific if that's all there was to worry about in our health system and hospitals.

People losing their crap over this are the lucky ones

seamus

Patient outcomes are influenced by (amongst other things), the comfort of the surroundings, and their perceived competence of the hospital treating them.

Thus patients recover better at home than in a hospital, better in a modern hospital than in a old run-down building, and better in an old run-down building than in a medical tent in a warzone.

It doesn't really matter how competent your staff are, or how modern your equipment is - if your hospital looks like a timewarp back to the 1970s, you will have poorer patient outcomes than a modern hospital.

Portiuncla is a good example of a timewarp hospital. When you're standing inside of it, you'd think you were in a church building that was converted to a hospital. There's a 4-foot Mary statue with all those offering candles at the front door. Archaic stuff.

Great staff, great care. But the building itself and the decor inspires no confidence.

I don't see any issue with patients requesting that religious iconography be removed.

SoundsRight

Can we maybe try and focus on cutting waiting times, and then worry about the feelings of some sensitive souls who are offended by two bits of wood on a wall. You'd swear it was Swastikas they were complaining about.

Mr.Maroon

Having been admitted to hospital a few times in the last 3/4 years - I've never had a crucifix in my room. If there was one in a room when I went in - I'd take it down and give it to one of the staff, but that is my personal preference.

One thing that does annoy me when I'm admitted is the people (usually old) coming into my room offering me communion. They usually enter the room ignoring the proper infection control protocols too which is really frustrating.

I've complained about these people but it's impossible for a nurse/member of staff to police them.

They're a hazard going from room to room spreading who knows what.

Mr.Maroon

Mr.Maroon wrote: »

Having been admitted to hospital a few times in the last 3/4 years - I've never had a crucifix in my room. If there was one in a room when I went in - I'd take it down and give it to one of the staff, but that is my personal preference.

One thing that does annoy me when I'm admitted is the people (usually old) coming into my room offering me communion. They usually enter the room ignoring the proper infection control protocols too which is really frustrating.

I've complained about these people but it's impossible for a nurse/member of staff to police them.

They're a hazard going from room to room spreading who knows what.

That's definitely not acceptable. Hard to blame the nurses and docs who, as you say, can't police them. I'd be writing an email to the hospital manager in that case. Nobody should be casually entering areas of a hospital where infection is a concern.

Acosta

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the elderly victim of clerical abuse, or survivor of a Magdalene laundry, or industrial school, finding themselves in hospital - possibly terrified, definitely worried - confronted by the same imagery they had seen while incarcerated should 'reevaluate their priorities'?

WOW.

Too many people have very little regard for the feelings of the victims of abuse because as a nation we really have not dealt with it what was let happen to these people and justice has not been served.

It will be future generations that will deal with the horrors what that was let happen to people in years gone by under the banner of holy catholic Ireland because it's deemed to be bad form by official Ireland to hold up a mirror to our parents and grandparents generation and simply say ''How the **** did you let this happen?''
Older generations will look bad for either participating in it or turning the other way and my generation will rightly be blamed for letting these people get away with it.

Bannasidhe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well it's illogical, no?

I don't know if a statue of Mary does terrify anyone, but I'd have thought that such a visceral reaction were symptomatic of PTSD or similar. It sounds to me like the solution there is to provide that person with any counselling that might trigger their reaction, and not to remove something that may be of comfort to the majority, especially elderly patients.

I'm neither Catholic, nor religious, and have never heard anybody complain about such symbolism. Of all the things to be concerned about in our hospital, to quote the young people: this ain't it.

Roight.
So elderly survivors of abuse by Church run organisations when confronted by the same imagery they would have seen while being abused should be 'offered counselling' because other people who were not victims derive comfort from that imagery.

Do the comforted by the BVM have more right to their peace of mind or something??

Or we could say that State funded hospitals are for all citizens and not just for those who derive comfort from the BVM, so the best thing is if religious iconography is best left to specifically religious venues and kept out of State funded facilities.

Sleepy

Whatever needs to be CPO'd to completely remove Religious ownership/involvement from any state organisation (Hospital, School or otherwise) should be CPO'd. We can deduct the religious orders share of the compensation payments to victims of their abuse from the bill.

Calhoun

Acosta wrote: »

Too many people have very little regard for the feelings of the victims of abuse because as a nation we really have not dealt with it what was let happen to these people and justice has not been served.

It will be future generations that will deal with the horrors what that was let happen to people in years gone by under the banner of holy catholic Ireland because it's deemed to be bad form by official Ireland to hold up a mirror to our parents and grandparents generation and simply say ''How the **** did you let this happen?''
Older generations will look bad for either participating in it or turning the other way and my generation will rightly be blamed for letting these people get away with it.

If you think it's a matter of playing a blame game you really misunderstand the issue.

How would you suggest we punish the elderly?

gctest50

SoundsRight wrote: »

Can we maybe try and focus on cutting waiting times, and then worry about the feelings of some sensitive souls who are offended by two bits of wood on a wall. You'd swear it was Swastikas they were complaining about.

The Swastika is about 11,000 years old, used to be a symbol of peace until the Nazis used it

Hopefully that cross will go the same way some day -

"unusable" because of the filth that used it as the symbol of their depraved organisation

Mr.Maroon

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's definitely not acceptable. Hard to blame the nurses and docs who, as you say, can't police them. I'd be writing an email to the hospital manager in that case. Nobody should be casually entering areas of a hospital where infection is a concern.

I've gotten surveys a few times after leaving which I've filled out and voiced my concern about them.

I'll go down the route of writing an email to the hospital manager the next time I'm in, if it continues to happen.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do the comforted by the BVM have more right to their peace of mind or something??

Or we could say that State funded hospitals are for all citizens and not just for those who derive comfort from the BVM, so the best thing is if religious iconography is best left to specifically religious venues and kept out of State funded facilities.

are you suggesting, then, that we remove chapels from state-funded hospitals? And that mortuaires on the grounds should be devoid of any religious symbolism?

I think that's going a bit far. I'm from a religious tradition which disavows Christian icons and other imagery, but can't imagine anyone I know, including atheists, having a reasonable objection.

Let's focus then on victims of clerical sex abuse. If someone is having a visceral reaction - being terrified - by a religious symbol, then yes, I think that person should be offered counselling. Such imagery, for better or worse, is inescapable in modern life. You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places.

I would like to see further study on those who are victims of clerical sex abuse, to ascertain the extent to which this is a serious problem for them.

All we have at the moment are anecdotes. I can understand why people might dislike the imagery, but I suspect a lot of people take comfort in those objects too. That anyone would be viscerally frightened by them seems to me fairly unusual.

orourkeda1977

If you come out of a hospital and this is all that you have to complain about, even non religious people will probably thank some god in their own way

SoundsRight

gctest50 wrote: »

The Swastika is about 11,000 years old, used to be a symbol of peace until the Nazis used it

Hopefully that cross will go the same way some day -

"unusable" because of the filth that used it as the symbol of their depraved organisation

It'sa symbol of hope and inspiration to billions of people around the world, from all walks of life. You'd want to be very bitter and intolerant to view it in the same light as the swastika.

Uncharted

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

even non religious people will probably thank some god in their own way

???????????????????????



No. They won't. Why would they?

They're non religious. Ipso facto.

seamus

SoundsRight wrote: »

It'sa symbol of hope and inspiration to billions of people around the world, from all walks of life. You'd want to be very bitter and intolerant to view it in the same light as the swastika.

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

SoundsRight

seamus wrote: »

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

What millions would that be?

Acosta

Calhoun wrote: »

If you think it's a matter of playing a blame game you really misunderstand the issue.

How would you suggest we punish the elderly?

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.


When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

branie2

How about a risen Jesus symbol instead?

Giveaway

seamus wrote: »

Or non-Christian. Considering "heretics" have been butchered in the millions by Christians down through the ages.

Worth thinking about.

Millions have died in conflicts between Christian denominations. The number of heretics hunted down and murdered by christians is an awful lot less

SoundsRight

Mr.Maroon wrote: »

Having been admitted to hospital a few times in the last 3/4 years - I've never had a crucifix in my room. If there was one in a room when I went in - I'd take it down and give it to one of the staff, but that is my personal preference.

One thing that does annoy me when I'm admitted is the people (usually old) coming into my room offering me communion. They usually enter the room ignoring the proper infection control protocols too which is really frustrating.

I've complained about these people but it's impossible for a nurse/member of staff to police them.

They're a hazard going from room to room spreading who knows what.

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Giveaway

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

If any healthcare workers clothing was an infection hazard i would ask for removal. A tight tucked in cleanly laundered headscarf is not a health hazard. That said, in a state run hospital no staff member should wear an item of clothing, badge or otherwise that states a political or religious affiliation

One eyed Jack

Acosta wrote: »

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.

When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

They live in the same universe as you do where you wish we could have a “proper” conversation, a conversation which appears to be entirely about how the universe should be based upon your views, as opposed to you having to accept that the reason other people would have no interest in taking part in a conversation controlled by you, is that they simply don’t share your views, and don’t consider your views worth entertaining.

Does your interfering with people’s way of life undo history or something?

Bannasidhe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

are you suggesting, then, that we remove chapels from state-funded hospitals? And that mortuaires on the grounds should be devoid of any religious symbolism?

I think that's going a bit far. I'm from a religious tradition which disavows Christian icons and other imagery, but can't imagine anyone I know, including atheists, having a reasonable objection.

Let's focus then on victims of clerical sex abuse. If someone is having a visceral reaction - being terrified - by a religious symbol, then yes, I think that person should be offered counselling. Such imagery, for better or worse, is inescapable in modern life. You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places.

I would like to see further study on those who are victims of clerical sex abuse, to ascertain the extent to which this is a serious problem for them.

All we have at the moment are anecdotes. I can understand why people might dislike the imagery, but I suspect a lot of people take comfort in those objects too. That anyone would be viscerally frightened by them seems to me fairly unusual.

A specifically RCC 'Chapel' has no place in a State funded facility. A designated room for those who wish to pray to their god or gods in a private setting is fine - although why they couldn't do that in a garden with a covered area that everyone could enjoy is beyond me.

My 'reasonable' objection is that those who derive comfort from religious imagery do not have some kind of special status whereby their psychological comfort is so important that it must be catered to in State Funded medical Facilities while those who are distressed by it can just get over themselves.

It's the reasonable objection to the beliefs of one group of citizens being facilitated by the State while other citizens beliefs are ignored.

You said "You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places." - we aren't discussing places of Worship. We are discussing State funded hospitals. Places of worship can be ignored, are not funded directly out of taxes, and are never where seriously ill people are brought to get better. So not at all the same thing.

You either believe that all citizens regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - have the right to equal treatment in State Funded hospitals or not and that this includes an equal right to peace of mind during recovery. It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

As I said, in any medical facility funded from it's own resources they can deck it out like the Vatican if they want - my tax won't be funding it.

BeerFarts

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Bit of a difference in one being a shawl over someones head and the other is a depiction of a man being crucified. We've all become so used to seeing the crucifix but it's not that hard to understand either why someone who isn't Christian might not like it.

Calhoun

Acosta wrote: »

At this point it's not really punishment that concerns me. I just wish as a nation we had a proper conversation about it and got to grips with the magnitude of the whole thing. Like some sort of citizens assembly where everything is laid out in the open and discussed. But I know that's just impossible when most would refuse to take part. At the end of the day the same political parties that let all this happen are still running the show today.


When I see or listen to people act like their way of life is being attacked because someone else thinks the angelus shouldn't be on tv or radio, or that we should rightly be removing religious iconography from public places I do wonder what parallel universe these people are living in. These things are the absolute minimum that should be done.

You do understand how institutional abuse works ect. These people didn't just let it happen had they went against it then it could have ruined some lives.

I am not trying to come across as condescending but it's not so easy as the seeds of why we went through what we did goes back to the founding of the state .

I think people would be more neutral to a separation of church and state if we had equal measure applied across the board. People in Ireland have differing opinions depending in the religion which is a little bit hypocritical..

SoundsRight

BeerFarts wrote: »

Bit of a difference in one being a shawl over someones head and the other is a depiction of a man being crucified. We've all become so used to seeing the crucifix but it's not that hard to understand either why someone who isn't Christian might not like it.

There is no difference. Both are religious symbols. Either we are tolerant of our faith and other faiths, or we have an outright ban. I'd rather live in a tolerant society instead of one where we have these new Puritans looking to tear down anything they think can cause offence.