nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.