seamus wrote: » 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.
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. If I were seriously ill I really couldn't care less about some statue on the wall
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » So when you said you wanted separation of Church and State, you're fine with religious places of worship being built and maintained, and having a visible presence in state-funded hospitals? Well they cannot really be ignored, that was my point. You don't have to enter a place of worship to notice the symbolism, the icons. They are everywhere. What do you suggest in those cases, that they should grow vines? Of course the numbers matter when it comes to patient opinions. It's as simple as trying to find a balance between providing comfort to (perhaps) a majority, whilst discommoding the fewest amount of patients. It's worth bearing in mind that there's a big difference between state-funded and state-owned. The State doesn't own many of the hospitals in question, they have agreed to provide funding for its operations, but not to acquire the property. Personally, I and many others object to that, of course. But it is not the property of the State, after all.
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.
beejee wrote: » That's quite a few leaps of the imagination there! Actual comfort is one thing, but trying to tie that to décor? "oh I'm sorry, your father died because we forgot to paint the walls a different colour" Ridiculous. As per usual, I'm sure this is a case of internet-dwelling freaks looking for a reason to exist, in this case complaining about the decorations in a hospital that THEY are not in. Complaining on behalf of others (its all about themselves, really), the usual shyte. .
Bannasidhe wrote: » Every religions 'ethos' should get a look in... so there goes blood transfusions for a start...
gctest50 wrote: » He showed, using clinical data, that patients with tree views had “shorter postoperative hospital stays, fewer negative evaluative comments from nurses, took fewer moderate-to-strong analgesic doses, and had slightly lower scores for minor postsurgical complications.”
beejee wrote: » "I'm sorry, your father died because the angle of his window precluded the view of a tree, whereas Mary in the opposite bed could see a few branches so shes fine." Such nit-picking nonsense in order to hold up some argument against religion. The only revelation (it isn't) is that someone gets paid to conduct such trivial research, while there aren't even enough physical beds for people in this country. Nonsense. When we have perfectly functioning health systems get back to me about the views patients have to endure.
gctest50 wrote: » Which part of shorter post operative stays do you not understand ? Records on recovery after cholecystectomy of patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital between 1972 and 1981 were examined to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have restorative influences. Twenty-three surgical patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses' notes, and took fewer potent analgesics than 23 matched patients in similar rooms with windows facing a brick building wall.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » In fairness i could have told you that without bothering to pay for a study. I think that needs to be filed under "the bleedin obvious"
Mr.Maroon wrote: » Why would I ask her to remove it? The hospital sets the infection control protocols - I'm sure they've made the necessary procedures for head scarfs. She'd also be a nurse, so she would fully understand the infection control protocols and how important they are. The people who come around offering communion will often enter my room without wearing disposable gowns or latex gloves. They'll wander from patient to patient without washing their hands, touching door handles, light switches etc. It only takes one of these idiots to bring highly infectious bugs into a room.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » I don’t think it could necessarily be predicted that window-adjacent people would need less painkillers and need to stay in hospital for a shorter postoperative period without a study really. The fewer negative comments part is probably the only thing you’d surmise using common sense.
beejee wrote: » On the scale of importance, its negligible nonsense. Negligible nonsense being presented in such a way as to support an argument against religious symbols...what a stretch. Heres a study conducted by useless phd student number 5003486342 "The perceived outcomes of wearing warmer socks while impaled on a spike are better than wearing less well-insulated socks". As the poster stated, "the bleedin' obvious"
BattleCorp wrote: » Would those who object to crosses, statues and other religious paraphernalia object to receiving lifesaving treatment from a muslim doctor wearing a hijab?
Cryptopagan wrote: » If what’s on the wall us so trivial, it’s no big deal if we take the crosses and stuff down then, right?
beejee wrote: » You know whats even easier than doing something trivial? NOT doing something trivial
SoundsRight wrote: » ....... Regarding the spread of infection, there's no link to the distribution of Communion. .
Bannasidhe wrote: » Don't do multiquote so this is brief. I said I have no issue with a designated room where people can find solace - possibly by praying to their god or gods - I also suggested that a nice garden would probably be more of more benefit. There is a world of difference between a discrete designated room and a stairwell full of portraits of Sr Mary Perpetua of the Small Mouth, Bishop Thunderer, etc and statutes of Mary, Bridget, Holy St Joseph and scenes of the favourite Roman form of execution for treason in alcoves throughout the place. Yes, they can be ignored. I do it everyday. No. It's not about balance. It's about every citizen having an equal right to their beliefs or lack of them when accessing medical services. Having religious iconography from one religion is not balance - it is endorsing on the tax payers's cent. I am well aware of the difference. That doesn't mean the State cannot attach terms and conditions to funds - it already does in fact. It would also help if the State didn't pay for hospitals and then allow religious orders to manage them.
SoundsRight wrote: » Because the government wants to remove religious symbols, regardless of whether they're hygenic or not. Regarding the spread of infection, there's no link to the distribution of Communion. It's an important role that many patients appreciate greatly. The Eucharistic ministers are probably more at risk of catching something off the likes of you than vice versa. It's the patient visiting times that you should really be more concerned about.
Deleted User wrote: » How about this radical idea: the state puts its money where its mouth is and purchases/secures legal title from the relevant religious organisation to these hospital buildings and lands first? I would love if they issued such a threat to withdraw state funding from these privately owned religious hospitals which masquerade as our "public hospitals", and in response the churches denied them use of the hospitals which they legally own. Then, it might finally force the Irish state to put the money into making our supposedly "public" hospitals actually publicly owned for the first time in the state's history. Rinse and repeat with all our supposedly "public" schools (despite their dependence upon state funding for current and capital expenditure, only about 15% of all Irish schools are owned by the Irish state). In the meantime, RCC-owned hospitals will quite rightly continue to show all the RCC symbols they like in their hospitals. Beggars - that's the Irish state, by the way - can't be choosers.
[Deleted User] wrote: » How about this radical idea
Cryptopagan wrote: » Ok, so as we renovate and redecorate existing hospitals, and build new ones, we won’t put religious symbols up, right?
beejee wrote: » That's just it, its all moaning until reality hits home. If you want to see the efficiency of state run healthcare all one needs do is look at the new childrens hospital. The government and opposition parties wouldn't dare to encroach too much on religious facilities, not because of some reverence, but because they know this country cant run a bath. All these individuals complaining about religious symbols and trying to tie the ropiest "research" into their arguments are simply people with too much time on their hands. They have their internet fingers stuck in everything these days, from religion to fashion. They'll be complaining about trivial shyte till theyre dead :P
ohnonotgmail wrote: » not sure why you think that comparison is in any way valid.
gctest50 wrote: » How about this radical idea : the church pays the compensation it should be paying
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0fd26a34d4ac2a9eff521bc9eaed40a.svg)
