Religion poses workplace challenges

[SecularMotion]

Should a receptionist put a Jewish calendar on the wall in the office lobby? How about an accountant in a cubical in back?

Should a nurse remove the crucifix from the wall of a Catholic hospital room, if a patient asks? Should Muslim workers be allowed prayer breaks?

Such questions stem from the intersection of religion and the workplace, and collisions between the two seem to be growing more commonplace and more intense in Omaha and around the country, judging from comments during a panel discussion Tuesday sponsored by the Greater Omaha Business Ethics Alliance.

Not talking about religion in the workplace can create misunderstandings and prevent reaching reasonable solutions, said one of the panelists, Beth Katz, founder and executive director of Project Interfaith.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120404/MONEY/704049948

[trotsky]

1. Good article.

Discussions like that usually provide great displays of believer's privilege. The comment about removing the cross - "The patient knew the hospital's religious orientation when she chose to go there." What an ass. But oh so typical of that privileged sense of view that even many DUers exhibit.

Personally I wouldn't really give a shit if there was a cross hanging on the wall. If you don't believe in the magic, it can't hurt you. What bothers me more is the people who hang that cross will also rule certain treatments off limits for their patients, even though one of those treatments might be the best option for them. That's going way too far.

I just want to know what special privileges I'm going to get for believing in, as many want to put it, the "religion" of atheism.

[get the red out]

2. It definitely needs discussion

More and more medical people are demanding the right to give certain medical treatments to people because of religion. I think that is definitely a case of choosing the wrong field. But their religion is considered more important than the needs of patients that may, unknowingly, request their services. I don't care about someone getting a prayer break, no problem. But I worry quite a bit about the possibility of fundamentalist types finding ways to deny treatment/medication to people and how far that will be allowed to go.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. When it comes to the medical field, there shouldn't be any religious or "conscious" exemptions...

allowed when it comes to performing your job. I can think of no other job that allows that.

[get the red out]

10. And with lives in their hands!

Scary!

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Exactly! And while its restricted to women's health care now...

which is horrible enough, imagine if it was expanded to include allowing JW doctors or nurses to refuse to give people blood transfusions, or white supremacists from helping black people, or treating sickle cell anemia, etc. It sets a bad precedent.

[cbayer]

14. JW physicians and nurses generally have no objection to giving blood products, just to receiving

them themselves.

A white supremacist who refused to treat black people or a disease associated with that population is not really a religious issue at all, imo.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Unless they are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, or some other protestant...

denominations.

[cbayer]

20. What?

[Humanist_Activist]

21. There are white supremacist and/or neo-nazi churches out there...

usually affiliated with groups such as Aryan Nations or the KKK. Though some neo-nazi groups affiliate with with Odinism and/or Asatru religions instead.

[cbayer]

25. I don't think an employer is going to hire someone who is the member of a known hate group

and states that he is going to discriminate against patients based on this.

And i don't think they are under any obligation to hire such a person.

[get the red out]

44. Already happened in other circumstances

I read a while back about a lesbian couple who had been refused treatment at a fertility clinic because the doctor's religion didn't support same sex couples having a child.

What about the possibility of the religious right medical workers refusing to treat gay people for other things? Hey, they can go to another doctor, can't they? So, if they're dying at the time that's their problem, right?

What about anyone with a sexually transmitted disease? Fundies wouldn't like them too much! Or women with cervical cancer, they're own fault they got HPV!!!!! This is GAWD'S punishment.

It could go pretty far along IMO, if it isn't reversed now. I just don't believe someone who volunteers to enter the medical professions should have a right to not treat anyone in whatever medically approved/accepted way is needed. No one made them choose that career. Can an airline pilot refuse to fly into Las Vegas because he doesn't believe in gambling? Don't think so. He's not going to be gambling himself, just like prescribing someone a drug doesn't mean the Doctor is going to be taking it themselves.

[cbayer]

13. I disagree.

I do not think that someone who hold strong convictions about abortion should be required to perform or assist in abortions unless there is no one else available in the case of an emergency.

That's the most extreme example I can think of, but most hospitals and training programs will accommodate this.

FWIW, a strong objection to abortion may or may not be religiously based.

I also think the conscientious objection available for draftees is a good thing.

[darkstar3]

15. The conscientious objection in the military was a different story.

That was for draftees, and it was specifically created so that these people who were required to serve wouldn't be put into a job they couldn't/wouldn't do.

In the civilian world, where we aspire to and apply for positions, the simple fact is that one should not apply to a job that one cannot/will not do in its entirety.

[cbayer]

18. Lots of physicians and other healthcare providers limit their practices for any

number of reasons. They may not take medicaid. They may not choose to treat patients under a certain age. They may close their offices on Wednesdays. They have the leeway to do that if they are self-employed or even if they are employed by someone who is willing to accommodate them. If a hospital is willing to accommodate their employees, who is to say they shouldn't be permitted to?

[darkstar3]

22. Those are more false equivalencies

A doctor who does not process through a specific insurance provider is not flatly refusing to perform part of their medical care function. They're simply saying that you'll need to find another way to pay for it.

A doctor who refuses to treat patients under or over a certain age does so specifically to protect the patient, because pediatrics and geriatrics are two very different fields, and patients have different needs that must be seen to. These doctors are not refusing to perform part of their medical care function.

A doctor whose office is closed during the week is almost always open on a day during the weekend to accommodate more patient schedules. Furthermore, whether or not they are open on the weekends, these doctors are again not flatly refusing to perform part of their medical care function.

In fact, in all the cases you can throw out where doctors seem to have special rules that have to be "accommodated" by their employers or their patients, not one of them ventures into the realm of a doctor, under completely normal circumstances, flatly refusing to perform part of their medical care function.

Doctors who refuse to perform legal and safe medical procedures, and pharmacists who refuse to dispense legal and necessary drugs, are refusing to do their jobs. They are unprofessional, and they shouldn't have applied for a job where they couldn't fulfill the requirements.

(There is one exception, and that is when the procedure in question is beyond the skill of the doctor. Referrals are always necessary and good in those cases. But I'm talking about the doctors who refuse to perform procedures and also refuse to refer, because they feel that the procedure itself violates their sensibilities.)

[cbayer]

28. OK, so lots of OB-GYN programs don't include training in abortions or make it optional

in their programs. Hence, you have physicians that have not been properly trained and are not qualified to perform the procedure.

An OB-GYN's job description may not include abortion, so they are doing their job.

There are also neurosurgeons who only do backs. It's a personal choice. They are fully trained to do brains, they just don't want to.

There are cosmetic surgeons who don't do trauma work. Again, trained to do it, but don't want to.

Physicians limit their practices in all sorts of way and it's their right to do so. Where is the requirement that they do everything they are capable of doing?

As to pharmacists, I have mixed feelings about this. I think this is most likely between the owner and the pharmacist. If the job description includes providing the morning after pill and the employee refuses, the employee will likely be fired. If the owner refuses to carry it, and they are the only one available in an area, that creates a different dilemma.

[darkstar3]

31. If what you say is true about physicians, then there is no need for a conscience clause for them.

And as for pharmacists, the people they are serving are not their patients. These people have had a medical consultation from a doctor previously. Pharmacists have many purposes aside from the simple dispensation of medication, but it is not their place to deny medicinal treatment once prescribed by a doctor.

Again, no need for a conscience clause.

I see absolutely no situation in which a conscience clause is useful to anyone but the religious right during campaign season, but I see many ways in which it is detrimental to the health services available in our society.

[cbayer]

36. I will concede on the pharmacy issue. I have had mixed feelings about this, but I

generally agree with what you are saying here.

[Humanist_Activist]

16. But we shouldn't give cover for what amounts to malpractice...

if an ER doctor or nurse can't perform all their duties, they should be relieved and someone who can should take their place. Also, I have strong objections to pharmacists playing this card too, especially with the "morning after" pill and other contraceptives.

ON EDIT: Oh, and draftees don't have a choice in profession, they are drafted after all, I think Conscientious Objectors in a voluntary army are foolish as well.

[cbayer]

19. Give me an example of how a religious belief might affect what an ER physician

or nurse might or might not do.

I can't think of anything nor recall a case where this has been an issue.

As far as pharmacists, they often limit what they carry. Some won't carry certain scheduled drugs because of concerns about theft or robbery or being overrun with people who might be abusing them. I think this only becomes a problem if there are no alternatives in an area. If I have a private business, I really don't think anyone has the right to tell me what I must sell.

[darkstar3]

23. When your private business is a public service, regulations are involved.

That's why we have federal regulations on banking, utilities, phones, and so many other things that you'll find in "private business". The public, and the government, have a very vested interest in ensuring that fundamental services are provided at a specific level and with specific protections for the consumer.

[cbayer]

29. Is there a federal regulation that states that medical facilities or pharmacies must provide

certain procedures or medications in regards to abortion? I don't think so, or all those Catholic hospitals are breaking it and risking their standing with Medicare reimbursement.

Quite unfortunately, most of the hospitals available to the poor in the New Orleans area refuse to provide abortions. At this point, you have an institutional problem, as the service may not be available at all to those that need it most.

[darkstar3]

33. Not yet. But that's beside my point, which I thank you for conceding.

There is a case for federal regulation of anything related to health care, and it already exists in many cases. Therefore your prior statement about how no one has the right to tell you what to do with your "private business" is bunk.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Pregnant woman goes to hospital due to complications...

severe hemorraging of uterus, ectopic pregnancy, etc. Care can be delayed if the doctors and/or hospital have issues with abortion, exposing women to unnecessary risks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353977

This is completely unacceptable, and I dare you to justify it.

As far as pharmacists, they are licensed by the state, prescriptions are not widgets, in many cases they are not optional, you cannot seriously suggest that pharmacies should be treated like any other business.

[cbayer]

30. You dare me? Never mind.

[skepticscott]

34. You ask for an example

You get one. You run and hide. Leaving a bit of snark in your wake.

Wouldn't it be more conducive to productive discussion to say "Ok, I hadn't thought of that...guess I was wrong"?

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Hell yes I dare you, we aren't talking about elective abortions here....

if an abortion is occurring in a hospital in a situation similar to what I outlined, it is NECESSARY to secure the life and/or health of the ACTUAL patient, the woman who is pregnant. Give me one justification for any doctor or nurse to have ANY excuse(outside of not being able for practical reasons i.e. not trained) not to aid a patient in need.

You say your feelings are mixed? Examine those feelings, and realize where you ethically fail.

[skepticscott]

27. Why is your argument always

"Well, I'VE personally never seen/heard/met anything/one like that, so I'm calling its existence into question"?

And what if a pregnant woman is rushed to the ER with abdominal trauma, and the best way to save her life involves aborting the fetus? Convince me that a Catholic doctor who is adamantly opposed to abortion couldn't possibly have their medical decisions affected, to the possible detriment of the woman.

I mean, come on...how hard is this to think of?

[darkstar3]

32. And that right there is why I don't think these people should be allowed to work in ERs.

I'm actually of the opinion that anyone who finds a legal and safe medical procedure to be objectionable shouldn't be a doctor, but at the very least I think we can all agree that ER doctors should be willing and able to do anything to save the life of a patient.

[cbayer]

35. Hospitals everywhere, as far as I know, will perform an emergency abortion

in order to save the life of the mother. If not an emergency, they will make arrangements to transfer the patient to a facility that provides the service.

The same goes for head trauma or other kinds of emergencies. Not all ED's can provide all services, but will do whatever they can to save the life of the patient. If they don't, they are in serious trouble.

Leaving aside that the OP is really about accommodating the patients, not staff, the issue of staff and what they are allowed to refuse to do is generally well addressed in hospital rules and regulations.

[darkstar3]

37. Will they? And how far do you know?

Once again basing my experience on Catholic hospitals in Saint Louis, MO, your statement about "everywhere" doesn't ring true. The hospital I'm thinking of in particular feels that the life of the fetus is just as important as the life of the mother, and will do everything possible, even at higher risk, to save both.

Further, I don't agree with your last paragraph. The article in the OP is unfocused, and deals partly with empolyer/employee relations and partly with employee/customer relations. And what employees are allowed to do (and refuse to do) is a huge issue in the realm of patient treatment, and it is not well addressed by any rules and regulations I've ever seen at a business, medical or otherwise.

I think that comprehensive health care is a basic human right, and I think that the government has a vested interest in making sure that such comprehensive health care meets specific standards no matter the provider, and I look forward to the day when we as a country can agree upon that.

[cbayer]

39. It really gets complicated when the life of the mother and fetus are at risk,

particularly if the fetus is otherwise viable.

I've been involved in a number of these cases, and they were hard. I have also been involved in developing the policy within a hospital, and that was very hard.

If we reach our goal of single payer, I think the government will have more sway. One of the sticking points here is that government payment sources don't pay for abortions, so they don't have the leverage to regulate them. Should a system come into play where they do (and I agree that they absolutely should), then it's going to be a whole different ballgame.

OTOH, I think there will still be exemptions for individual practitioners to opt out of certain things, the primary example being abortion.

[darkstar3]

40. You missed a couple of my points:

1. The fetus in question in my post wasn't viable without herculean effort to keep it alive. I can't find the story now, which is why I didn't include it originally, but I remember reading a few years ago about a mother who went in for complications. They cut the baby out of her to save her life, and then treated it as an extreme premy. It died that same week. The medical bills for this unfortunate occurrence were so high that the family was forced to declare bankruptcy.

2. I was assuming that single-payer would indeed include all forms of women's health care, including abortions when necessary.

3. In a single-payer system I expect that there will be similar roles like the conscientious objectors you referred to before. What I don't expect is that just any doctor will be able to refuse services because his/her sensibilities are offended. In a perfect world, those people who would be unwilling to perform certain services would never be allowed in a position where those services might be required.

[cbayer]

41. I don't think I missed your points at all, darkstar.

I have seen a situation like you describe, but if a fetus is removed and there is any possibility of saving it, most hospitals, catholic or not, are going to do that. Would be interesting to know what the parents wanted at that point or whether this was done over their objections.

I also assume that single payer will include abortion. That's why I made the point that the government will have more ability to regulate what hospitals choose to do or not do once they are paying for it.

And I agree with your last point as well. In hospitals that I have worked in, physicians who don't or won't do certain things are taken out of rotation for providing those services on an emergency basis. Sometimes it's about money, sometimes it's about lifestyle, sometimes it's about convictions, and sometimes it's about religion, but it's generally not about offended sensibilities. And if a physician's restrictions impact too heavily on the rest of a department, that physician's staff privileges can be revoked. Whatever the case, I don't think any hospital would put a physician in rotation for a service that they refused to provide.

You think it's contentious here? You should see what goes on in medical staff meetings (if you haven't already), lol.

[skepticscott]

42. Wrong...It's not complicated at all for the Catholic church

and for the hospitals under their jurisdiction. No abortions. Period. NOTHING can be done deliberately to sacrifice the fetus/embryo/mass of dividing cells/fertilized egg in favor of the pregnant woman. EVER.

Do you deny that?

[skepticscott]

38. Catholic doctrine

which Catholic hospitals are obliged to adhere to (and which a strictly Catholic doctor also may be expected to), states that performing an abortion to save the life of the mother is not permitted. There are no exceptions. "Good" Catholics are required to try to save both lives and hope that god keeps both from dying, rather than do anything deliberate that would abort the fetus.

And yet again, you tout your own personal experience as the last word on things. Please stop.

[Jokerman]

3. I removed the crucifix from my Dad's hospital room.

I would have just ignored it but it was making him angry at a time that he didn't need the stress.

I put it in a drawer where it stayed for the duration of his stay.

And the "he choose a catholic hospital" argument is bullshit - it was the one and only hospital in the small town where he lived.

[humblebum]

5. If the hospital had no problem with you taking it down, then why is it even an issue?

I would expect a crucifix if it was a Catholic hospital, and I know that they generally have no problem accommodating those who are not Catholic.

[Jokerman]

6. I don't know or care what the hospital thought about it.

The issue was that the gruesome thing was angering my dad. Had I not been there I certainly hope they would have taken it down for him, that's how my story relates to the OP.

I find that most hospitals, catholic or otherwise, have no problem accommodating anyone who has the means to pay their bill.

Is that the answer you were looking for or are you fishing for something else?

[humblebum]

7. Wasn't looking for any answer. I can only say that you should have known going in that

there would have been a crucifix in the room. After all, you knew that it was a Catholic-run hospital. To many people, myself included, a cross or a crucifix is a comfort. Next time you really should think ahead or find another hospital.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Missed the last sentence of his first post, or just chose to ignore it? n/t

[humblebum]

12. I did. And sometimes you just can't please everyone. If an object causes such

harsh emotions, that person's problems run deeper than the hospital bed can help.

[eqfan592]

26. You have literally no idea what this persons background was.

And you are judging somebody who was, from the description, under an extreme amount of physical duress. You have no basis for passing that sort of judgment whatsoever.

As for the rest, you apparently missed the point. The person you were replying to was relaying a story that was similar to the one in the OP, except in the posters case, removal of the crucifix did not pose an issue.

[humblebum]

43. It is not the Catholic hospital's fault that the patient was so offended

by something that is so unoffensive to many. The problem is not with them. If they had known before hand and refused to take it down, that would have been different. What I find offensive is for someone to over play the event.

[Jokerman]

47. “over play the event”? Are you for real?

Let me restate the event in more detail as you seem to have a case of selective comprehension:

My dad had a stroke (fortunately, a relatively mild one), and the ambulance took him to the only hospital within 40 miles. The formerly county owned hospital had recently been “privatized” into a chain of catholic hospitals. When I arrived, he was conscious and agitated over the crucifix hanging from the wall so I quietly removed the offending object without saying a word about it to anyone. Five years later I tell the story on DU because it was relevant to the thread.

Now tell me, oh wise one, how exactly am I over playing the event, and how could you possibly find this offensive?

Maybe I should have left it there and told him he was going to hell because he was agitated over a depiction of torture hanging from the wall in his hospital room. I’m sure that would have done wonders for an 85 year old stroke victim and his “harsh emotions”.

[humblebum]

48. My sympathies are with your father, but the

hospital had no way of knowing beforehand. And most people do not react negatively to a cross or crucifix. Many are greatly comforted.

[Jokerman]

49. My dad doesn't need your sympathy.

I never said the hospital should have known before hand or that the crucifix shouldn't have been there in the first place, I simply said that it bothered him and I removed it. If a catholic hospital refuses to remove it or puts it back against the patient's wishes then they shouldn't be permitted to operate a public hospital with the only emergency room in town.

You ignored my questions about how this was over played or how you managed to find offense in my story.

[humblebum]

50. This is a discussion group. Therefore you should expect responses to your postings.

I stated an opinion. End of story. The over playing part is in trying to find some ulterior motive or some hidden agenda where there is none. It is unfortunate that your father had such an adverse reaction to the crucifix, but that is not the norm. And the hospital still was not at fault.

[Jokerman]

51. You did more than state an opinion, you made accusations...

that were unfounded bullshit and when I challenged you to back them up, you didn't even try.

I've seen enough of your posts to recognize your sad, pathetic little game.

I could once again challenge you to justify your comments but we both know that will NEVER happen.

The only "End of Story" will be when the moderators get tired of your shit and lock your account.

[humblebum]

52. Your problems run much deeper than concerns for your father. nt

[SwissTony]

53. No, your argument is bullshit.

It's a Catholic hospital. Expect crucifixes etc. If it was a Jewish hospital, expect stars of David, etc.

Your dad was there for medical reasons. Not religious. If it's the only hospital in town, just be glad you've got one.

And, by the way, I'm atheist. But I don't expect the world to somehow anticipate my views and reform itself so that I'm happy.

[cbayer]

4. I think these kinds of discussions are good and can lead to a better understanding

of different POV's.

[trotsky]

45. Unless one dismisses those other POVs...

because they don't match precisely what one has experienced.