Gatineau Hospital Orderly Suspended After Telling Patient to Speak French


no color
+2
#1
Quote:

CTV News

The family of a dying war vet is demanding the Gatineau Hospital fire an orderly after a conflict over language and care last weekend.

77 year old John Gervais came to the Gatineau hospital over the Thanksgiving weekend.

He arrived at the emergency department a shadow of his former self; a robust veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy, in search of answers and compassion. But Gervais’ family says that is not what happened.

Last Saturday night, Gervais’ wife and daughters, who were by his side, caring for him, had asked an orderly to help take Gervais to the washroom. They were surprised by the young orderly's aggressive attitude, after a liquid spilled on the orderly’s shoes.

Gervais’ son-in-law, Steve Long, says the orderly barked in good English “this is not a hotel,” and pulled back the curtain around John Gervais’ bed.

Steve Long's mother-in-law called him on it.

“Mrs. Gervais said that's a horrible way to treat somebody,” says Long, “you shouldn't treat sick people like that.

Long says the orderly spun around and said :"Je suis Québécois, nous parlons en francais, parles en francais.”

Long says when he got to the hospital minutes later, the tension in the Emergency Department was palpable. He says the orderly immediately confronted him.

“The guy was staring at me, you know what his intent is. “If someone does that on the street or in a bar, you worry you're going to get into a fight,” recalls Long, “That's what it was like in there, in the emergency room with my father in law and his family watching.”

When Long asked to speak to his supervisor, he says the orderly told him he was Quebecois and to speak French -- the third time he had repeated that.

“He showed lack of compassion and hostility towards a fellow who was very sick, couldn't stand, 77 years old, a 75 year old wife. He should not be working in the hospital. I want to see him fired.”

The family has filed a complaint with the hospital and the ombudsman is currently looking into it but it could take up to 45 days for any resolution.

Late this afternoon, though, the Human Resources Department met with the employee and suspended him until that investigation is over.

"We have 6500 employees,” says Sylvain Dube, with the Centre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de Gatineau, the agency responsible for the hospital, “and from what I know, it's the first complaint we received about an English patient that couldn’t' have the service in English, the first time.”

Read more: veteran, gatineau, hospital | CTV Ottawa News

The hospital may have a lawsuit on their hands here. Bill 142 guarantees all residents of Quebec health care services in either English or French. What makes this case baffling is that this institution is designated an English language hospital. Back when Bill 101 was adopted, the separatist government back then labeled hospitals as either English language or French language hospitals. Those with an English speaking clientele greater than 50% were tagged English language hospitals, the rest were automatically tagged French language hospitals. The Gatineau hospital was not labeled a French language hospital.

So the patient in question here was refused service in English in a hospital that was specifically designated by the separatist government to provide services in English to English speaking patients. This is in addition to Bill 142.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by no color View Post

Read more: veteran, gatineau, hospital | CTV Ottawa News

The hospital may have a lawsuit on their hands here. Bill 142 guarantees all residents of Quebec health care services in either English or French. What makes this case baffling is that this institution is designated an English language hospital. Back when Bill 101 was adopted, the separatist government back then labeled hospitals as either English language or French language hospitals. Those with an English speaking clientele greater than 50% were tagged English language hospitals, the rest were automatically tagged French language hospitals. The Gatineau hospital was not labeled a French language hospital.

So the patient in question here was refused service in English in a hospital that was specifically designated by the separatist government to provide services in English to English speaking patients. This is in addition to Bill 142.


My understanding is that you can't sue the hospital over an employeed failing to enact the language laws, you can only sue them if the hospital itself has a policy to flout the language laws.

A crappy employee is just a crappy employee. So long as the hospital works to resolve the situation, there is no grounds for a lawsuit
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

A crappy employee is just a crappy employee. So long as the hospital works to resolve the situation, there is no grounds for a lawsuit

Agreed.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

My understanding is that you can't sue the hospital over an employeed failing to enact the language laws, you can only sue them if the hospital itself has a policy to flout the language laws.

A crappy employee is just a crappy employee. So long as the hospital works to resolve the situation, there is no grounds for a lawsuit

Just going by news reports, not always a good thing but.
Did the employee harass the patient and family?
Did the employee attempt to intimidate the patient and family?

Just asking is all.
 
gerryh
+2
#5
typical quebecois elitist prick.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Just going by news reports, not always a good thing but.
Did the employee harass the patient and family?

Yes
Quote:

Did the employee attempt to intimidate the patient and family

yes
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Just going by news reports, not always a good thing but.
Did the employee harass the patient and family?
Did the employee attempt to intimidate the patient and family?

Just asking is all.


Yes. But, typically speaking in Canada, hurt feelings when a person acts outside the policies of the business or institution, does not mean you can sue. Contrary to what tv tells us, lawsuits aren't that simple.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Yes. But, typically speaking in Canada, hurt feelings when a person acts outside the policies of the business or institution, does not mean you can sue. Contrary to what tv tells us, lawsuits aren't that simple.

There is another point that has not been considered and is often overlooked.
We work with people that can have major issues going on in their lives- We as co=workers realize that.
So perhaps this fellow was having some significant events going on in his life.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
+4
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

There is another point that has not been considered and is often overlooked.
We work with people that can have major issues going on in their lives- We as co=workers realize that.
So perhaps this fellow was having some significant events going on in his life.

are you speaking about the orderlie? if so, he is dealing with sick people maybe even dying people, and people in mental, emotional or physical crisis... if he is too mentally unstable to handle it he should be removed
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

There is another point that has not been considered and is often overlooked.
We work with people that can have major issues going on in their lives- We as co=workers realize that.
So perhaps this fellow was having some significant events going on in his life.


There may be a reason Goober, but a reason does not directly correlate to an excuse.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

There is another point that has not been considered and is often overlooked.
We work with people that can have major issues going on in their lives- We as co=workers realize that.
So perhaps this fellow was having some significant events going on in his life.


That's for HR to deal with, not patients though. I don't want to sound harsh or jerky but that's life. Suspending him and taking it from there is the right call.
 
gerryh
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

There may be a reason Goober, but a reason does not directly correlate to an excuse.


A reason is never an excuse.


My oldest boys were ADD/ADHD. I told them, and their teachers that ADD/ADHD may be a reason for their behavior, but it is never an excuse.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

A reason is never an excuse.

Absolutely.


Quote:

My oldest boys were ADD/ADHD. I told them, and their teachers that ADD/ADHD may be a reason for their behavior, but it is never an excuse.

Especially with kids, you'd never want to allow them to use that as an excuse, because it could easily become a crutch.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

are you speaking about the orderlie? if so, he is dealing with sick people maybe even dying people, and people in mental, emotional or physical crisis... if he is too mentally unstable to handle it he should be removed

What I am saying is people at times snap- there may be a reason for this, not an excuse, but a mitigating factor.
As Karrie mentions an HR issue, but possible that HR brushed it off. I have seen that on occasion.
Every prov in Canada is cutting positions in Hospitals.
Just broadening the conversation to what is not reported.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

A reason is USUALLY never an excuse.


You know my pedantic mind had to fix that for you
 
gerryh
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SLM View Post

Especially with kids, you'd never want to allow them to use that as an excuse, because it could easily become a crutch.


Yup, and I've seen it happen time and time again. I was told I was too hard on them and that I should take into consideration their "disability". Nope, they didn't want to take drugs, so, learn to control yourself.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Yup, and I've seen it happen time and time again. I was told I was too hard on them and that I should take into consideration their "disability". Nope, they didn't want to take drugs, so, learn to control yourself.

My boy had behavioural issues in primary school, and when I finally told them they needed to get him a counselor, the first thing I said to the counselor was 'he needs tools, not a label'.... the counselor nearly hugged me.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Yup, and I've seen it happen time and time again. I was told I was too hard on them and that I should take into consideration their "disability". Nope, they didn't want to take drugs, so, learn to control yourself.

Then they traveled a hell of a tough road.
 
gerryh
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Then they traveled a hell of a tough road.


Yes they did, and they are doing quite well for themselves now. Unlike some others I know who were "pampered" and "excused" for their behaviour.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Yes they did, and they are doing quite well for themselves now. Unlike some others I know who were "pampered" and "excused" for their behaviour.

And then we have the time spent by the family unit to work thru this as a family.

And pampering by parents is not just for people with ADD/ADHD.

I know nothing about these illnesses.
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

And then we have the time spent by the family unit to work thru this as a family.

And pampering by parents is not just for people with ADD/ADHD.


and there is a major difference between these 2 statements.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+2
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post


And pampering by parents is not just for people with ADD/ADHD.

Too true. I read an interesting article a couple years ago about schizophrenia and how people who were less coddled by their parents, had better outcomes and were more likely to stay on their meds.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

Yes they did, and they are doing quite well for themselves now. Unlike some others I know who were "pampered" and "excused" for their behaviour.

I've know a few teens and young adults that have really poor coping skills because they were overly pampered as kids. It's a horrible thing to do to your kids.

I recall years ago listening to some new age mother to be ramble on about how she wanted her child to have "positive experiences only" and would refrain from using words like "no". She was not going to say no to this child. Can you imagine the trauma that kid probably went through at school the first time someone said no?

(Actually I rather doubt she followed through on that one to be honest, I can't help but think these "professional pre-moms" change their tune when they get the dose of reality that is actually having children!)
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#24
Under Quebec law of Napoleon, the hospital could face a lawsuit maybe.
They don't follow common law like the rest of Canada. They fund their own courts,
And are based on the French code of law.

Some of the difference I know, are
If you give a establishment your jacket in a coat check in Canada.
They are not liable for missing objects or damages when they give it back.
In Quebec the establishment is liable for missing objects or damages.

If you know First aid, and don't stop to help, in Quebec, you could face severe charges,
The law is less severe in the rest of Canada unless you are at work.
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

What I am saying is people at times snap- there may be a reason for this, not an excuse, but a mitigating factor.
As Karrie mentions an HR issue, but possible that HR brushed it off. I have seen that on occasion.
Every prov in Canada is cutting positions in Hospitals.
Just broadening the conversation to what is not reported.

Hm I have a problem with shifting this solely to HR especially if there is a union involved.

To do so, one would have to prove said employee has displayed unstable behaviour in the past. That it has been documented. That his supervisor has spoken to him about it and that he has signed off on it. That he was aware further behavior would result in dismissal. Regardless he still needs to be off the job no?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

And then we have the time spent by the family unit to work thru this as a family.

And pampering by parents is not just done by parents of children with ADD/ADHD. Some parents make pampering an integral part of raising a child.

I know nothing about these illnesses.

Bump- Needed clarification- Apologize for my haste.
This should clarify what I meant to post.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

Hm I have a problem with shifting this solely to HR especially if there is a union involved.

To do so, one would have to prove said employee has displayed unstable behaviour in the past. That it has been documented. That his supervisor has spoken to him about it and that he has signed off on it. That he was aware further behavior would result in dismissal. Regardless he still needs to be off the job no?

In Quebec, Even hair stylist are in a Union.
 
skookumchuck
Free Thinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Yes. But, typically speaking in Canada, hurt feelings when a person acts outside the policies of the business or institution, does not mean you can sue. Contrary to what tv tells us, lawsuits aren't that simple.

Best you check a little closer on the HRC.s in Canada.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuck View Post

Best you check a little closer on the HRC.s in Canada.

feel free to illuminate the issue
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

typical quebecois elitist prick.

Yet you still argue in another thread that we shouldn't let them separate.