When rebutting use what I post. Do not try to read anything into it as you are normally incorrect.
Or is that too difficult. Where did I use the term "Guideline".
Nurse says hospital granted dad’s request for no black nurses near newborn
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
When rebutting use what I post. Do not try to read anything into it as you are normally incorrect.
Or is that too difficult. Where did I use the term "Guideline".
Which crappy law are you referring to? Equality?
nope, everytime it violates another human beings right to be treated with fairness and reason.
I honestly don't even know how to respond to that line.
Yes, those slaves should have stayed put.
Now here I can agree with you as long as you aren't referring to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. (like above)
Which is why I tried to explain to you this isn't faith in our courts, it's the law, it's basic human rights. it's equality, it's a human beings civil right, and the law seeks to protect that basic human right.
You are right it is noble, equality is noble. It had to be fought for. Lives were lost but we got here. We still have a ways to go, but progress is being made.
Our children's children will hopefully never know what inequality means.
The measure of a civilised society is its commitment to and it's ability to uphold the rights and dignity of its citizens.
:wav:THAT is a beautiful line. It is so heavy with truth and moral obligation that it should be taught to children and we should be reminded of our obligation to honour it at all costs.
another perfect line.:wav:
Do we have the right to push our morality on others? Straight off the top I'd say no, we don't. But when someone is making a request of us, a request that if we acquiesce to it would go against our values and morals, is that forcing our morality upon them? Or is it just rejection of them pushing their morality upon us?
Which is why the guy didn't brake any laws making the request, although the hospital likely did when they accommodated the request. The proper response would have been to read the father the hospital's policy regarding discrimination and tell him politely to STFU. He can decide how to proceed from there.
BTW, some women don't want men caring for them. Normally that request is accommodated. Would that also be discrimination?
BTW, some women don't want men caring for them. Normally that request is accommodated. Would that also be discrimination?
They broke the Law. Assigning work, amending schedules based upon a customer’s ( as they pay for health care I used customer)request based upon race is illegal.
Bend it, twist it, use this, that or any type of example not related to this specific case is just plain old reaching.
Why people see it as a customer’s right to demand service based upon color is beyond me.
If we want to go back to the bad old days of public and at times violent discrimination well this is where that logic is headed.
Okay, okay, okay.
I think we are discussing two separate issues here. Namely:
Whether we agree with it or not, my view is that, more likely than not, the father had the right—at the very least—to verbalise this request to the hospital. I base this understanding on my reading of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Now, I should be clear here in that I consider the right of someone to make a request, and the obligation of an establishment to honour it or abide by it, to be two distinct concepts; the right to make a request does not necessarily translate into a right to have it. The father, nevertheless, had the right to make known his preference.
Now, moving onto a bit more abstract level than the First Amendmenet, this is also not to say that the right to state his beliefs does not mean that he has a right to be precluded from any social or business consequences associated with his request. He would have no right in my view, for example, to not then be asked to leave, nor would he have the right to demand service after having made his request, unless it was a service to which he was consitutionally guaranteed.
2. Obligation to Accommodate Request
This, in my view, is entirely at the discretion of the hospital. They had a few options here, and in my own personal opinion, they did not select the correct one. In this case, the hospital chose to agree to the father's request, and in doing so, they broke employment laws in the state by assigning work on the basis of race—there can be no legitimate argument against this. Employment laws were broken, plain and simple, and the nurse is likely to be successful in her suit.
Other than to accede to the father's request and assign work on the basis of race, the hospital also could have elected to (b) refuse the father's request and continue treatment and care in the way that they deemed to be lawful and appropriate, unless and until the father expressly withdraws consent, and then cease all treatment and care; or (c) assume that there was no consent for continued treatment or care, due to an inability to meet the father's conditions of consent, and to cease all treatment and care.
In both of these cases, it would be the right of the father to withdraw consent (or to place conditions on consent) for treatment and care—as distasteful as it would have been—on whatever basis he might choose. There does not exist, however, an obligation on the part of the hospital to make accommodations based on that request. They can continue to provide care and treatment insofar as they are able; and when they are unable to do so under his conditions, then consent no longer exists and he is free to take his family elsewhere for care.
I think we are discussing two separate issues here. Namely:
- Did the father have the right to request race-based accommodation based on his beliefs?
- Did the hospital have the obligation to accommodation the race-driven request?
Whether we agree with it or not, my view is that, more likely than not, the father had the right—at the very least—to verbalise this request to the hospital. I base this understanding on my reading of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Now, I should be clear here in that I consider the right of someone to make a request, and the obligation of an establishment to honour it or abide by it, to be two distinct concepts; the right to make a request does not necessarily translate into a right to have it. The father, nevertheless, had the right to make known his preference.
Now, moving onto a bit more abstract level than the First Amendmenet, this is also not to say that the right to state his beliefs does not mean that he has a right to be precluded from any social or business consequences associated with his request. He would have no right in my view, for example, to not then be asked to leave, nor would he have the right to demand service after having made his request, unless it was a service to which he was consitutionally guaranteed.
2. Obligation to Accommodate Request
This, in my view, is entirely at the discretion of the hospital. They had a few options here, and in my own personal opinion, they did not select the correct one. In this case, the hospital chose to agree to the father's request, and in doing so, they broke employment laws in the state by assigning work on the basis of race—there can be no legitimate argument against this. Employment laws were broken, plain and simple, and the nurse is likely to be successful in her suit.
Other than to accede to the father's request and assign work on the basis of race, the hospital also could have elected to (b) refuse the father's request and continue treatment and care in the way that they deemed to be lawful and appropriate, unless and until the father expressly withdraws consent, and then cease all treatment and care; or (c) assume that there was no consent for continued treatment or care, due to an inability to meet the father's conditions of consent, and to cease all treatment and care.
In both of these cases, it would be the right of the father to withdraw consent (or to place conditions on consent) for treatment and care—as distasteful as it would have been—on whatever basis he might choose. There does not exist, however, an obligation on the part of the hospital to make accommodations based on that request. They can continue to provide care and treatment insofar as they are able; and when they are unable to do so under his conditions, then consent no longer exists and he is free to take his family elsewhere for care.
OK..let's go there........
Would everybody be of the same opinion, if the father was a muslim who would insist on no Jewish doctor or nurse????
I would say that it's his right as a paying customer, (through his insurance) to receive the service he wants.
Would everybody be of the same opinion, if the father was a muslim who would insist on no Jewish doctor or nurse????
I would say that it's his right as a paying customer, (through his insurance) to receive the service he wants.
My opinion would be the same as I articulated above.
The father would have the right to voice his request to the hospital.
The hospital, at its sole and exclusive option (and with the knowledge of the consequences of each), could
- agree to the request, in violation of employment laws;
- refuse the request, and continue treatment unless directed to stop by the father; or
- refuse the request, and stop treatment assuming that conditions of consent are not met.
Did they breach an employment law? She wasn't fired, docked pay, or harassed by her employer. she was merely assigned away from someone who bore her ill will. To me, that makes sense as an employer. Even if I had disliked his request, once I saw swastika tattoos, I still wouldn't place employees I felt might be in the way or harm or harassment from him, on his child's case.
The hospital didn't base its decision on race.
It doesn't make it illegal either.
Funny, I can too. I bet we don't agree on the winner though, lol.
Just how were the black nurses not treated with fairness and reason?
Placing faith in the law isn't misplaced.
You just need to know how it works to get it to work for you.
What's bad behavior?
Abortion as birth control?
Taking controlled substances?
Funny, I heard it as "The measure of a civilized society is how it treats its weakest members".
Welcome to a service based economy.
Did they?
Like I asked before, why is gender and I'll religion, any more acceptable?
Is it really a violation of employment laws?
Bingo!
Last edited:
Their shifts were rotated for their safety (according to the hospital) based upon their colour and without their knowledge or consent. As a employer if you view my safety to be at risk, you must inform me. Then I can make an informed choice about whether I choose to work it or not.Quote: Originally Posted by Sal
nope, everytime it violates another human beings right to be treated with fairness and reason.Just how were the black nurses not treated with fairness and reason?
Why were they not informed about the father's request?
They were not because it was time consuming, and inconvenient. I think the hospital chose what they considered to be the quickest, easiest and least costly way out of a bad situation. When looking at anything corporate follow the money trail. None the less, it was the wrong choice; ethically and morally. It also has a cascade effect because they are dealing with human life and death situations hourly and must at all times be open to scrutiny and prove their ability to make the right choice at the right time. They failed to do so here and it reflects poorly and will open them to intense investigation in multiple areas which is probably a good thing for both staff and patients.
Gender choice is still viewed as an acceptable choice within our medical society when dealing with some procedures. That's what makes it okay. If I am doing a rotation on a wing and am told Mr. Jones is uncomfortable with you assisting with bathing and toiletting due to your sex, I get it. It's due to his personal embarrassment and I will be sensitive to that. It does not mean I can not go near Mr. Jones and assist with his over all care. His request is not based upon hate.
this didn't have to be a hospital decision, they should have ignored the request then the ball would have been in the bigot's court.
Nurses shifts are changed all the time without their consent, for any number of reasons.
Our friend is a nurse, she's a farm girl, if they have a large or unruly patience on her floor, she's always scheduled for the morning bed change.
Is that discrimination?
What makes his hang ups any different than the bigots?
They're both irrational.
I checked with several articles, and I couldn't find one that mentioned anything about shift rotation or change because of that incident...
Could you post a link to something I have missed?
The only thing I could find was that Black nurses were not assigned to that patient!
Just a shuffling of assignement...not shifts.