NationStates Jolt Archive

On a straight note: I think she is looking for a law suit which she will likely get I am arguing on principle.

Such speculation is meaningless, I could equally suggest that the nurse herself could be trying to provoke a court case to provide an even more public arena to promote her views or satisfy a martyr complex. It reminds me of the case of the schoolgirl who insisted her beliefs were being discriminated against because she was suspended from school for wearing a 'silver ring thing' ring. The school simply suspended her because wearing any jewellery not allowed. Turned out when it got to court that her parents were the leaders of the 'silver ring thing' in the UK and were using her to promotre their beliefs.

I see. So the nurse who just can't keep her religion to herself for a few hours a day is all pure and innocent has only the kindest and least selfish motives of all, but anyone who suggests that her behavior is not appropriate for her job (which is all this patient did) is just selfishly looking to get money?

It's nice to see that, as eager as you are to think the best of people who believe similarly to you, you are just as willing to think the worst of those who don't.

No I think you misunderstood me I think the nurse is trying to get paid.

No I think you misunderstood me I think the nurse is trying to get paid.
Oh, I see. Well, don't you think her best bet for getting paid would be to avoid being fired and do what her bosses tell her to?

No I think you misunderstood me I think the nurse is trying to get paid.

The nurse would get paid anyway.

What does that have to do with suddenly deciding to turn a sickroom into a mission?

I saw this story. Insane.

She asked if the patient would like her to pray for her. The patient said no thanks. The nurse leaves it there.

Why isn't that the end of the story?

^ sanity in an insane world

Lawsuit -> potential millions of dollars
or
Work -> let's say hundreds of dollars

I too question her motives but on principle that is another matter.

Lawsuit -> potential millions of dollars
or
Work -> let's say hundreds of dollars

I too question her motives but on principle that is another matter.

Not in the UK

Originally Posted by Philosopy View Post
I saw this story. Insane.

She asked if the patient would like her to pray for her. The patient said no thanks. The nurse leaves it there.

Why isn't that the end of the story?

On principle this is all that needed to be done.

The nurse would get paid anyway.

What does that have to do with suddenly deciding to turn a sickroom into a mission?

get paid = frivolously seeking a lawsuit or settlement
I am implying that she is grandstanding or soapboxing. Sorry New Yorkism there I guess.

Originally Posted by Philosopy View Post
I saw this story. Insane.

She asked if the patient would like her to pray for her. The patient said no thanks. The nurse leaves it there.

Why isn't that the end of the story?

On principle this is all that needed to be done.
Yes, I'm sure it all would have worked out much better if everybody kept their mouth shut so that nurse could carry on running hers in direct contravention of her employer's orders. It's so much easier to break the rules when nobody turns you in for it.

Also, if you are so certain (in principle, whatever you mean by that) that the nurse is just angling for a lawsuit settlement, then what makes you think she'd want everyone to keep quiet and let her carry on her generous praying thing?

Arguably that is what the prayer for speedy recovery etc.


The specifics of it are irrelevent.


You can not infer by the patient saying no that they are not Chrisitan, not religious, or anything else.


Which, again, is irrelevent. If they say 'no', you've changed the dynamic of the carer-patient relationship. It doesn't matter WHY they say no.


See what I mean the patient didn't even feel offended. PC to the extreme. The organization is tilting at a perceived "wrong doing"


The patient didn't feel offended, and didn't ACTUALLY register a complaint. Another employee raised the point that this nurse - who had ALREADY had issues for handing out religious material - was once again allowing religion to intrude in her treatment.

That's not about 'PC' - that's about professional standards, and repeating behaviour that has already been pointed out as unacceptable.

If the nurse REALLY can't stop herself... get a different job, where it doesn't matter. Priest, maybe.


Then you have the right to say no. Without explanation! You should not be pressured.


Which is bull, sorry. Children at school are vulnerable to teachers. Patients are vulnerable to their medical providers... these are the reasons why those controlling bodies have SPECIAL codes of conduct for dealing with every day concerns like relationship dynamics. So - doctors don't sleep with patients, and teachers don't sleep with pupils. That kind of thing.

Why do you have to make rules like that? Because the dynamic perverts the usual ability to choose... to say no.


Depends on the talker. I would rather have them pray for me. On a wise guy note you could say yes but please do so in silence, please.

How about them Knicks...Yankees...Giants. I would not be offended though.


You'd rather have the witch cast a spell on you?


I would say please don't make human sacrifices to anyone. A simple no thanks would do though.

In THIS situation. But you're not comfortable with my offer... and I'm not even your carer.

get paid = frivolously seeking a lawsuit or settlement
I am implying that she is grandstanding or soapboxing. Sorry New Yorkism there I guess.

It's the NHS - the firivilous lawsuit thing is irrelevent.

I'm confused... who is looking for a settlement? I'm pretty sure you've worded it both ways, now. And it doesn't really make sense wither way - much less, in correlation with your talk of how this is a PC problem.

The specifics of it are irrelevent.



Which, again, is irrelevent. If they say 'no', you've changed the dynamic of the carer-patient relationship. It doesn't matter WHY they say no.

I am agreeing with you here.


The patient didn't feel offended, and didn't ACTUALLY register a complaint. Another employee raised the point that this nurse - who had ALREADY had issues for handing out religious material - was once again allowing religion to intrude in her treatment.

That's not about 'PC' - that's about professional standards, and repeating behavior that has already been pointed out as unacceptable.

If the nurse REALLY can't stop herself... get a different job, where it doesn't matter. Priest, maybe.

I guess the question does an organization have the right to ask you to do that.


Which is bull, sorry. Children at school are vulnerable to teachers. Patients are vulnerable to their medical providers... these are the reasons why those controlling bodies have SPECIAL codes of conduct for dealing with every day concerns like relationship dynamics. So - doctors don't sleep with patients, and teachers don't sleep with pupils. That kind of thing.

Why do you have to make rules like that? Because the dynamic prevents the usual ability to choose... to say no.

If she broke the law that is one thing. Sleeping with a minor is against the law. Sleeping with a patient is against the law and medical oath.


You'd rather have the witch cast a spell on you?
Prayer = spell same thing. Just say no thanks.


In THIS situation. But you're not comfortable with my offer... and I'm not even your carer.

I would prefer you asking first. I am comfortable with your offer in the sense it is a representation of your beliefs. I do not have to accept your beliefs nor practice them. I would expect the same in return.

I guess the question does an organization have the right to ask you to do that.


Yes.


If she broke the law that is one thing. Sleeping with a minor is against the law. Sleeping with a patient is against the law and medical oath.


Breaking the rules doesn't have to be breaking 'the law'.


Prayer = spell same thing. Just say no thanks.


Why say no? I thought you were okay with it?


I would prefer you asking first. I am comfortable with your offer in the sense it is a representation of your beliefs. I do not have to accept your beliefs nor practice them. I would expect the same in return.

Now imagine you are actually ina position in which you are in some manner beholden to me. Now how do you feel?

I guess the question does an organization have the right to ask you to do that.

Why would it not ? Offering alternative, non-hospital approved methods of healing is obviously not a desireable thing.

It's the NHS - the firivilous lawsuit thing is irrelevent.

I'm confused... who is looking for a settlement? I'm pretty sure you've worded it both ways, now. And it doesn't really make sense wither way - much less, in correlation with your talk of how this is a PC problem.

The nurse likely.

That is why the nurse took this issue to the newspapers/media to attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion first.

NHS is National Health Service -> So an even better reason to sue them. The nurse could have let the matter drop instead she took action. She is trying to claim her rights have been violated. Why else would you go to the paper? She is saying "This stinks my rights have been violated, what do you think?"

By her own admission she said "Some patients welcomed the idea" I am sure she could furnish those patients names and such upon request and has likely already contacted them.

The nurse likely.

That is why the nurse took this issue to the newspapers/media to attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion first.

NHS is National Health Service -> So an even better reason to sue them. The nurse could have let the matter drop instead she took action. She is trying to claim her rights have been violated. Why else would you go to the paper? She is saying "This stinks my rights have been violated, what do you think?"

By her own admission she said "Some patients welcomed the idea" I am sure she could furnish those patients names and such upon request and has likely already contacted them.

You seem to have the whole thing already storyboarded in your mind, the way you are making suppositions based on what you think might have happened or be happening away from the public eye. Do you have inside knowledge, or are you psychic? Or do you think we should accept your arguments on the basis of your fantasies and speculations about the situation?

Following is an article describing how an NHS nurse offered to pray for one of her patients, the patient told her 'No, thank you' and the nurse finished her duties then left. Later the patient brought this up with another staff member and consequently, the nurse has been suspended without pay whilst an investigation is conducted.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

So then, would you or have you been offended by somebody wishing to pray for you as per their religious beliefs? Are you just fine with it or do you consider it an insult?

It takes one hell of a bitter person to be offended by something someone offers when they believe it is a good and noble thing to do for someone..

(1) If the patient wanted to be prayed for, she would have asked for it.
(2) Given the intensity of this discussion, we should have a poll! *nudges OP*

Yes.

Breaking the rules doesn't have to be breaking 'the law'.

I say at My Company head wear must not be worn for any reason. That is the rule. You say but I wear hat as sign of my faith.

I say I don't care those are the rules. The "rules" are wrong and that person should sue. If you can provide a "good" reason such as stuff may fall on your head so you have to wear this hardhat that is a different matter. This I don't think was a safety issue. It seems like a policy issue. Those can and should be changed if they break the law. At one time it was the rule that no Blacks are allowed in the clubhouse etc. or all black have to sit at the back of the bus.

This is one of those issues.


Why say no? I thought you were okay with it?

I don't have to tell you why. I personally would have no problem with telling you why either. Likewise I would not have a problem with a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc. offering to pray for me. In fact please do. If I do not believe in God all that is required is no or No thank you. If you choose you can tell her why.



Now imagine you are actually in a position in which you are in some manner beholden to me. Now how do you feel?

If nurse is trying to refuse me care or give me care I don't want then I have an issue.

Would you like your pillow fluffed? No
Would you like me to freshen your drink? No
Would you like to say a prayer with me? No, I just want to be left alone.

Fine end conversation. Leave.


If the nurse said I give extra special care to Christians then you have an issue.

The nurse likely.

That is why the nurse took this issue to the newspapers/media to attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion first.

NHS is National Health Service -> So an even better reason to sue them. The nurse could have let the matter drop instead she took action. She is trying to claim her rights have been violated. Why else would you go to the paper? She is saying "This stinks my rights have been violated, what do you think?"

By her own admission she said "Some patients welcomed the idea" I am sure she could furnish those patients names and such upon request and has likely already contacted them.

Again - I don't think you've a very realistic view of the UK.

In the US, maybe this would be a big ticket. In the US, you'd get a big response. In the US, a medical care establishment might even throw money at this to make it go away.

But, it just doesn't tend to happen like that, 'over there'.

What this nurse can REALISTICALLY expect - is that she might have some leverage put onto the local Trust to get her reinstated speedily. If she's reinstated. If the advisory panel doesn't decide that she went too far over the line. That's the UK for you.

Again - I don't think you've a very realistic view of the UK.

I don't think he has a very realistic view of reality..

It takes one hell of a bitter person to be offended by something someone offers when they believe it is a good and noble thing to do for someone..

So, if I believe it would be a good and nobel thing to euthanise you...

I honestly don't see what the problem is with the nurse asking a patient if she wants a prayer said on her behalf. As far as I can see the only people who would be offended by it are people looking to be offended.

One person asking this question might not seem much to you, but if you allow one nurse to do this you then have to give every other belief system an equal opportunity to annoy the patient as well. The patient is there to receive medical treatment not to be a captive audience for people trying to push their religious beliefs.

Did anyone else think of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYXKFuFk4F4) when reading this post? Maybe it's just me.

I say at My Company head wear must not be worn for any reason. That is the rule. You say but I wear hat as sign of my faith.

I say I don't care those are the rules. The "rules" are wrong and that person should sue. If you can provide a "good" reason such as stuff may fall on your head so you have to wear this hardhat that is a different matter. This I don't think was a safety issue. It seems like a policy issue. Those can and should be changed if they break the law. At one time it was the rule that no Blacks are allowed in the clubhouse etc. or all black have to sit at the back of the bus.


First - NHS. We're not talking about Blessed's Discount Data.

Second - The 'good reason' is that care providers and ministers are different roles.

Third - it doesn't break the law. That means it shouldn't be changed, right?


I don't have to tell you why.


I'm confused.

You said that spells and prayer were the same thing.

You're saying you'd be okay with prayer... but you said you'd say no to the spell. Hypocrisy?


If nurse is trying to refuse me care or give me care I don't want then I have an issue.

Would you like your pillow fluffed? No
Would you like me to freshen your drink? No
Would you like to say a prayer with me? No, I just want to be left alone.

Fine end conversation. Leave.


Exactly.

End of conversation and leave.

These are housebound patients. She might be their only contact.

She's a predator, abusing her position.

I honestly don't see what the problem is with the nurse asking a patient if she wants a prayer said on her behalf. As far as I can see the only people who would be offended by it are people looking to be offended.

I honestly don't see what the problem is with white people publically urinating on black people. As far as I can see the only people who would be offended by it are people looking to be offended.

I honestly don't see what the problem is with white people publically urinating on black people. As far as I can see the only people who would be offended by it are people looking to be offended.

Are you seriously trying to equate asking someones permission to pray on their behalf and then accepting their refusal (according to the information we currently have) and publically pissing on minorities?

I'm assuming that in your hypothetical there is no consent, otherwise I'd have no problem with that either and agree with you that the only people who'd be offended are those looking for offense.

Are you seriously trying to equate asking someones permission to pray on their behalf and then accepting their refusal (according to the information we currently have) and publically pissing on minorities?

I'm assuming that in your hypothetical there is no consent, otherwise I'd have no problem with that either and agree with you that the only people who'd be offended are those looking for offense.

I'm saying that the 'it's your fault for getting offended' line is bullshit.

Some people like other people praying for them. Some black people like white people to piss on them. I'd say it's safer, in both cases, to wait for them to ASK you, rather than just starting in and then blaming THEM for getting offended.

Did anyone else think of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYXKFuFk4F4) when reading this post? Maybe it's just me.

Awesome! Very funny!

I'm saying that the 'it's your fault for getting offended' line is bullshit.

And I strongly disagree. Tolerance works both ways, just as I expect strongly religious people to accept things they don't like such as homosexuality, abortion and drawings of Muhammed, I also expect secular people to accept the some people are religious and may, occasionally, talk to you about religion. This nurse didn't tie the patient down and tattoo a cross on her forehead, she asked her if she would like a prayer said for her and then accepted her refusal.

Some people like other people praying for them. Some black people like white people to piss on them. I'd say it's safer, in both cases, to wait for them to ASK you, rather than just starting in and then blaming THEM for getting offended.

And nothing ever happens and conversations never start.

So, if I believe it would be a good and nobel thing to euthanise you...

:rolleyes:

First - NHS. We're not talking about Blessed's Discount Data.

Second - The 'good reason' is that care providers and ministers are different roles.

Third - it doesn't break the law. That means it shouldn't be changed, right?

I think it violates her freedom of expression. It is at least a violation in that regard. Whether it is a law or not I leave to those of you who live there.


I'm confused.

You said that spells and prayer were the same thing.

You're saying you'd be okay with prayer... but you said you'd say no to the spell. Hypocrisy?

No mostly because spells often involve fire which is bad in an oxygen envirnoment for non-spiritual reasons. In seriousness why should I have to explain. Even if I say I don't believe in that Mumbo Jumbo. It still not offensive.



Exactly.

End of conversation and leave.

These are housebound patients. She might be their only contact.

She's a predator, abusing her position.

You think she does this just so she can pray with people. I think she does this, both her job and the prayer, to help people. No malice is intended or implied.

How would this not be the same as "Do you like sports?"



Because asking about sports is an impersonal small talk kind of question. Asking anything about religion is a very personal thing that could cause offence. It is no different than asking if you can see the contents their check book or if they like to take it up the ass. Sure, you can just say no or bug off, but the asking is still offensive. Deeply personal questions should never be asked in professional situations.

Now I know that many christians like to believe that religion is a public affair to be screamed from the roof tops and openly discussed. But for a great many many it is not. Deal with it.

It actually turns out that the nurse has a history of promoting her religion in the line of her work when visiting ill patients, she was on BBC Radio2 this afternoon and she said herself that in the past she had been told not to give out 'Faith Cards' to patients she was visiting.

If ^ this is true, then I have no problem, and it is deserved....

If this was an isolated incident however, and she wasnt handing out propaganda...then Id say they were being unfair to the Nurse...

Because asking about sports is an impersonal small talk kind of question. Asking anything about religion is a very personal thing that could cause offence. It is no different than asking if you can see the contents their check book or if they like to take it up the ass. Sure, you can just say no or bug off, but the asking is still offensive. Deeply personal questions should never be asked in professional situations.

Now I know that many christians like to believe that religion is a public affair to be screamed from the roof tops and openly discussed. But for a great many many it is not. Deal with it.

And people need to realize there is a difference between "Would you like me to pray for you." and "You will burn in hell for not being [insert religion here]!!"

And nothing ever happens and conversations never start.

So? You're there to do your job, not "start a conversation." If your client wants a conversation, it is their prerogative (and theirs alone) to start one. If you want to start a conversation, go out to the public square, online, or to a gathering of your friends and start one. Don't try to force a personal conversation on one of your customers. It's not your job.

And people need to realize there is a difference between "Would you like me to pray for you." and "You will burn in hell for not being [insert religion here]!!"

But to many people there is not. So it is best to avoid it all together and just do the job you are being paid to do.

And regardless, deeply personal questions should never be asked in professional situations if they are irrelevant to the service being purchased. Even if it is well meaning.

So? You're there to do your job, not "start a conversation." If your client wants a conversation, it is their prerogative (and theirs alone) to start one. If you want to start a conversation, go out to the public square, online, or to a gathering of your friends and start one. Don't try to force a personal conversation on one of your customers. It's not your job.

Bedside manner isn't part of a medical professionals job?

Bedside manner isn't part of a medical professionals job?

Religion isn't an acceptable part of bedside manner if the patient didn't ask for it. You can be kind and caring without offering to pray or perform other rituals over the patient. But if they ask for it, by all means do so.

I know this is the UK but you seem to believe in what we believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience.


This is a free speech issue.

I know this is the UK but you seem to believe in what we believe in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience.


This is a free speech issue.

No it isn't. The UK doesn't have anywhere near as strong protections of free speech as the US and I doubt you even find any cases where employees sued their employer for wrongful dismissal and won based on a breach of the 1st amendment.

Bedside manner isn't part of a medical professionals job?

If "House MD" has taught me anything its that this is a common misconception.

Religion isn't an acceptable part of bedside manner if the patient didn't ask for it. You can be kind and caring without offering to pray or perform other rituals over the patient. But if they ask for it, by all means do so.

So doctors/nurses can never talk to a patient about anything the patient may feel uncomfortable about?

But to many people there is not. So it is best to avoid it all together and just do the job you are being paid to do.

The people who think there isn't need to be launched into space. I'm not even religious and I don't get all huffy when someone asks me if they mind if they pray for me, I may refuse but I feel honored by the question. Now if they say "Then you will burn in hell!!" I'll take offense; the woman in the article was being a for lack of a better word a bitch.


And regardless, deeply personal questions should never be asked in professional situations if they are irrelevant to the service being purchased. Even if it is well meaning.

That we can both agree to, but what I can't agree to is people's overblown reactions to this nonsense.

If "House MD" has taught me anything its that this is a common misconception.

That and it's never lupus.

Except that time it was but we don't talk about that.

If "House MD" has taught me anything its that this is a common misconception.

Yes, because Dr. House is a real person.

Religion isn't an acceptable part of bedside manner if the patient didn't ask for it. You can be kind and caring without offering to pray or perform other rituals over the patient. But if they ask for it, by all means do so.

You nailed it. Only speak when spoken to. Don't offer opinion unless asked. So we have robots in lab coats? Great!

Don't talk about the weather she might be offended

Don't talk about her family she may think I am nosy or being critical

Pretty much anytime you use the words "might be offended" it is politically correct.

This is a free speech issue.

No, it is not. It is an issue of professionalism (or lack there of). No one has told her she can't pray. She can pray all she wants. However, there always consequences to ones speech (you aren't guaranteed freedom from the consequences of your speech). In this case, she may loose her job because her speech was unprofessional. They are not telling her she can't pray, they are telling her that she must maintain professional conduct while on duty. If he refuses to do so, they have every right to let her go.

It would be no different if she said fuck every third word. She would be warned that it was unacceptable to do so while on duty. If she persisted in doing so she would be let go. She could still say fuck, just not while on the job. It would not be a free speech issue and neither is the prayer issue. It's the same thing.

So doctors/nurses can never talk to a patient about anything the patient may feel uncomfortable about?

If it is unrelated to their care or the business at hand, and they didn't ask to talk about it, that is correct.

If it is unrelated to their care or the business at hand, and they didn't ask to talk about it, that is correct.

That is a very restrictive position. You've basically restricted conversation between doctor and patient to "how do you feel?", "does it hurt when I do this?" and "are you allergic to this?".

The people who think there isn't need to be launched into space. I'm not even religious and I don't get all huffy when someone asks me if they mind if they pray for me, I may refuse but I feel honored by the question. Now if they say "Then you will burn in hell!!" I'll take offense; the woman in the article was being a for lack of a better word a bitch.



That we can both agree to, but what I can't agree to is people's overblown reactions to this nonsense.

Perhaps. It may not be your opinion or mine, but it is their opinion. And they are every bit as entitled to it as you and I are to ours. So it is best to try to avoid all the histrionics on both sides to begin with.

Perhaps. It may not be your opinion or mine, but it is their opinion. And they are every bit as entitled to it as you and I are to ours. So it is best to try to avoid all the histrionics on both sides to begin with.

The fact is that its going to happen and people need to grow up and accept the facts.

You nailed it. Only speak when spoken to. Don't offer opinion unless asked. So we have robots in lab coats? Great!

Don't talk about the weather she might be offended

Don't talk about her family she may think I am nosy or being critical

Pretty much anytime you use the words "might be offended" it is politically correct.


Ignoring the hyperbole, that is correct. The patient directs all nonessential conversation.

Having spent a lot of time in the hospital and around medical professionals I know from experience that most of them do so. Even innocuous questions and small talk can become very tedious and irritating if you hear them over and over several time a day over many months. Stress slows healing. So it is best to follow the patients lead. If they want to talk about something, great! If not, don't foist it on them. Believe me, they have probably heard it many many many time already and are sick to death of it. And that way lies madness. :p

Just remember, the patient always comes first. Leave your needs at the door.

That is a very restrictive position. You've basically restricted conversation between doctor and patient to "how do you feel?", "does it hurt when I do this?" and "are you allergic to this?".

Unless the patient (aka the paying customer/boss) asks for more, that is correct.

Many patients deal with medical professionals all day and just want to hurry up and get through the current procedure without all the annoying small talk. And that is their right.

The fact is that its going to happen and people need to grow up and accept the facts.

Indeed, the staff need to grow up and accept responsibility for their improper conduct.

Unless the patient (aka the paying customer/boss) asks for more, that is correct.

That's bollocks.

People are people, asking medical professionals to never talk about anything with their patients other than purely medical subject would never work, especially for home visit nurses.

To say that emotional/interpersonal things are no part of a nurse's job is complete bull shit. There are so many crappy nurses out there, that for one that cares to be punished for trying to do a good job, is just bull shit. I'm not really mad at the patient, since there are always a few assholes out there. But how dare you defend this injustice. As for the old 'don't enforce your beliefs' argument, look at the world. EVERYBODY tries to influence others, consciously or not. Whether it is the television show with busty babes or the religious fanatic or the rock song criticizing president Bush or the ad telling guys they need to get big or even the professors who say there is no God. To specifically stop religious people from sharing their ideas is against the ideal of free speech and only reveals the weakness of people who try to do so.

Many patients deal with medical professionals all day and just want to hurry up and get through the current procedure without all the annoying small talk. And that is their right.

That may be true. And all they need to do is say no thank you if the medical professional starts talking. Which is what this patient did and the nurse dropped it.

What is your problem again?

Indeed, the staff need to grow up and accept responsibility for their improper conduct.

And the other person needs to grow up and stop crying every time someone mentions god so I guess they are both even.

That's bollocks.

People are people, asking medical professionals to never talk about anything with their patients other than purely medical subject would never work, especially for home visit nurses.

Please read my earlier posts more carefully. I did not say they could never talk about anything else. I only said that they shouldn't talk about anything the patient doesn't bring up first. Patient (customer) first! Fortunately most medical professionals understand and already do this. I'm sorry that so many are unable to grasp the concept. But such is life. Have fun arguing about it. ;)

Please read my earlier posts more carefully. I did not say they could never talk about anything else. I only said that they shouldn't talk about anything the patient doesn't bring up first. Patient (customer) first! Fortunately most medical professionals understand and already do this. I'm sorry that so many are unable to grasp the concept. But such is life. Have fun arguing about it. ;)

Not in my experience.

The best doctors I've ever seen have talked about all kinds of shit while they treated me, most of them doing a stirling job of keeping my mind off things when I was really scared.

To say that emotional/interpersonal things are no part of a nurse's job is complete bull shit. There are so many crappy nurses out there, that for one that cares to be punished for trying to do a good job, is just bull shit. I'm not really mad at the patient, since there are always a few assholes out there. But how dare you defend this injustice. As for the old 'don't enforce your beliefs' argument, look at the world. EVERYBODY tries to influence others, consciously or not. Whether it is the television show with busty babes or the religious fanatic or the rock song criticizing president Bush or the ad telling guys they need to get big or even the professors who say there is no God. To specifically stop religious people from sharing their ideas is against the ideal of free speech and only reveals the weakness of people who try to do so.

Christ, did you even read the damn article before posting this?

Can we please re-state some facts for the umpteenth time this thread:

1) The patient in this instance made an informal report to the Nurse's boss. The patient wasn't "offended".
2) The nurse has already received a prior warning for doing the same thing.

This is not a Free Speech issue, and for god's sake stop trying to apply US law to a UK issue. The nurse is not employed to offer spiritual counsel; there's plenty of other services readily available for that. The NHS is, however, a secular body, and its staff are in breach of their employment if they don't act in according with that.

Not in my experience.

The best doctors I've ever seen have talked about all kinds of shit while they treated me, most of them doing a stirling job of keeping my mind off things when I was really scared.

I'd need to check with my brother on this one, but I'm pretty sure there's guidelines in the NHS for what doctors are allowed to talk to patients about, unless the patient brings it up first. Religion being pretty high on the list.

Christ, did you even read the damn article before posting this?

Can we please re-state some facts for the umpteenth time this thread:

1) The patient in this instance made an informal report to the Nurse's boss. The patient wasn't "offended".
2) The nurse has already received a prior warning for doing the same thing.

This is not a Free Speech issue, and for god's sake stop trying to apply US law to a UK issue. The nurse is not employed to offer spiritual counsel; there's plenty of other services readily available for that. The NHS is, however, a secular body, and its staff are in breach of their employment if they don't act in according with that.

Including its religious staff?

Did anyone else think of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYXKFuFk4F4) when reading this post? Maybe it's just me.
I didn't, but now that I have, I'm glad. :D Yeah, I've definitely been there.

Including its religious staff?

Acting on behalf of the NHS? Yes.

Or are you talking about the clergy services?

And nothing ever happens and conversations never start.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Bedside manner isn't part of a medical professionals job?
There is such a thing as bad bedside manner, you know.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I for one would be terribly bored.

Acting on behalf of the NHS? Yes.

Or are you talking about the clergy services?

I'm talking about the clergy services.

Although the whole subject is a bit daft considering the NHS is the governmental health body of of a government whos head of state is the protector of the church of England.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yes it is.

This site wouldn't exist for a start.

You nailed it. Only speak when spoken to. Don't offer opinion unless asked. So we have robots in lab coats? Great!

Don't talk about the weather she might be offended

Don't talk about her family she may think I am nosy or being critical

Pretty much anytime you use the words "might be offended" it is politically correct.
You know what I find amusing? The way you've co-opted "politically correct" to mean BAD. "Politically correct" is a bullshit phrase that never meant anything. You using it to try to automatically discredit any complaint anyone makes against you or ideas you like does not make it less bullshitty.

There is such a thing as bad bedside manner, you know.

Of course. But from what I can tell for the stories presented, this nurse has had 2 complaints in 24 years of service.

I'd call that pretty good for anyone in the public sector.

That is a very restrictive position. You've basically restricted conversation between doctor and patient to "how do you feel?", "does it hurt when I do this?" and "are you allergic to this?".
You say that like it's a bad thing, too.

Doctors and nurses are not my friends. I don't go to them for idle chit-chat. I go to them to discuss my medical condition and treatments. Except, of course, for when they are my friends, and then chit-chat isn't really an awkward issue. But I see no reason why strangers, who I am paying to do a job, should take up my time, essentially goofing off by discussing sports, politics, or religion.

I'm talking about the clergy services.

Well, for one, the clergy services have to be specifically requested. They don't roam the halls of corridors asking if patients "Wanna pray?".

I guess the other point would be that they're not acting in a strictly medical capacity, more like an extra service that's exempt from the normal rules.

Although the whole subject is a bit daft considering the NHS is the governmental health body of of a government whos head of state is the protector of the church of England.

It's one of our little quirks. Like the Queen in Parliament. When has anything the British government done been confined to your strict "daft" criteria? :p

Well, for one, the clergy services have to be specifically requested. They don't roam the halls of corridors asking if patients "Wanna pray?".

I want to see marauding bands of clergy at hospitals. Then, we could hire GodPolice, whose job it is to chase down and capture the marauding bands of clergy. If caught, they have to sit in solitary for an hour, and then they're released.

This could be a fun game.

That's bollocks.

People are people, asking medical professionals to never talk about anything with their patients other than purely medical subject would never work, especially for home visit nurses.
People are indeed people, and I suppose some of them are completely incapable of exercising even the slightest self-restraint when they get that urge to start flapping their lips. But that's why THIS person reserves the right to demand a different caregiver, one who knows how and when to shut up.

Including its religious staff?
You are aware, of course, that the nurse is not "religious staff."

I want to see marauding bands of clergy at hospitals. Then, we could hire GodPolice, whose job it is to chase down and capture the marauding bands of clergy. If caught, they have to sit in solitary for an hour, and then they're released.

This could be a fun game.

All I can imagine is Terry Jones, dressed as a nun, being chased by a dozen policemen.

So yes, I'm intrigued by your views and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I for one would be terribly bored.
I find the small talk of strangers infinitely more boring that either (A) the subject of the work at hand, or (B) my own (silent) thoughts.

Yes it is.

This site wouldn't exist for a start.
The difference between the OP story and this thread is that (A) we don't have to actually hear each other droning on in our annoying monotones, and (B) we can skip over each other's really boring posts, or even put whole posters on ignore. You can't do that with some asshat who won't shut up in the real world.

All I can imagine is Terry Jones, dressed as a nun, being chased by a dozen policemen.

So yes, I'm intrigued by your views and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I think I saw that episode.

I think I saw that episode.

To be fair, it could have been any one of several episodes.

Terry sure does like this nun outfit...

I think I should point out that I've had plenty of fun with doctors and nurses, but all my in office conversations, even if they were casual and joking, were about the medical work actually being done -- like the time two doctors and I got into a whole thing about what that extra thing on my thyroid sonogram was. They kept making guesses as to what it was, and I kept yelling at them to make up their minds before I made them up for them. (It turned out not to be lupus.)

I've also had medical procedures done in total silence.

And there have also been doctors/nurses who have made me glad the cellphone was invented, so that if I ever get stuck with them or their ilk again, I can spend all my time talking to someone -- anyone -- else while they do whatever it is I'm paying them to do. Sometimes it seems me being on the phone is the only thing that will shut some people up.

The point is, it is perfectly possible to be sociable and positive and still stay on the nice safe topic of the task at hand. There is no reason whatsoever for a doctor or nurse to start rambling about some this-or-that that is interesting to them, just because I'm sick or naked or strapped to a gurney and can't run away.

To be fair, it could have been any one of several episodes.

Terry sure does like this nun outfit...
Well, it suits him.

And I strongly disagree. Tolerance works both ways, just as I expect strongly religious people to accept things they don't like such as homosexuality, abortion and drawings of Muhammed, I also


I know at least one strongly religious homosexual, and I know lots of not-a-strong-religious people that 'don't like abortion'...


...expect secular people to accept the some people are religious and may, occasionally, talk to you about religion.


A parallel to having to tolerate homosexuals, abortion and Mohammed in your fantasy religious society... is that we have to put up with your churches, your holybooks, and your bloody bakesales.


This nurse didn't tie the patient down


Yes, she did.

Watch the interview on the page the article is on - she only visits homebound 'audiences'.


And nothing ever happens and conversations never start.

This wasn't a conversation - this was preaching.

She's been in trouble for that kind of thing before.

:rolleyes:

Yeah. That's what I thought.

I think it violates her freedom of expression. It is at least a violation in that regard. Whether it is a law or not I leave to those of you who live there.


Violating freedom of expression is a hokey excuse. There is no absolute 'right' to free speech.


No mostly because spells often involve fire which is bad in an oxygen envirnoment for non-spiritual reasons. In seriousness why should I have to explain. Even if I say I don't believe in that Mumbo Jumbo. It still not offensive.


You don't 'have to explain'.

I'm asking you to explain your hypocritical position.

You're saying you'd be fine with the prayer. You're saying you think objecting to the prayer is wrong. You're saying that spells and prayers are basically the same thing... and you're saying you'd REFUSE the spell.

Hypocrisy.


You think she does this just so she can pray with people. I think she does this, both her job and the prayer, to help people. No malice is intended or implied.

I think she does this just so she can prey on people. I'm sure she means well, in her head, but she's engineering her work to be an opportunity for her ministry.

And people need to realize there is a difference between "Would you like me to pray for you." and "You will burn in hell for not being [insert religion here]!!"

Why?

I know at least one strongly religious homosexual, and I know lots of not-a-strong-religious people that 'don't like abortion'...

They were examples of current issues that don't exactly go down well with hard core religionistas.

A parallel to having to tolerate homosexuals, abortion and Mohammed in your fantasy religious society... is that we have to put up with your churches, your holybooks, and your bloody bakesales.

My churches, holybooks and bakesales? I'm an athiest chief.

Yes, she did.

Watch the interview on the page the article is on - she only visits homebound 'audiences'.

Ah yes, she binds them by accepting their first refusal. How dare she the hell-bitch?

This wasn't a conversation - this was preaching.

She's been in trouble for that kind of thing before.

Prayer cards to a man who accepted one are not exactly pushing her religion on others.

You nailed it. Only speak when spoken to. Don't offer opinion unless asked. So we have robots in lab coats? Great!

Don't talk about the weather she might be offended

Don't talk about her family she may think I am nosy or being critical

Pretty much anytime you use the words "might be offended" it is politically correct.

Politics, sex and religion are pretty much taboo subjects for conversation, anyway. That's just good manners and social convention. Don't act so hurt.

Now - if the religion had a medical connection (like you were treating stigmata, I guess) then fair game.

I get prayed for every day (Father-in-laws a Pastor. Go figure), and I take it in good grace. Why people are offended when someone is doing something they think will help, and might just have good wishes toward them, I don't understand. People should save their animosity for the xtians that will harangue and preach at you, not the Christians that pray for you.

People are indeed people, and I suppose some of them are completely incapable of exercising even the slightest self-restraint when they get that urge to start flapping their lips. But that's why THIS person reserves the right to demand a different caregiver, one who knows how and when to shut up.

You mean one who drops it when asked to? Like this one?

That is a very restrictive position. You've basically restricted conversation between doctor and patient to "how do you feel?", "does it hurt when I do this?" and "are you allergic to this?".

That's why they're called 'medical professionals' rather than 'medical buddies'.

You mean one who drops it when asked to? Like this one?
No, I mean one who waits for me to strike up an off-topic conversation, and who, if I don't, keeps her mouth shut.

You are aware, of course, that the nurse is not "religious staff."

Yes I am, I was pointing out the error made by the poster I was responding to in assuming all members of staff have the adhere to a secular code.

I'm a little unsure that anymember of the NHS have to adhere to a secular code.

I think it was unusually courteous of the nurse to ask first.

It seems a tenet of many Christian religions that they have the right to pray for whomever and whatever they please without first determining what anyone else wants in the matter.

I don't follow any religion, but it seems to me the Pagans have it right, you don't do any work for anyone without their knowledge and permission.

The Christian nurse (whose religion doesn't require permission from the recipient of their prayers) asked permission - so why should she be punished for this?

And the other person needs to grow up and stop crying every time someone mentions god so I guess they are both even.

For real?

People who have no choice but to let you in to their homes, should shut up and let you talk about whatever you want, in THEIR homes?

The difference between the OP story and this thread is that (A) we don't have to actually hear each other droning on in our annoying monotones, and (B) we can skip over each other's really boring posts, or even put whole posters on ignore. You can't do that with some asshat who won't shut up in the real world.

Show this nurse wounldn't shut up when asked to.

Yes I am, I was pointing out the error made by the poster I was responding to in assuming all members of staff have the adhere to a secular code.

I'm a little unsure that anymember of the NHS have to adhere to a secular code.
And I was pointing out that, regardless of whether they made a mistake, the rules that govern religious staff are irrelevant to this story.

Show this nurse wounldn't shut up when asked to.
She opened her mouth at all. That's once too often.

Including its religious staff?

Do you mean the actual religious persons they would contact for ministry, if it were requested?

Or do you mean staff who also just happen to be religious? If the latter - yes, they are expected to represent the (secular) NHS.

And I was pointing out that, regardless of whether they made a mistake, the rules that govern religious staff are irrelevant to this story.

Are they?

What exactly are the rules governing staff regarding medical conversations in the NHS? A government agency in country that doesn't practise seperation of church and state?

Of course. But from what I can tell for the stories presented, this nurse has had 2 complaints in 24 years of service.

I'd call that pretty good for anyone in the public sector.

I didn't see that information anywhere.

I saw that she's been reprimanded for an issue like THIS one before (with no idea how many complaints were made.. it could be hundreds before it earned a reprimand) and no information about any other complaints she might have earned for bad service, etc.

Do you mean the actual religious persons they would contact for ministry, if it were requested?

Or do you mean staff who also just happen to be religious? If the latter - yes, they are expected to represent the (secular) NHS.

Show the seperation of church and state in the UK.

I think it was unusually courteous of the nurse to ask first.

It seems a tenet of many Christian religions that they have the right to pray for whomever and whatever they please without first determining what anyone else wants in the matter.

I don't follow any religion, but it seems to me the Pagans have it right, you don't do any work for anyone without their knowledge and permission.

The Christian nurse (whose religion doesn't require permission from the recipient of their prayers) asked permission - so why should she be punished for this?
I'm of the opinion that she should be punished for doing something that

A) her employer expressly told her not to do;

B) potentially violates the rules that restrict what the organization she works for is allowed to do; and

C) is not related to what she is being paid to do.

I don't mind at all if Christians want to pray for me or anyone else. I just don't want to be involved in it. That includes being put on the spot of having to give or refuse permission for them to do it. Let them do whatever they like, just leave me out of it.

She opened her mouth at all. That's once too often.

In your opinion.

Are they?

What exactly are the rules governing staff regarding medical conversations in the NHS? A government agency in country that doesn't practise seperation of church and state?
Oh, so now are you backpedaling from earlier posts in which you did not dispute that medical staff and religious staff are different? That point was made and you did not object to it at all. Now you are?

Are you denying that the nursing staff and the religious staff (whatever that might be) are different groups within NHS?

If so, are you prepared to show that they are one and the same?

If not, are you prepared to show how these two different groups nevertheless share the same religious duties?

Yes? Lay it on me.

No? Don't even bother going down that road.

They were examples of current issues that don't exactly go down well with hard core religionistas.


Except that I know hardcore religious homosexuals, and the issues aren't limited to religious people. It's a complete red herring.


My churches, holybooks and bakesales? I'm an athiest chief.


'your' in the context of 'your fantasy scenario'.


Ah yes, she binds them by accepting their first refusal. How dare she the hell-bitch?


You do make up a lot of stuff.... how do you know she accepts first refusals? This could be the ninth time she'd asked the same question.

But they are already 'bound' when she arrives, and apparently, that's the way she likes it.


Prayer cards to a man who accepted one are not exactly pushing her religion on others.

Did he ASK for it?

If not - then yes, it is EXACTLY pushing her religion on others.

In your opinion.
Yeah, exactly. You asked, and I answered.

Show the seperation of church and state in the UK.

Why? It's irrelevent. The NHS isn't the UK, and the UK isn't the NHS.

Oh, so now are you backpedaling from earlier posts in which you did not dispute that medical staff and religious staff are different? That point was made and you did not object to it at all. Now you are?

Are you denying that the nursing staff and the religious staff (whatever that might be) are different groups within NHS?

If so, are you prepared to show that they are one and the same?

If not, are you prepared to show how these two different groups nevertheless share the same religious duties?

Yes? Lay it on me.

No? Don't even bother going down that road.

It was a post to show that what the poster had said was inaccurate.

What are the rules regarding what conversations may be had between medical professionals and patients within the NHS?

In your opinion.And in the opinion of her employer. There are many others who share that opinion, of course.

Why? It's irrelevent. The NHS isn't the UK, and the UK isn't the NHS.

The NHS is a government agency.

Just like your public schools system is a government agency and so comes under the seperation of church and state.

Yeah, exactly. You asked, and I answered.

That wasn't what I asked.

But nice dodge.

It was a post to show that what the poster had said was inaccurate.

What are the rules regarding what conversations may be had between medical professionals and patients within the NHS?
You tell us, since you seem to be such an expert on it.

Here, I'll start you off with a guess: The rules do not allow the doctor or nurse to promote their religions during the course of their work.

You know what I based that guess on? The fact that that is exactly what this nurse was first reprimanded and then suspended for doing.

And in the opinion of her employer. There are many others who share that opinion, of course.

And many who don't.

Given I actully pay national insurance, I think my opinion hould carry at least a little weight.

That wasn't what I asked.

But nice dodge.
Oh, I see, you've lost track of the argument already.

A) I stated an opinion. I said medical professionals need to know when to shut up.

B) You asked me to show how this story was relevant to my opinion. You asked me to show that this person didn't know when to shut up.

C) I did that. I said that she should never have started talking in the first place.

See how that all flows from my initial statement of opinion? All caught up now? Good.

You tell us, since you seem to be such an expert on it.

Here, I'll start you off with a guess: The rules do not allow the doctor or nurse to promote their religions during the course of their work.

You know what I based that guess on? The fact that that is exactly what this nurse was first reprimanded and then suspended for doing.

I've claimed no expertise at any point in this thread. Pedal your crap else where.

You claimed this was against the rules. Back it up.

Oh, I see, you've lost track of the argument already.

A) I stated an opinion. I said medical professionals need to know when to shut up.

B) You asked me to show how this story was relevant to my opinion. You asked me to show that this person didn't know when to shut up.

C) I did that. I said that she should never have started talking in the first place.

See how that all flows from my initial statement of opinion? All caught up now? Good.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

I took "know when to shut up" to mean know when to shut up and not when to not talk in the first place.

You claimed this was against the rules. Back it up.Are you using some definition of "the rules" other than the stated policy of her employer?
She was reprimanded before: if it was not clear before that it was against the rules, certainly it was after. Now she's been suspended. What part of this are you missing?

I've claimed no expertise at any point in this thread. Pedal your crap else where.

You claimed this was against the rules. Back it up.
You mean "peddle", and my "crap" is something called sarcasm, because your lack of knowledge about this is obvious even to a person who doesn't live in the UK.

Another thing that's obvious is that you are not keeping track of the conversation. Too busy yelling at people, maybe? If you had been keeping track you would know that the rule I have been referring to is the one that clearly exists according to the story in the OP -- i.e. the rule against promoting religion on the job.

All my other references to rules have been made conditionally on what the rules actually are.

The only rule I have made definite statements about is the one we are told about in the OP.

Did you happen to read the OP, by the way?

I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

I took "know when to shut up" to mean know when to shut up and not when to not talk in the first place.
I like people to start with their mouths shut up and keep them that way unless absolutely necessary. Knowing when to shut up, therefore, includes knowing when to stay shut up.

Given I actully pay national insurance, I think my opinion hould carry at least a little weight.
Very little. If you want off-topic conversations with your medical personnel, you are free to initiate them. You have no right to impose this attitude on people who do not share it.

And many who don't.

Given I actully pay national insurance, I think my opinion hould carry at least a little weight.

It does. Something like one sixty-millionth of the collective opinion.

You mean "peddle", and my "crap" is something called sarcasm, because your lack of knowledge about this is obvious even to a person who doesn't live in the UK.

Another thing that's obvious is that you are not keeping track of the conversation. Too busy yelling at people, maybe? If you had been keeping track you would know that the rule I have been referring to is the one that clearly exists according to the story in the OP -- i.e. the rule against promoting religion on the job.

All my other references to rules have been made conditionally on what the rules actually are.

The only rule I have made definite statements about is the one we are told about in the OP.

Did you happen to read the OP, by the way?

Ouch, that hurts here, and here.

The OP is a single story for the Beeb that I read while you were probably in bed. I've seen no post containing the rules regarding religious conversations between medical staff and patients and even the primary care trust spokeman doesn't state it was a breach of rules.

Hence my putting the onus on you to show she breached the rules.

Ouch, that hurts here, and here.

The OP is a single story for the Beeb that I read while you were probably in bed. I've seen no post containing the rules regarding religious conversations between medical staff and patients and even the primary care trust spokeman doesn't state it was a breach of rules.

Hence my putting the onus on you to show she breached the rules.
Did you see the part where she was reprimanded for doing this before?

The NHS is a government agency.

Just like your public schools system is a government agency and so comes under the seperation of church and state.

There is no formal separation of church and state. But, by the same token - there is no longer the formalised association of church and state of a hundred years ago.

Government agencies are expected to minimise discrimination - which acts as an INformal separation of church and state.

In the NHS - this is a partial success. There are formal chaplains to provide ministry if needed, but they are predominantly Christian. Like I said, a partial success.

What this nurse is doing is stepping over the line. She's discriminating, by offering a non-secular ministry... which she MIGHT be able to get away with if she were part of the FORMAL ministry... but, she's not.

Provided the evidence cited is correct, I'd suggest the punishment is a little disproportionate; a quiet, informal word of admonition might have sufficed, and saved the NHS the opprobrium of the media again. Not that it doesn't fully deserve it, inefficient tax-eating monolith it is.

Provided the evidence cited is correct, I'd suggest the punishment is a little disproportionate; a quiet, informal word of admonition might have sufficed, and saved the NHS the opprobrium of the media again. Not that it doesn't fully deserve it, inefficient tax-eating monolith it is.
I agree that suspension was too stiff pending the investigation into whether she should be disciplined, but like I said in another post, we don't know if NHS is required to suspend anyone who is facing disciplinary measures. They may have had no choice, but I think they should review that, if that's the case.

I agree that suspension was too stiff pending the investigation into whether she should be disciplined, but like I said in another post, we don't know if NHS is required to suspend anyone who is facing disciplinary measures. They may have had no choice, but I think they should review that, if that's the case.

NHS policy and protocol is generally abysmal and cautious to the point of draconian; frankly, irrespective of whether the punishment was within normal practice or an exceptional measure, it was still disproportionate.

That and it's never lupus.

Except that time it was but we don't talk about that.
lol awesome :D

Yes, because Dr. House is a real person.
Clearly why would anyone assume otherwise?

NHS policy and protocol is generally abysmal and cautious to the point of draconian; frankly, irrespective of whether the punishment was within normal practice or an exceptional measure, it was still disproportionate.
I'll take your word for that. But that being the case, one wonders why this nurse continued doing what she had been told explicitly not to do.

I'll take your word for that. But that being the case, one wonders why this nurse continued doing what she had been told explicitly not to do.

The abstract obligations of faith should, for the religious, transcend a mere job.

NHS policy and protocol is generally abysmal and cautious to the point of draconian; frankly, irrespective of whether the punishment was within normal practice or an exceptional measure, it was still disproportionate.

No, not really.

This is a 'second offence' situation, after all. We don't know what - if any - reprimand was delivered in the first offence. I don't think 'draconian' is really a very accurate depiction of NHS best practise anyway... when did 'err on the side of caution' (which is the basic SOP, summed up in half a dozen words) qualify as 'draconian'?

The abstract obligations of faith should, for the religious, transcend a mere job.

Clearly not - if she then went ahead and complained she was being poorly treated. If faith is beyond mortal law, you follow it and you take your lumps - you don't follow it in contravention of mortal laws, and then bitch about it.

Clearly not - if she then went ahead and complained she was being poorly treated. If faith is beyond mortal law, you follow it and you take your lumps - you don't follow it in contravention of mortal laws, and then bitch about it.

Welcome to British Christianity; watery.

The abstract obligations of faith should, for the religious, transcend a mere job.
But it doesn't transcend the complaining about possibly losing the mere job, apparently.

But it doesn't transcend the complaining about possibly losing the mere job, apparently.

See above.

Also, I doubt anybody with genuine rleigious conviction would doubt that their cause is correct, and the stance and actions of the NHS wrong.

Following is an article describing how an NHS nurse offered to pray for one of her patients, the patient told her 'No, thank you' and the nurse finished her duties then left. Later the patient brought this up with another staff member and consequently, the nurse has been suspended without pay whilst an investigation is conducted.


Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

So then, would you or have you been offended by somebody wishing to pray for you as per their religious beliefs? Are you just fine with it or do you consider it an insult?
No, I wouldn't.... and if I didn't want them to pray for me and they dropped it, I would not have complained of them.

See above.

Also, I doubt anybody with genuine rleigious conviction would doubt that their cause is correct, and the stance and actions of the NHS wrong.
So in other words, "real religious people" don't believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and rendering unto the Lord that which is the Lord's? They don't believe in accepting the reactions to their actions in a society where not everyone believes as they do? Instead, they believe they should get to do whatever they want and bitch about it whenever things don't go perfectly hunkydory for them?

Because that's what it sounds like.

See above.

Also, I doubt anybody with genuine rleigious conviction would doubt that their cause is correct, and the stance and actions of the NHS wrong.

No True Scotsman? Seriously?

Welcome to British Christianity; watery.

Can't have it both ways.

Either she did what she did because her cause transcends her job... or not. The one makes a lie of the other.

No it isn't. The UK doesn't have anywhere near as strong protections of free speech as the US and I doubt you even find any cases where employees sued their employer for wrongful dismissal and won based on a breach of the 1st amendment.

Wow you are correct. I had no idea how weak Free Speech legislation is in the UK.

So then, would you or have you been offended by somebody wishing to pray for you as per their religious beliefs? Are you just fine with it or do you consider it an insult?

I simply cannot fathom how one could possibly find something like that offensive. I find it highly disturbing that someone can be suspended without pay for this.

Violating freedom of expression is a hokey excuse. There is no absolute 'right' to free speech.

Wow I had no idea how little they have. Sorry I take it back. I guess that is why I am over here.



You don't 'have to explain'.

I'm asking you to explain your hypocritical position.

You're saying you'd be fine with the prayer. You're saying you think objecting to the prayer is wrong. You're saying that spells and prayers are basically the same thing... and you're saying you'd REFUSE the spell.

Hypocrisy.


I suppose it might be Hypocrisy, but it is my right as patient to refuse. What I am trying to say is I am not offended by you asking to put a spell on me, though.


I think she does this just so she can prey on people. I'm sure she means well, in her head, but she's engineering her work to be an opportunity for her ministry.

I question her motives as well. She was looking to get her name in the paper. I have no idea. She could I suppose also believe in what she is offering. She may have actually thought it would help.

So in other words, "real religious people" don't believe in rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and rendering unto the Lord that which is the Lord's? They don't believe in accepting the reactions to their actions in a society where not everyone believes as they do? Instead, they believe they should get to do whatever they want and bitch about it whenever things don't go perfectly hunkydory for them?

Because that's what it sounds like.

Render unto Caesar is a reference to money. Give the money to Caesar, give they praise to the Lord. They were trying to trap Jesus by getting him to say "Don't pay your taxes"

However we are suppose to "suffer" however I for one am surprised that it happened in the UK.

I think in this case it was a good idea to go to the court of public opinion. For one reason and perhaps the only to clear her name. To make sure everyone knows it is because she is a Christian and, not for lack of care, malpractice or dereliction of duty.

For what it is worth I apologize for questioning her motives.


I can see it now she is standing in line at the "Unemployment office"

the surely woman behind the desk says Next....

Hi I here to make a claim for unemployment

Name:

She replies

What were you fired for?

I prayed for someone without permission.

Render unto Caesar is a reference to money. Give the money to Caesar, give they praise to the Lord. They were trying to trap Jesus by getting him to say "Don't pay your taxes"
Another excuse for inconsistency? In giving money to non-Christians (taxes to a secular government), you're supposed to follow non-religious rules, but in taking money from non-Christians (a paycheck from a secular employer), you don't have to? How convenient for you.

However we are suppose to "suffer" however I for one am surprised that it happened in the UK.
Suffering? You call that suffering? Being burned for your beliefs is suffering. Being imprisoned, or being denied the same rights as any other citizen is suffering. Being asked to follow the same rules as other employees is not suffering.

And what's so surprising about this story occurring in the UK?

I think in this case it was a good idea to go to the court of public opinion. For one reason and perhaps the only to clear her name. To make sure everyone knows it is because she is a Christian and, not for lack of care, malpractice or dereliction of duty.

For what it is worth I apologize for questioning her motives.


I can see it now she is standing in line at the "Unemployment office"

the surely woman behind the desk says Next....

Hi I here to make a claim for unemployment

Name:

She replies

What were you fired for?

I prayed for someone without permission.
:confused:

What fantasies are you spinning now? Do you have something real to refer to?

I simply cannot fathom how one could possibly find something like that offensive. I find it highly disturbing that someone can be suspended without pay for this.
it depends on how its done, doesnt it? perhaps you can imagine a way in which you might be pissed that a nurse asked you if you wanted her to pray for you.

Yeah. That's what I thought.

When you say something so silly there is no other response.

Why?

Why what? Why do people need to realize the difference or why is there a difference?

For real?

People who have no choice but to let you in to their homes, should shut up and let you talk about whatever you want, in THEIR homes?

You are really good at trying to put words into people's mouths do you know that? You make yourself out to be more and more of the kind of person I couldn't even try to tolerate. I never said anyone has to listen to a thing I or anyone else says, I AM saying people need to respect each other just a little bit.

The nurse asked if she'd like her to pray for her, she said no, conversation ended, no hard feelings on the side of the nurse, nothing trying to be forced on anyone. The other lady calls the nursing service or whatever the hell it is and now the nurse is loosing her job; this is people overreacting over something that amounts to a whole great big steaming smelly pile of nothing at all.
The bottom line here is people need to start respecting other people's viewpoints and stop getting offended over things as inane as a magical sky fairy that some people think will make their death more pleasant.

Another excuse for inconsistency? In giving money to non-Christians (taxes to a secular government), you're supposed to follow non-religious rules, but in taking money from non-Christians (a paycheck from a secular employer), you don't have to? How convenient for you.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

No, no your quote was from the Bible so I was questioning how it was relevant. In the case you quoted The Jews were trying to trap Jesus into making a bad statement against the government at the time.

This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about whether it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the state when asked, that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them, or that the demands of the state are non-negotiable



I have no idea about the rest of that I am not exactly sure what you are saying. You are funny though.


Suffering? You call that suffering? Being burned for your beliefs is suffering. Being imprisoned, or being denied the same rights as any other citizen is suffering. Being asked to follow the same rules as other employees is not suffering.

And what's so surprising about this story occurring in the UK?

I thought the UK had more rights than it does. I guess the V for Vendetta stuff is partially true. Scary stuff if you ask me. Since there is not guarantee they can fire for anything you may have said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

No, no your quote was from the Bible so I was questioning how it was relevant. In the case you quoted The Jews were trying to trap Jesus into making a bad statement against the government at the time.
Jesus was a Jew, you know.

This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about whether it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the state when asked, that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them, or that the demands of the state are non-negotiable
Which is exactly what I meant in my statement.

I have no idea about the rest of that I am not exactly sure what you are saying. You are funny though.
I'm saying that your interpretation of the rules is self-serving.

I thought the UK had more rights than it does. I guess the V for Vendetta stuff is partially true. Scary stuff if you ask me. Since there is not guarantee they can fire for anything you may have said.
Oh, I see. You're still insisting on that "her religious rights were violated" stuff.

:confused:

What fantasies are you spinning now? Do you have something real to refer to?



Better yet at the unemployment office in the UK. The nurse can say "It was against company policy to pray for patient and I offered to pray with someone"


Oh my word get out the rack and the cat of Nine tails.

A good slogan "NHS against company policy to pray" or "NHS your last defense in Cultural and Diversity protection"

What a crock

Wow I had no idea how little they have. Sorry I take it back. I guess that is why I am over here.


It's never been a problem in my experience - you have to bear in mind that the heart of the English legal system and 'constitution' (such as it is) is centuries of best practise and gentleman's agreements. It's remarkably flexible, actually.


I suppose it might be Hypocrisy, but it is my right as patient to refuse. What I am trying to say is I am not offended by you asking to put a spell on me, though.


But it IS different to me asking if you mind me praying for you? Even though they are conceptually the same?

Better yet at the unemployment office in the UK. The nurse can say "It was against company policy to pray for patient and I offered to pray with someone"


Oh my word get out the rack and the cat of Nine tails.

A good slogan "NHS against company policy to pray" or "NHS your last defense in Cultural and Diversity protection"

What a crock
You might want to consider switching to decaf.

Render unto Caesar is a reference to money. Give the money to Caesar, give they praise to the Lord. They were trying to trap Jesus by getting him to say "Don't pay your taxes"

However we are suppose to "suffer" however I for one am surprised that it happened in the UK.

It's not just about money. The instruction was to look on the coin, wasn't it? The face of Caesar is on the money - it's earthly. It's not a thing of heaven. I think you'd have to really squint to try to see that as being JUST about currency.

You might want to consider switching to decaf.

Nah I am easily malleable I bend out of shape easily.

It's not just about money. The instruction was to look on the coin, wasn't it? The face of Caesar is on the money - it's earthly. It's not a thing of heaven. I think you'd have to really squint to try to see that as being JUST about currency.


Well said. Thank you Grave! Jesus was sort of saying "Pay what they tell you too. I am not getting involved..."

Better yet at the unemployment office in the UK. The nurse can say "It was against company policy to pray for patient and I offered to pray with someone"


Oh my word get out the rack and the cat of Nine tails.

A good slogan "NHS against company policy to pray" or "NHS your last defense in Cultural and Diversity protection"

What a crock

And yet the UK has far fewer problems with racial antagonism, diversity, and cultural assimilation.

Part of it's because there's 60 million people in a box about the size of a small car, so you can't get too pissed off at each other without getting tossed overboard. Kind of. Part of it is the traditional 'British' culture of quitting your whining and just getting the fuck on with it. Part of it is that all our polite little conventions actually... work.

Be sarcastic about it, if you will. But there are a lot of lessons the US could learn from the UK.

Well said. Thank you Grave! Jesus was sort of saying "Pay what they tell you too. I am not getting involved..."
Pay what they tell you to...

But not do what they tell you to if you're going to do their jobs and take their money?

When you say something so silly there is no other response.


Until now, I hadn't realised irony had a sound. Right now, it's deafening.


Why what? Why do people need to realize the difference or why is there a difference?


Why do non-Christians have to put up with any form of other (Christian) people imposing on them?


You are really good at trying to put words into people's mouths do you know that? You make yourself out to be more and more of the kind of person I couldn't even try to tolerate. I never said anyone has to listen to a thing I or anyone else says, I AM saying people need to respect each other just a little bit.

The nurse asked if she'd like her to pray for her, she said no, conversation ended, no hard feelings on the side of the nurse, nothing trying to be forced on anyone. The other lady calls the nursing service or whatever the hell it is and now the nurse is loosing her job; this is people overreacting over something that amounts to a whole great big steaming smelly pile of nothing at all.
The bottom line here is people need to start respecting other people's viewpoints and stop getting offended over things as inane as a magical sky fairy that some people think will make their death more pleasant.

The 'other lady' didn't call the nursing service. The nurse was suspended pending investigation. I haven't heard anyone is losing their job yet.

Regarding your 'complaint' that I was putting words into your mouth...

Texoma was talking about 'the staff' (here, referring to the evangelising nurse) needing to 'grow up and accept responsibility for their improper conduct'

You said: "And the other person needs to grow up and stop crying every time someone mentions god so I guess they are both even."

Now - since Texoma was talking about the nurse, the 'other person' can safely be assumed to be the housebound old woman.

So, breaking your argument down into logical bites - you said: "And the other person" (i.e. the old, housebound lady to whom the nurse was both attending AND attempting to minister) "needs to grow up and stop crying" (which, it would appear, is a rather acerbic way of saying she shouldn't complain) "every time someone mentions god" (so - she shouldn't complain about the visiting attendant preaching to her).

I don't think I put words into your m outh at all.

You seem to be arguing that the old woman is in the wrong, for complaining about this evangelising nurse... in an incident which happened in her own house.

It's never been a problem in my experience - you have to bear in mind that the heart of the English legal system and 'constitution' (such as it is) is centuries of best practise and gentleman's agreements. It's remarkably flexible, actually.

I guess if you don't need a ruling then it is okay. What would stop any big organization of telling you what you could and could not say? This is question to be clear, Americans are somewhat suspicious of government. We are most protective of our freedom of speech and then come firearms and then comes ......I dunno actually


But it IS different to me asking if you mind me praying for you? Even though they are conceptually the same?

No that was not the issue. If she said she was a Shaman witchdoctor and she has much success in the past. It would not have made any difference to me.

She is asking would you like to pray together. I say no end of story. No offense

She says She wants to cast a "super healing spell" I say no and still no offense taken.

Likewise if the opposite

If I said yes please pray for me. Still no offense

If i said yes please cast your super healing spell. Still no offense. I am ssuming it was safe to do in the residence then proceed.


Spells are "prayers" with other artifacts used such candles, powders, liquids, symbolic whatever. generally but not always they have a pagan root. Unless we are talking about "pull a card from the deck, now put it back. Your card was the Ace of Spades". In which case it is slight of hand and tricks.

If the spell required human sacrifice or blood rituals then may have other problems. Again if I were interested I might ask. What is involved in this Spell? If not I would just say no thank you.

Pay what they tell you to...

But not do what they tell you to if you're going to do their jobs and take their money?


Then we are talking the other side of the equation render on to Heaven what is heaven's, which is saying prayers. Heaven over rules most earthly concerns the key here is most. He is not saying to try and evade your taxes is the point.

No to be clear you do not have to do what they tell you to on earth even if you are taking their money for it. You answer to a much higher power. Of course you risk getting fired which she did and I hope she is rewarded for doing so. She did do her duty with respect to the church.

Then we are talking the other side of the equation render on to Heaven what is heaven's, which is saying prayers. Heaven over rules most earthly concerns the key here is most. He is not saying to try and evade your taxes is the point.

No to be clear you do not have to do what they tell you to on earth even if you are taking their money for it. You answer to a much higher power. Of course you risk getting fired which she did and I hope she is rewarded for doing so. She did do her duty with respect to the church.
That's exactly what I thought. It's also what I called self-serving. While I'm at it, I may as well call it duplicitous and hypocritical, too, since I'm thinking it. Sorry. What she should have done was quit her job after first being informed that she would not be allowed to promote her religion and do it at the same time. If her faith was so much more important to her, she should have sacrificed the job for her faith's sake. What she did instead was use her employers unfairly and she is now trying to play the victim for it.

I think they ought keep their delusions to themselves.
Eh, hope is a delusion.
I think one offered in kindness doesn't have anything wrong with it. If the nurse followed up by asking if there were any particular deity that was of import to the patient, that perhaps someone could be hooked up with them (like a chaplain) at their behest.
Not a case, however, where it's some kind of exclusive religious delusion.

That's exactly what I thought. It's also what I called self-serving. While I'm at it, I may as well call it duplicitous and hypocritical, too, since I'm thinking it. Sorry. What she should have done was quit her job after first being informed that she would not be allowed to promote her religion and do it at the same time. If her faith was so much more important to her, she should have sacrificed the job for her faith's sake. What she did instead was use her employers unfairly and she is now trying to play the victim for it.

The wisdom of the decision to take this course of action was her own. Although if you listen to her she sounds Genuine of course this could be faked. I am sure I would not have even offered but hey that is me. Evangelizing is somewhat of a problem in this day and age. People are generally less than respective.

By the way good word: duplicitous

That gets you +1

I don't think it is hypocritical She did as she said she would do. She was reprimanded for giving out literature even though it was accepted. This is why I cry "PC". Who was offend. I think the only one who was offended was NHS.

No that was not the issue. If she said she was a Shaman witchdoctor and she has much success in the past. It would not have made any difference to me.

She is asking would you like to pray together. I say no end of story. No offense


Why are you saying no to prayers from the Shaman, when you'll accept them happily, from the christian NURSE...?


Spells are "prayers" with other artifacts used such candles, powders, liquids, symbolic whatever.


Artifacts are either optional, irrelevent, or symbolic - as they are with Christianity.

If the spell required human sacrifice or blood rituals then may have other problems.


Why? Christian magic requires human sacrifice, blood rituals, and cannibalism.

Well, I would want the nurse sacked if she made an offer to pray for me. Obviously, she shouldn't be doing the job if she can't keep her personal delusions and her professional requirements separate. If I as a teacher, offered to pray for my students I would most likely be suspended at the least and sacked on the spot with a drop in my suitability rating preventing me from teaching again.

And rightly so. In a secular institution, or when working for a government department, you are expected to remain objective. You are the representative of that government. And therefore, should not be privileging one delusion over another in the way that this nurse was.

and I only got to page 20 before I quit reading so apologies if this is repeating previous points.

Why are you saying no to prayers from the Shaman, when you'll accept them happily, from the christian NURSE...?


I think this depends on the individual. If you are asking would I like a shaman to pray over or with. You know that answer. I would have trouble with my faith in that regard, not against the offer. In my case I would say that is a nice gesture, but I can't I am christian. case closed. i am not offened by the offer.


Artifacts are either optional, irrelevent, or symbolic - as they are with Christianity.


No argument from this corner.


Why? Christian magic requires human sacrifice, blood rituals, and cannibalism.

As the witchdoctor you might run into legal troubles with this practice. Even if the patient requested such. Now we are talking safety, murder, disrespect for the dead etc. In which case you would likely be violating other laws.

Unless you are trying to compare this to the wine and bread in communion. In which case those would be artifacts. Nothing more than symbolic representations of something else.

Wine + water = blood
bread = Flesh/Body

In any event is still leads you down the same road. I might say I don't want you to kill someone to make me better. I might say I don't want you to use real human blood, even if it came from a blood bank as it makes me squeamish.

I think this depends on the individual. If you are asking would I like a shaman to pray over or with. You know that answer. I would have trouble with my faith in that regard, not against the offer. In my case I would say that is a nice gesture, but I can't I am christian. case closed. i am not offened by the offer.


Why can't Christians pray with people of other faiths?

Unless you are trying to compare this to the wine and bread in communion. In which case those would be artifacts. Nothing more than symbolic representations of something else.

Wine + water = blood
bread = Flesh/Body


Jesus was crucified (according to the scripture) at Passover. He is the unblemished Lamb of God.

Read your book of Exodus.

If you don't believe that the bread literally transubstantiates into the flesh of Jesus, and the wine literally becomes his blood - you're getting nothing from that ritual, and you're not going to be saved by grace. You HAVE TO eat the lamb for the Passover ritual, or you're not passed over.

If communion is symbolic, it's hollow. If you don't actually eat Jesus, God won't pass over your sins.

I guess if you don't need a ruling then it is okay. What would stop any big organization of telling you what you could and could not say?<snip nonsense>

Well, oddly, she wasn't forced into working for the NHS. There's no conscription into the service. If she doesn't like being told that during working hours, she can't offer religious services to patients, then she's perfectly free to find a job where she is.

The NHS is covered by the same anti-discrimination legislation as every other employer in the UK; this doesn't violate any of its terms. Her freedom of speech and freedom of thought, conscience and religion are both protected by the European Convention of Human Rights (Articles 10 and 9, respectively); neither is an absolute right, and again they haven't been violated.

*snipped*

Evangelizing is somewhat of a problem in this day and age. People are generally less than respective.

By the way good word: duplicitous

That gets you +1


So...you just gave somebody a point for using a good word...right after saying that "People are generally less than respective."

It would be awesome if you did it on purpose and are simply a very patient and subtle Poe.

What would happen if we now would pray for the patient?

Wow you are correct. I had no idea how weak Free Speech legislation is in the UK.

If you're looking for legislation, you won't find it. You're coming at it from the point of view of American politics; our system is completely different.

We have no written constitution; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's simply made up from different pieces of legislation and conventions rather than a single document. It gives us a huge degree of flexibility in approaching things. In contrast, I find the American reverence of their written constitution, to the extent that ridiculous things can remain legal in this day and age and you have huge arguments over the placement of a comma, somewhat bizarre.

I don't think anyone who has ever been the victim of a tabloid sting would complain that there isn't enough free speech in this country. In fact, it's usually just the opposite - the difficulty is a lack of a right to privacy, not speech.

What would happen if we now would pray for the patient?

You would be dis-respecting her wishes for you not to pray for her it would seem.

If you're looking for legislation, you won't find it. You're coming at it from the point of view of American politics; our system is completely different.

We have no written constitution; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's simply made up from different pieces of legislation and conventions rather than a single document. It gives us a huge degree of flexibility in approaching things. In contrast, I find the American reverence of their written constitution, to the extent that ridiculous things can remain legal in this day and age and you have huge arguments over the placement of a comma, somewhat bizarre.

I don't think anyone who has ever been the victim of a tabloid sting would complain that there isn't enough free speech in this country. In fact, it's usually just the opposite - the difficulty is a lack of a right to privacy, not speech.

Indeed.

Why do non-Christians have to put up with any form of other (Christian) people imposing on them?

They don't, but the nurse shut up when she said no, that should be the end of the whole thing right there, instead it got taken to an extreme because the same people who cry out for their rights to not be religious are the same people shitting on other people's rights to BE religious and vice versa. Frankly I'm sick of both and will defend the person who is currently being shit on, in this case the nurse. She never imposed anything, she politely asked if she could pray for the woman because as she see's things it is a NICE thing to do. I'd have said no, but I;d be flattered.



Regarding your 'complaint' that I was putting words into your mouth...

Texoma was talking about 'the staff' (here, referring to the evangelising nurse) needing to 'grow up and accept responsibility for their improper conduct'

You said: "And the other person needs to grow up and stop crying every time someone mentions god so I guess they are both even."

Now - since Texoma was talking about the nurse, the 'other person' can safely be assumed to be the housebound old woman.

So, breaking your argument down into logical bites - you said: "And the other person" (i.e. the old, housebound lady to whom the nurse was both attending AND attempting to minister) "needs to grow up and stop crying" (which, it would appear, is a rather acerbic way of saying she shouldn't complain) "every time someone mentions god" (so - she shouldn't complain about the visiting attendant preaching to her).

I don't think I put words into your m outh at all.

You seem to be arguing that the old woman is in the wrong, for complaining about this evangelising nurse... in an incident which happened in her own house.

The woman was not evangelizing, she offered a prayer. There is a big difference there. Evangelizing is when you say "You should be like me". She said "Would you like me to pray for you." that's nothing like an attempt to force your beliefs on someone. You are putting words into my mouth; if I meant to say that I would have said that. Why the hell can't people just live and let live? As I stated before, someone asks me if they mind if they pray for me I tell them no, and it usually ends there, nobody is upset. This got taken to levels that should have never even existed because of non-religious people looking to cause a big stink out of something that in the end does not matter. If we as a race spent half as much time trying to solve world hunger, or colonize another planet as we did trying to piss each other off than things would be a whole fuck of a lot better.

They don't, but the nurse shut up when she said no, that should be the end of the whole thing right there, instead it got taken to an extreme because the same people who cry out for their rights to not be religious are the same people shitting on other people's rights to BE religious and vice versa. Frankly I'm sick of both and will defend the person who is currently being shit on, in this case the nurse. She never imposed anything, she politely asked if she could pray for the woman because as she see's things it is a NICE thing to do. I'd have said no, but I;d be flattered.

And that's your personal choice. However, kindly read the thread, as it has been stated several times that the person complaining was actually a religious person who felt that the nurse's behaviour may offend someone. It would certainly offend me if my nurse or doctor offered to pray for me. As a teacher I would likely face the sack if I offered to pray that my families' crops came in well, or that their muster went without a hitch. That is because I have no right as an employee of the state to promote or divulge my religious viewpoint. I would feel imposed upon if someone offered to pray for me.




The woman was not evangelizing, she offered a prayer. There is a big difference there. Evangelizing is when you say "You should be like me". She said "Would you like me to pray for you." that's nothing like an attempt to force your beliefs on someone. You are putting words into my mouth; if I meant to say that I would have said that. Why the hell can't people just live and let live? As I stated before, someone asks me if they mind if they pray for me I tell them no, and it usually ends there, nobody is upset. This got taken to levels that should have never even existed because of non-religious people looking to cause a big stink out of something that in the end does not matter. If we as a race spent half as much time trying to solve world hunger, or colonize another planet as we did trying to piss each other off than things would be a whole fuck of a lot better.

It's pushing one's faith - "My God is the only one who can help you". And we don't know what the nurse actually said, perhaps it was the words that she used or the reason she gave for wanting to pray which has caused the offence.

If you're looking for legislation, you won't find it. You're coming at it from the point of view of American politics; our system is completely different.

We have no written constitution; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's simply made up from different pieces of legislation and conventions rather than a single document. It gives us a huge degree of flexibility in approaching things. In contrast, I find the American reverence of their written constitution, to the extent that ridiculous things can remain legal in this day and age and you have huge arguments over the placement of a comma, somewhat bizarre.

I don't think anyone who has ever been the victim of a tabloid sting would complain that there isn't enough free speech in this country. In fact, it's usually just the opposite - the difficulty is a lack of a right to privacy, not speech.

Personally, I'd suggest that the problem is rather that, since 1997, right to protest, assemble and offer individual views has been circumscribed, wheread the media, until the Max Mosely ruling, were largely unaffected. Rights of the media and the individual are not, in this circumstance, the same.

Personally, I'd suggest that the problem is rather that, since 1997, right to protest, assemble and offer individual views has been circumscribed...

That began rather earlier with Margaret Thatcher, Blair just continued the process.

That began rather earlier with Margaret Thatcher, Blair just continued the process.

If you say so.

lol, people go overboard over the tiniest little things.

In the video clip, the nurse says that she was asked to change a dressing, which sounds like exactly the kind of thing you'd want a nurse to do.

She then explains that she thinks her patients have "spiritual needs" but she doesn't explain why the person employed to change a bandage should take it upon herself to assume both the needs and the solution. She is a nurse, she has access to these people and to their homes only in her professional capacity and is paid for the time she spends there. It is arrogant, insulting and unprofessional to use this access to push a personal agenda on people who are unable to walk away.

Of course people have "needs" of all kinds but we usually expect adults to deal with their own affairs and to ask for help if they want it. This woman doesn't offer to fix their plumbing or pay their bills on company time - why should she intrude into their spiritual affairs?

You would be dis-respecting her wishes for you not to pray for her it would seem.

It would also, I think, go rather against the spirit of prayer, if one engaged in such an activity with an attitude of "this will show her!"

In the video clip, the nurse says that she was asked to change a dressing, which sounds like exactly the kind of thing you'd want a nurse to do.

She then explains that she thinks her patients have "spiritual needs" but she doesn't explain why the person employed to change a bandage should take it upon herself to assume both the needs and the solution. She is a nurse, she has access to these people and to their homes only in her professional capacity and is paid for the time she spends there. It is arrogant, insulting and unprofessional to use this access to push a personal agenda on people who are unable to walk away.

Of course people have "needs" of all kinds but we usually expect adults to deal with their own affairs and to ask for help if they want it. This woman doesn't offer to fix their plumbing or pay their bills on company time - why should she intrude into their spiritual affairs?

I'm sure plenty of nurses when not just changing bandages will talk to their patients about other things, perhaps you would prefer if a nurse came in just changed the dressing and left? And she was offering to say a prayer on company time she asked if she would like her to not to say a prayer for her while on time.

What concerns me rather more than this trivial case is this one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4392789/Hospital-calls-in-exorcist-after-ghost-spotted.html
where a senior NHS manager seems to have wasted tax payers money on hiring an exorcist.

I'm sure plenty of nurses when not just changing bandages will talk to their patients about other things, perhaps you would prefer if a nurse came in just changed the dressing and left?

One would think developing a good bedside mannor is an essential skill in nursing, and thsu quite relevant to their job. However, bedside mannor requires one to know how to strike the proper balance between impersonal and person. Tailored enough to the individual, yet generic enough to be inoffensive and not violate the privacy of the individual.

Asking "do you want me to pray for you" goes way beyond that line.

What concerns me rather more than this trivial case is this one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4392789/Hospital-calls-in-exorcist-after-ghost-spotted.html
where a senior NHS manager seems to have wasted tax payers money on hiring an exorcist.

Maybe it's cheaper to do that than go about hiring less superstitious staff

I hope

One would think developing a good bedside mannor is an essential skill in nursing, and thsu quite relevant to their job.


Exactly man, exactly.

I'm sure plenty of nurses when not just changing bandages will talk to their patients about other things, perhaps you would prefer if a nurse came in just changed the dressing and left? And she was offering to say a prayer on company time she asked if she would like her to not to say a prayer for her while on time.

Of course that is what I would prefer, that is her job. I don't understand your second sentence :confused:

One would think developing a good bedside mannor is an essential skill in nursing, and thsu quite relevant to their job. However, bedside mannor requires one to know how to strike the proper balance between impersonal and person. Tailored enough to the individual, yet generic enough to be inoffensive and not violate the privacy of the individual.

Asking "do you want me to pray for you" goes way beyond that line.

Well man, we don't know what else the conversation was said maybe they discussed a bit of religion, and only if she continued pressing it after the patient had said no would it be going beyond that line, stopping at it would be the end. But as I say mate, people get worked up over the tiniest little things, and I don't think it was the patient but rather the NHS and the patients sister.

Well man, we don't know what else the conversation was said maybe they discussed a bit of religion, and only if she continued pressing it after the patient had said no would it be going beyond that line, stopping at it would be the end. But as I say mate, people get worked up over the tiniest little things, and I don't think it was the patient but rather the NHS and the patients sister.

and a nurse who had been warned about this thing before. What part of that is so hard for people to understand? She already got complaints about this sort of thing. She was asked to stop. She didn't.

What do you think happens to employees who are told to stop doing something by their employer, and do it anyway?

What concerns me rather more than this trivial case is this one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4392789/Hospital-calls-in-exorcist-after-ghost-spotted.html
where a senior NHS manager seems to have wasted tax payers money on hiring an exorcist.

"Several have seen a male figure cloaked from had to toe in black darting between rooms and through walls - especially in departments near the morgue"

Well, hellooooooooo? Surely this is to be expected? That's not a ghost! He's just lost his scythe.

Of course that is what I would prefer, that is her job. I don't understand your second sentence :confused:

You talked about offering to pay the bills on company time, now she might offer to do that, just like she might offer to get the patient a glass of water on company time but is not what she has been paid for. Now if she went and paid the bills on company time that might be different or saying a prayer offering while she is doing her job is another thing entirely.

lol, people go overboard over the tiniest little things.

Pray for them.

and a nurse who had been warned about this thing before. What part of that is so hard for people to understand? She already got complaints about this sort of thing. She was asked to stop. She didn't.

What do you think happens to employees who are told to stop doing something by their employer, and do it anyway?

She was told to stop handing out cards and other literature to patients, not to ask if she would like for he to pray for them. Pushing something on to them is one thing asking someone about something is another thing entirely.

Pray for them.

haha, maybe I should, people need to learn to relax.

http://www.lushtshirts.co.uk/images/products/frankie-say-relax.jpg

They don't, but the nurse shut up when she said no, that should be the end of the whole thing right there, instead it got taken to an extreme because the same people who cry out for their rights to not be religious are the same people shitting on other people's rights to BE religious and vice versa. Frankly I'm sick of both and will defend the person who is currently being shit on, in this case the nurse. She never imposed anything, she politely asked if she could pray for the woman because as she see's things it is a NICE thing to do. I'd have said no, but I;d be flattered.




The woman was not evangelizing, she offered a prayer. There is a big difference there. Evangelizing is when you say "You should be like me". She said "Would you like me to pray for you." that's nothing like an attempt to force your beliefs on someone. You are putting words into my mouth; if I meant to say that I would have said that. Why the hell can't people just live and let live? As I stated before, someone asks me if they mind if they pray for me I tell them no, and it usually ends there, nobody is upset. This got taken to levels that should have never even existed because of non-religious people looking to cause a big stink out of something that in the end does not matter. If we as a race spent half as much time trying to solve world hunger, or colonize another planet as we did trying to piss each other off than things would be a whole fuck of a lot better.

Well said. Sign me up for some of that.

So...you just gave somebody a point for using a good word...right after saying that "People are generally less than respective."

It would be awesome if you did it on purpose and are simply a very patient and subtle Poe.

It was on purpose and the intent was to keep this lighthearted to some extent. My apologies if I insulted anyone. Back to this Poe thing again.


Can someone explain what is meant by referring to someone as a "Poe"

I think of the poet.

She was told to stop handing out cards and other literature to patients, not to ask if she would like for he to pray for them. Pushing something on to them is one thing asking someone about something is another thing entirely.

she was told to stop pushing her religion on NHS time and with patients. She did not.

"Several have seen a male figure cloaked from had to toe in black darting between rooms and through walls - especially in departments near the morgue"

Well, hellooooooooo? Surely this is to be expected? That's not a ghost! He's just lost his scythe.

Reminds me of this QI answer

Two people killed many of the elderly in Great Yarmouth's Haslemere Home for the Elderly between 1960-61. The first was Gladys Elton (81), who performed a striptease. One resident had a heart attack and another five had to be treated for shock. The second was Harry Meadows (87), who dressed up as Death for a prank, complete with scythe. He knocked at the lounge room window, and beckoned the people inside to come out. Another three people died. The home was shut down in 1961.

Maybe the lady in question had crosses on the wall and such. I mean if she went to a muslim house I doubt she would have offered. Likewise if she went to a Hindu house again I doubt she would have offered. Of course there is no proof one way or the other but normally this is how people would react. The patient in question may have been a person of faith. Since there no free speech legislation I think she is unprotected. Tow the party line! Dissenters will be terminated! You must obey!

Reminds me of this QI answer

Ok, that first one was sick.

However, Mr. Meadows is a hilarious man. He's the type who shows you're never too old to have fun.

perhaps you can imagine a way in which you might be pissed that a nurse asked you if you wanted her to pray for you.

As I said, given the context in the article, I really can't. Unless she was literally screaming at her "CAN I FUCKING PRAY FOR YOU YOU BITCH!".

Ok, that first one was sick.

However, Mr. Meadows is a hilarious man. He's the type who shows you're never too old to have fun.

It's a joke I hope to play at some point in the future

Since there no free speech legislation I think she is unprotected. Tow the party line! Dissenters will be terminated! You must obey!

...what the bloody hell are you on about now?

You talked about offering to pay the bills on company time, now she might offer to do that, just like she might offer to get the patient a glass of water on company time but is not what she has been paid for. Now if she went and paid the bills on company time that might be different or saying a prayer offering while she is doing her job is another thing entirely.

hang on - are you saying that you think its fine for a stranger sent to your house to perform a service to offer her help with your financial affairs? you don't think it might be a little too familiar?

Did you see the part where she was reprimanded for doing this before?

No, I saw the part where she was reprimanded for doing something different before.

Nah, nothing, I am just a malcontent.

There is no formal separation of church and state. But, by the same token - there is no longer the formalised association of church and state of a hundred years ago.

The Lords Spiritual.

Government agencies are expected to minimise discrimination - which acts as an INformal separation of church and state.

In the NHS - this is a partial success. There are formal chaplains to provide ministry if needed, but they are predominantly Christian. Like I said, a partial success.

That's not that surprising in a country where the population predominantly self-identifies as Christian of some flavour or another.

What this nurse is doing is stepping over the line. She's discriminating, by offering a non-secular ministry... which she MIGHT be able to get away with if she were part of the FORMAL ministry... but, she's not.

How is offering to pray for someone discriminating? You have to show that she wouldn't make the same offer to people of other faiths for it to be discrimination.

No, I saw the part where she was reprimanded for doing something different before.
Do people seriously get away with this kind of thing where you work?

Like, you get busted for handing out religious materials while on the job. Your boss specifically tells you that you're not supposed to be promoting your faith while at work. You continue to promote your faith at work, and, when you're busted again, you insist that you totally thought your boss was only talking about handing out religious materials, which is totally different...

Are there really bosses stupid enough to fall for this? And are they hiring?

The patient in question may have been a person of faith.
If you'd bothered to read a bit, you'd know that the patient who made the complaint is a Christian.

I thought the UK had more rights than it does. I guess the V for Vendetta stuff is partially true. Scary stuff if you ask me. Since there is not guarantee they can fire for anything you may have said.

Again, not really. The UK may not have the 1st Amendment but it does have some pretty strong protections for employees in its employment law.

Can someone explain what is meant by referring to someone as a "Poe"
"Poe's Law" is "it is impossible to write a parody of religious fundamentalism that is ridiculous enough to prevent some people from thinking you are serious."

Do people seriously get away with this kind of thing where you work?

Like, you get busted for handing out religious materials while on the job. Your boss specifically tells you that you're not supposed to be promoting your faith while at work. You continue to promote your faith at work, and, when you're busted again, you insist that you totally thought your boss was only talking about handing out religious materials, which is totally different...

Are there really bosses stupid enough to fall for this? And are they hiring?

One of my co-workers just got off fiddling her overtime for the last 4 months with a written warning. Didn't even have to pay back the money.

I doubt promoting your faith would even regisiter on managements radar.

Yes we are hiring but I think you're probably a little over qualified for the roles curently on offer.

So then, would you or have you been offended by somebody wishing to pray for you as per their religious beliefs? Are you just fine with it or do you consider it an insult?
No, I wouldn't consider it an insult. I consider it the same as a "Get well soon" statement. A gesture meant to encourage and show support.

what is unclear in the OP's article, is whether or not Mrs Petrie honored the patient's decline.

If you'd bothered to read a bit, you'd know that the patient who made the complaint is a Christian.

Apologies I must have missed that.

The Lords Spiritual.

Who, by convention, don't vote or rule on laws. In theory, they can. In actual practice, they respect the separation.

How is offering to pray for someone discriminating? You have to show that she wouldn't make the same offer to people of other faiths for it to be discrimination.

The question stands, hypothetically. A patient asked, "Would you like me to pray for you?" is put in an uncomfortable situation if they're not religious or of a different faith; they can't be guaranteed that saying they're not of her faith will not prejudice her actions towards them. It's impossible for us to show what she would or would not do in those circumstances, but given that the question has at least risen shows that it's not as clear cut as you might like us to believe.

No, I saw the part where she was reprimanded for doing something different before.
Well, then you read it wrong.

"Poe's Law" is "it is impossible to write a parody of religious fundamentalism that is ridiculous enough to prevent some people from thinking you are serious."

Thanks for that. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist. I suppose that could be true though. Guilty as charged.

Do people seriously get away with this kind of thing where you work?

Like, you get busted for handing out religious materials while on the job. Your boss specifically tells you that you're not supposed to be promoting your faith while at work. You continue to promote your faith at work, and, when you're busted again, you insist that you totally thought your boss was only talking about handing out religious materials, which is totally different...

Are there really bosses stupid enough to fall for this? And are they hiring?
Of course, everybody knows that if you are reprimanded for stealing office supplies whe you get caught stealing paper clips that only means you should switch to stealing pencils instead, because "office supplies" really only applies to the specific supply you were caught pocketing the first time. Likewise, if you are reprimanded for taking unauthorized breaks because you disappear in the middle of the day to go visit your boyfriend for some afternoon nookie, you should from now on disappear in the middle of the day to go to the racetrack instead, because "unauthorized break" only refers to whatever it was you were doing when you got caught, and if you do something different, then it doesn't count.

One of my co-workers just got off fiddling her overtime for the last 4 months with a written warning. Didn't even have to pay back the money.

I doubt promoting your faith would even regisiter on managements radar.

Yes we are hiring but I think you're probably a little over qualified for the roles curently on offer.
Except of course for the fact that it did register on their radar, seeing as how they reprimanded her for doing it.

The question stands, hypothetically. A patient asked, "Would you like me to pray for you?" is put in an uncomfortable situation if they're not religious or of a different faith; they can't be guaranteed that saying they're not of her faith will not prejudice her actions towards them. It's impossible for us to show what she would or would not do in those circumstances, but given that the question has at least risen shows that it's not as clear cut as you might like us to believe.

I would rather be asked, "would you like me to sacrifice a goat to Bhaal in your name?" and given a chance to either 1) POLITELY refuse or 2) talk about it than not.

Would I be offended? no. the person asking cared enough to offer to make time to do something for me and to keep me in his/her thoughts.

would I accept? probably, probably not. depending on the person doing the praying. ;)

Except of course for the fact that it did register on their radar, seeing as how they reprimanded her for doing it.

Um, I was talking about my place of work, not the NHS.

Well, then you read it wrong.

No I didn't.

Except of course for the fact that it did register on their radar, seeing as how they reprimanded her for doing it.
sometimes, managers are forced to. I was recently reprimanded by my boss for a joking remark I made to the user. her manager knew I was joking yet because her employee questioned it, it ended up being reported to my manager. and HE knew I was joking. but because of the actions of the person who reported it in, I got reprimanded.

I would rather be asked, "would you like me to sacrifice a goat to Bhaal in your name?" and given a chance to either 1) POLITELY refuse or 2) talk about it than not.

Would I be offended? no. the person asking cared enough to offer to make time to do something for me and to keep me in his/her thoughts.

would I accept? probably, probably not. depending on the person doing the praying. ;)

I concede the bolded; personally, I do consider it quite a nice gesture if nothing else.

But how do you respond to the issues raised that:
1: The nurse is employed in a secular capacity, and did not act accordingly;
2: The same question could be potentially unsettling for patients, given that it's unsolicited?

Of course, everybody knows that if you are reprimanded for stealing office supplies whe you get caught stealing paper clips that only means you should switch to stealing pencils instead, because "office supplies" really only applies to the specific supply you were caught pocketing the first time. Likewise, if you are reprimanded for taking unauthorized breaks because you disappear in the middle of the day to go visit your boyfriend for some afternoon nookie, you should from now on disappear in the middle of the day to go to the racetrack instead, because "unauthorized break" only refers to whatever it was you were doing when you got caught, and if you do something different, then it doesn't count.


Except of course for the fact that it did register on their radar, seeing as how they reprimanded her for doing it.

Awesome write up!

Awesome write up!

Alright, honestly, I don't have a clue what you're on about anymore.

Alright, honestly, I don't have a clue what you're on about anymore.

yeah I totally lost him days ago.

I would rather be asked, "would you like me to sacrifice a goat to Bhaal in your name?" and given a chance to either 1) POLITELY refuse or 2) talk about it than not.

Would I be offended? no. the person asking cared enough to offer to make time to do something for me and to keep me in his/her thoughts.

would I accept? probably, probably not. depending on the person doing the praying. ;)
Here's a question for you and everybody else in this thread who has said they would rather be asked than not asked:

What scenario are you envisioning?

Are you assuming:

A) That the person would just start praying/chanting/sacrificing whatever over your head right then and there?

If so, then yeah, I think they should ask first.

OR B) That the person who does not ask your permission to pray/chant/sacrifice for you would do so behind your back, i.e. at their place of worship?

If so, then what the hell do you care if they do something that you don't know about? Are you lying in your sickbed worrying that someone might be praying for you without you knowing it?

Seriously, think about this. I agree with Dregruk, Smunkee, LG and others who have said that if a person who does not know your religion asks if you want them to pray for you, it puts you in a difficult spot, because if you don't, then you must choose between participating in someway in something you don't want to participate in or risking antagonizing this stranger who has asked you this odd question.

Um, I was talking about my place of work, not the NHS.
I was trying to keep your comments relevant.

yeah I totally lost him days ago.

Remind me to limit my contributions to threads to agreeing alternately with opposing sides, asking the same question repeatedly, and muttering something about "Berlin airlift..." or "...roaming bands of hippies, raping, murdering and pillaging..."

It'd be so much easier than this "debating" hoohah.

No I didn't.
Yes, you did. Neener.

Here's a question for you and everybody else in this thread who has said they would rather be asked than not asked:

What scenario are you envisioning?

Are you assuming:

A) That the person would just start praying/chanting/sacrificing whatever over your head right then and there?

If so, then yeah, I think they should ask first.

OR B) That the person who does not ask your permission to pray/chant/sacrifice for you would do so behind your back, i.e. at their place of worship?

If so, then what the hell do you care if they do something that you don't know about? Are you lying in your sickbed worrying that someone might be praying for you without you knowing it?

Seriously, think about this. I agree with Dregruk, Smunkee, LG and others who have said that if a person who does not know your religion asks if you want them to pray for you, it puts you in a difficult spot, because if you don't, then you must choose between participating in someway in something you don't want to participate in or risking antagonizing this stranger who has asked you this odd question.

Option A, qualified by first asking if it is okay with you.

I concede the bolded; personally, I do consider it quite a nice gesture if nothing else.

But how do you respond to the issues raised that:
1: The nurse is employed in a secular capacity, and did not act accordingly; nursing isn't just physical, it's also mental, emotional and sometimes Spritual (not necessarily Religious, it can be more in an uplifting capacity.) so being asked to be thought of in a personal ritual by the nurse would not offend me. especially if he/she asked first (which I consider good manners.)
2: The same question could be potentially unsettling for patients, given that it's unsolicited? nursing isn't just about tending the needs of the moment, but anticipating needs of the future. Yes, I know some would find it unsettling. which is why I said "I". it sounds like she asked this question after she finished her nursing duties (changing banages and wot not.) so it could've been more of the 'going the extra mile'. instead of being "part of her duties". so I would consider "would you like me to pray for you" to be the same as "would you like me to make some tea before I leave?" a gesture meant to comfort, and so, I wouldn't be offended.

I was trying to keep your comments relevant.

They were, Bottle specifically asked about my place of work.

But thank you for that condescending remark, I'll try to live up to your standards from now on. :rolleyes:

Yes, you did. Neener.

Exactly.

nursing isn't just physical, it's also mental, emotional and sometimes Spritual (not necessarily Religious, it can be more in an uplifting capacity.) so being asked to be thought of in a personal ritual by the nurse would not offend me. especially if he/she asked first (which I consider good manners.)
nursing isn't just about tending the needs of the moment, but anticipating needs of the future. Yes, I know some would find it unsettling. which is why I said "I". it sounds like she asked this question after she finished her nursing duties (changing banages and wot not.) so it could've been more of the 'going the extra mile'. instead of being "part of her duties". so I would consider "would you like me to pray for you" to be the same as "would you like me to make some tea before I leave?" a gesture meant to comfort, and so, I wouldn't be offended.

Bravo. Well said!


Sidenote: See what I mean by perceived offense? Just about everyone so far said something to the affect that it wouldn't bother me and I would or would not accept. Few so far said it would be offensive. Almost all of us question her wisdom that is another matter. Does anyone know how to create a poll? If not I say we put it to a vote?

Would you or would you not be offended?

And

Should she or should she not be removed from her position?

I vote: No and No, obviously

Maybes are acceptable.

Here's a question for you and everybody else in this thread who has said they would rather be asked than not asked:

What scenario are you envisioning?

Are you assuming:

A) That the person would just start praying/chanting/sacrificing whatever over your head right then and there?

If so, then yeah, I think they should ask first.

OR B) That the person who does not ask your permission to pray/chant/sacrifice for you would do so behind your back, i.e. at their place of worship?

If so, then what the hell do you care if they do something that you don't know about? Are you lying in your sickbed worrying that someone might be praying for you without you knowing it?seriously? wouldn't make a difference to me.

Seriously, think about this. I agree with Dregruk, Smunkee, LG and others who have said that if a person who does not know your religion asks if you want them to pray for you, it puts you in a difficult spot, because if you don't, then you must choose between participating in someway in something you don't want to participate in or risking antagonizing this stranger who has asked you this odd question. why would a polite refusal antagonize the person asking? the key word is Polite. if the person was polite to ask, then I would be polite in my response whether it be a "Yes, please" or a "No thank you, but thanks for asking".

again, this is ME being the person asked. not a 'Universal attitude' people should take.

Bravo. Well said!


Sidenote: See what I mean by perceived offense? Just about everyone so far said something to the affect that it wouldn't bother me and I would or would not accept. Few so far said it would be offensive. Almost all of us question her wisdom that is another matter.

Im offended when people say they will pray for me.

The context I should note is usually different. It usually comes from old ladies who see me smoking/drinking/wearing black death metal t-shirts and tell me they will pray for my soul.

That is offensive.

Im offended when people say they will pray for me.

The context I should note is usually different. It usually comes from old ladies who see me smoking/drinking/wearing black death metal t-shirts and tell me they will pray for my soul.

That is offensive.

Why? It's harmless. Completely harmless. Sure, they're worried about your soul or whatever, but at worst I'd roll my eyes and move on.

Why? It's harmless. Completely harmless. Sure, they're worried about your soul or whatever, but at worst I'd roll my eyes and move on.

Moralizing bugs me. I usually have some rude and snarky comment, but I cant remember what they are atm.

Im offended when people say they will pray for me.

The context I should note is usually different. It usually comes from old ladies who see me smoking/drinking/wearing black death metal t-shirts and tell me they will pray for my soul.

That is offensive.

That is judging you and that is offensive I agree!

It would just as bad as saying you are ugly or stupid

Should she or should she not be removed from her position? depends on her work history and actions.

The context I should note is usually different. It usually comes from old ladies who see me smoking/drinking/wearing black death metal t-shirts and tell me they will pray for my soul.

That is offensive.
in that context, yes, I agree with you. and I would like to note that normally those saying they will "pray for you" in that situation, are not being polite about it.

sometimes, managers are forced to. I was recently reprimanded by my boss for a joking remark I made to the user. her manager knew I was joking yet because her employee questioned it, it ended up being reported to my manager. and HE knew I was joking. but because of the actions of the person who reported it in, I got reprimanded.
Your point being?

Option A, qualified by first asking if it is okay with you.
Then account for the awkwardity for me to say "no." You may think it's nothing, but for me, it puts me in a position of turning down your nice but insensitive offer. I am made to be the negative one because you made a presumption.