NationStates Jolt Archive

That is judging you and that is offensive I agree!

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

The thing is, these old ladies will pray for ANYONE. For any reason. I've met enough of them to know. They just want to help. Even if they don't know that no help is needed. It's not the method or the reason that is important to this matter, or at least should be. It's just plain old concern.

Your point being?

no point. just adding on to your post. sometimes some reprimands are done not because the manager feels you did something wrong, but because a complaint was simply filed.

seriously? wouldn't make a difference to me.

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.
Well, then it's irrelevant because this entire debate is about someone being concerned with the "universal attitude." The patient who reported the nurse was not offended for herself, but was concerned that others might be. That is why she told the nurse's employer what she had done. It is likely she never meant for the nurse to get suspended for it, but there it is. The fact is, we are not just bragging about what we personally would do in X situation. The whole point is, is it reasonable or unreasonable for someone to think that they don't know how a stranger will react to something, so maybe it would be better not to bring it up, if it's not necessary.

You say you wouldn't be offended by someone asking you if they could pray for you, but you're not everyone, are you? So your standard is not really the one to judge by, is it?

Likewise, you imagine that someone would not be offended or antagonized by you politely refusing their prayer offer, but how would you know how a stranger will react to something? If I feel awkward or uncomfortable about having to say no, am I supposed to just take your word for it about how the nurse would react, based on nothing but your imagination?

EDIT: It's all well and good for us all to post ourselves as examples of various kinds of reactions, but I do not think it's valid to say something along the lines of, "Well, I would respond X way, so that's what we should assume because why would anyone else react differently?"

Here's what it boils down to:

Some people are offended when you say, "I'll pray for you."
Some people are offended when you ask, "Can I pray for you?"

This thread has made that EXPLICITLY clear.

Now.

You obviously retain the right to say "I'll pray for you," or to offer to pray for people. Congrats.

But, since you've read this thread, you no longer can claim ignorance when somebody gets annoyed with you. You have been thoroughly warned that your behavior will offend some people, and you are CHOOSING to engage in behavior you know may be offensive, so you don't get to play like you're all surprised and hurt when somebody asks you to kindly knock it off.

If you want to pout and whine about how people are big meanieheads for not being STOKED to have your wonderful prayerful thoughts, then go right ahead. Remember, I'm a wicked godless atheist, so I'd like nothing better than for all your godders to cement your reputation as arrogant, rude, petty asshats. Makes my job easy.

no point. just adding on to your post. sometimes some reprimands are done not because the manager feels you did something wrong, but because a complaint was simply filed.
Not in the present case, though, or else she would not be on suspension. So, are you thinking that the first time she was told not to promote her religion on the job, she thought her bosses were not serious? If so, she was wrong, wasn't she?

Here's what it boils down to:

Some people are offended when you say, "I'll pray for you."
Some people are offended when you ask, "Can I pray for you?"

This thread has made that EXPLICITLY clear.

Now.

You obviously retain the right to say "I'll pray for you," or to offer to pray for people. Congrats.

But, since you've read this thread, you no longer can claim ignorance when somebody gets annoyed with you. You have been thoroughly warned that your behavior will offend some people, and you are CHOOSING to engage in behavior you know may be offensive, so you don't get to play like you're all surprised and hurt when somebody asks you to kindly knock it off.

If you want to pout and whine about how people are big meanieheads for not being STOKED to have your wonderful prayerful thoughts, then go right ahead. Remember, I'm a wicked godless atheist, so I'd like nothing better than for all your godders to cement your reputation as arrogant, rude, petty asshats. Makes my job easy.

Doesn't that kind of miss the point of this case though? The nurse has been dinged for this twice and yet neither time did she offend the person she was dealing with.

The first chap accepted the prayer card and it was his carer who decided it was inappropriate and the woman in this case stated she wasn't offended but was worried that someone else might be.

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.
What is with this attitude?

Great, you don't mind people saying they'll pray for you. So?

My brother doesn't mind eating Guatemalan insanity peppers and drinking horrifying sodas with acid levels that could be used to scour the rust off a car. Yet I do. Funny how that works.

Some people find it offensive to say the word "c---" in public. Personally, I think the word "c---" is a very nice word, and certainly is a lot better than "pussy" or "vah-jay-jay" or any of the more accepted homonyms. So does that mean that if I wander around talking loudly of c---s, I then get to tell anybody who's offended that they can stuff it up theirs because I don't find it offensive?

No, I do not, because I am not stupid enough to believe that the universe revolves around my own personal sensibilities.

Here's what it boils down to:

Some people are offended when you say, "I'll pray for you."
Some people are offended when you ask, "Can I pray for you?"

This thread has made that EXPLICITLY clear.



but don't you understand, it's NOT offensive to you! It's just not! You say it is, but clearly it ACTUALLY isn't!

I will pray for you so that you may learn you're not actually offended.

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.

So you are embarrassed by the request? I suppose that might be an answer.

Okay so would you be embarrassed? I am just questioning if you actually feel that way or just putting forward a possible idea.

i don't think we should judge anyone in the story. we don't know everything that happend and neither does the media.

but don't you understand, it's NOT offensive to you! It's just not! You say it is, but clearly it ACTUALLY isn't!

I will pray for you so that you may learn you're not actually offended.

I was going to say this, but thought better of it.

Doesn't that kind of miss the point of this case though? The nurse has been dinged for this twice and yet neither time did she offend the person she was dealing with.

The first chap accepted the prayer card and it was his carer who decided it was inappropriate and the woman in this case stated she wasn't offended but was worried that someone else might be.
I think it's precisely on point.

The nurse was warned already that her behavior was out of line. She continue to behave the same way, and is now whining like an infant because *gasp* there are actual consequences when you continue to do something after you've been told it's out of line.

Doesn't that kind of miss the point of this case though? The nurse has been dinged for this twice and yet neither time did she offend the person she was dealing with.

The first chap accepted the prayer card and it was his carer who decided it was inappropriate and the woman in this case stated she wasn't offended but was worried that someone else might be.
It has already been pointed out to you that we have no information about whether the man who accepted the card was offended or not. Just because someone takes something rather than refuses it, that does not mean they want to take it.

And if you're going to shift focus from whether the nurse's action was good or bad to why she got "dinged," then the answer to that is just as clear: She got dinged for violating her bosses' order not to promote her religion while on the job. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the specific actions were offensive or not. They were insubordinate. Ding.

but don't you understand, it's NOT offensive to you! It's just not! You say it is, but clearly it ACTUALLY isn't!

I will pray for you so that you may learn you're not actually offended.
Funny, I say precisely the same thing to religious homophobes.

Well, replace "pray for you" with "perform explicit sexual acts with my same-sex partner on your front lawn." But same concept.

Well, then it's irrelevant because this entire debate is about someone being concerned with the "universal attitude."really? let's look at the op?
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?emphasis mine.

so it's asking for a PERSONAL Viewpoint and Attitude about being asked to be prayed for.

You say you wouldn't be offended by someone asking you if they could pray for you, but you're not everyone, are you? So your standard is not really the one to judge by, is it?
and neither is yours. your point then is... what?

Likewise, you imagine that someone would not be offended or antagonized by you politely refusing their prayer offer, but how would you know how a stranger will react to something? If I feel awkward or uncomfortable about having to say no, am I supposed to just take your word for it about how the nurse would react, based on nothing but your imagination? where did I say 'This is how YOU should act'. please quote me otherwise stop trying to interpret what I post and read it plainly. I don't use any hidden agenda or try to prove anything. especially since it's YOU who read "universal attitude" in the op's question.

EDIT: It's all well and good for us all to post ourselves as examples of various kinds of reactions, but I do not think it's valid to say something along the lines of, "Well, I would respond X way, so that's what we should assume because why would anyone else react differently?" yet everyone else here posts "well I would...". if we are to post ONLY how others WOULD react, then the only threads that would get a response would be ones that ask 'how would you...'... just like what the OP asked.

Even YOU are posting that the fact YOU would be offended is the guidline on HOW EVERYONE would react. thus should we disreguard your posts as well?

again, no where do I state 'this is how everyone should react.' stop barking at every sound Mur. it just makes you look silly.

Here's what it boils down to:

Some people are offended when you say, "I'll pray for you."
Some people are offended when you ask, "Can I pray for you?"

This thread has made that EXPLICITLY clear.

Now.

You obviously retain the right to say "I'll pray for you," or to offer to pray for people. Congrats.

But, since you've read this thread, you no longer can claim ignorance when somebody gets annoyed with you. You have been thoroughly warned that your behavior will offend some people, and you are CHOOSING to engage in behavior you know may be offensive, so you don't get to play like you're all surprised and hurt when somebody asks you to kindly knock it off.

If you want to pout and whine about how people are big meanieheads for not being STOKED to have your wonderful prayerful thoughts, then go right ahead. Remember, I'm a wicked godless atheist, so I'd like nothing better than for all your godders to cement your reputation as arrogant, rude, petty asshats. Makes my job easy.
Agreed. Offer at your own risk. just like how you respond is also your choice.

So you are embarrassed by the request? I suppose that might be an answer.

Okay so would you be embarrassed? I am just questioning if you actually feel that way or just putting forward a possible idea.
Personally, I find it grossly embarrassing to be put in a position of having to say no to someone who wants to be nice but is actually being totally inappropriate. I fail to see how it could not be obvious to someone that, since they don't know me and don't know my beliefs or feelings about something so personal as religion, that they really have no business bringing it up. I fail to see how such a person could think that either (a) religion is not a personal matter or (b) they have somehow so bonded with me that they get to broach such personal subjects. What are they going to ask me about next, my sex life?

Their desire to be nice notwithstanding, they are being thoughtless and insensitive, and they are forcing me into the position of having to inject negativity into our interaction by turning down their kind but utterly boneheaded and inappropriate offer.

It has already been pointed out to you that we have no information about whether the man who accepted the card was offended or not. Just because someone takes something rather than refuses it, that does not mean they want to take it.

And if you're going to shift focus from whether the nurse's action was good or bad to why she got "dinged," then the answer to that is just as clear: She got dinged for violating her bosses' order not to promote her religion while on the job. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the specific actions were offensive or not. They were insubordinate. Ding.

Fine I am okay with that, but then have guts to come out and say it because you defied a direct order not because the topic was offensive. That the nurse was somehow harming the patient by doing so. The management would have to show that Giving out cards is the same as praying for someone. It may be to you or me but maybe it wasn't clear to her.

It has already been pointed out to you that we have no information about whether the man who accepted the card was offended or not. Just because someone takes something rather than refuses it, that does not mean they want to take it.

Mrs Petrie had previously been reprimanded for an incident in Clevedon last October when she offered to give a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html

Since we're all accepting news stories I figure this is good enough evidence that the chap was happy to recieve the card.

And if you're going to shift focus from whether the nurse's action was good or bad to why she got "dinged," then the answer to that is just as clear: She got dinged for violating her bosses' order not to promote her religion while on the job. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the specific actions were offensive or not. They were insubordinate. Ding.

I'm still trying to find the rule which says she can't. The only thing I've found that specifically prohibits it is an as yet unfinish and unenforced NHS handbook.

Personally, I find it grossly embarrassing to be put in a position of having to say no to someone who wants to be nice but is actually being totally inappropriate. I fail to see how it could not be obvious to someone that, since they don't know me and don't know my beliefs or feelings about something so personal as religion, that they really have no business bringing it up. I fail to see how such a person could think that either (a) religion is not a personal matter or (b) they have somehow so bonded with me that they get to broach such personal subjects. What are they going to ask me about next, my sex life?

Their desire to be nice notwithstanding, they are being thoughtless and insensitive, and they are forcing me into the position of having to inject negativity into our interaction by turning down their kind but utterly boneheaded and inappropriate offer.

Fair enough that is a valid answer! That would speak to why the policy is in effect in the first place. So it not offensive it could be embarrassing to some people. That is a good answer, thank you.

really? let's look at the op?
emphasis mine.

so it's asking for a PERSONAL Viewpoint and Attitude about being asked to be prayed for.

<snip>
Thank you for clarifying that. I had made the mistake of thinking that you were actually participating in the conversation that has been going on for more than 35 pages. Also, erroneously assuming that you were aware of the context, I made the further mistake of thinking you would be able to tell that I was referring to your comments in the context of the entire thread in which people have made the kinds of comments I complained of.

I'll know better than to do that with you in future. From now on, I'll just assume that you are not keeping up with the convo, shall I?

Not in the present case, though, or else she would not be on suspension. So, are you thinking that the first time she was told not to promote her religion on the job, she thought her bosses were not serious? If so, she was wrong, wasn't she?

yes she was. which is why one of my responses was "depends on her work history". never argued against her suspension. I only stated how I would feel if someone from a differeing religion offered to pray for me.

Well, replace "pray for you" with "perform explicit sexual acts with my same-sex partner on your front lawn." But same concept.

wait, same sex? What happened to the boyfriend?

Thank you for clarifying that. I had made the mistake of thinking that you were actually participating in the conversation that has been going on for more than 35 pages. Also, erroneously assuming that you were aware of the context, I made the further mistake of thinking you would be able to tell that I was referring to your comments in the context of the entire thread in which people have made the kinds of comments I complained of.

I'll know better than to do that with you in future. From now on, I'll just assume that you are not keeping up with the convo, shall I?

yes, especially when I provided the quote I'm responding to. :p

and that would teach me to not put in TL : DR.

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

The patient in the article? Nothing, apparently - she wasn't actually the person making the complaint. According to the article, she merely mentioned it to the next nurse, which means that the 'complaint' in this situation was just a natural internal escalation.

It's worth pointing out, also - if the nurse in question had just added the old lady to her prayers, no one would have been any the wiser.

So - why would the nurse have to ask? You kind of have to assume that she wanted to open a door to praying WITH the old lady. Like I said, she could have added her to her prayerlist without every mentioning it.

Fine I am okay with that, but then have guts to come out and say it because you defied a direct order not because the topic was offensive. That the nurse was somehow harming the patient by doing so. The management would have to show that Giving out cards is the same as praying for someone. It may be to you or me but maybe it wasn't clear to her.
There are two points in contention here:

1) Was the nurse in the wrong as per her job, and was her punishment appropriate? My answer to that: Yes she was in the wrong, but no the punishment was not appropriate.

2) Is it offensive to make an unsolicited offer of prayer to someone? My answer: The action, in and of itself is not offensive, but the thoughtlessness of an unsolicited offer can be offensive and, therefore, should not be made among strangers.

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.

I wasn't suggesting you insulted anyone. Its fine to praise someone's vocabulary. However, right before, you did something that makes it ironic for you to have done so.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html

Since we're all accepting news stories I figure this is good enough evidence that the chap was happy to recieve the card.



I'm still trying to find the rule which says she can't. The only thing I've found that specifically prohibits it is an as yet unfinish and unenforced NHS handbook.
I'm tired of this particular piece of BS from you. Do you deny that her bosses told her not to promote her religion on the job? Do you deny that, as an NHS employee, the nurse is obligated to comply with work-related directives from her bosses? If not, then you can stow this nonsense that she didn't break any rules. She -- and we who read the article -- were told very specifically what she did wrong.

Fine I am okay with that, but then have guts to come out and say it because you defied a direct order not because the topic was offensive. That the nurse was somehow harming the patient by doing so. The management would have to show that Giving out cards is the same as praying for someone. It may be to you or me but maybe it wasn't clear to her.


then she's too damned stupid to be a nurse.

Fair enough that is a valid answer! That would speak to why the policy is in effect in the first place. So it not offensive it could be embarrassing to some people. That is a good answer, thank you.
Offensiveness is embarrassing.

wait, same sex? What happened to the boyfriend?
He joins me in my "prayers" routinely.

(GASP offensive GASP)

then she's too damned stupid to be a nurse.
Pretty much.

Those are the options, Prayer Warriors.

Either she's too stupid to understand a very straight-forward warning, or she's too rude to obey it.

then she's too damned stupid to be a nurse.
Perhaps you missed my explanation that a reprimand can be ignored if it's too broad. So, if you're done for stealing "office supplies" when you got caught stealing paper clips, that means you can keep on stealing, so long as you switch to pencils instead.

Likewise, if you get caught handing out prayer cards and your boss orders you to stop "promoting your religious beliefs on the job" (paraphrase), that means you can carry on doing it, as long as you switch from written prayers to verbal ones.

I'm still trying to find the rule which says she can't. The only thing I've found that specifically prohibits it is an as yet unfinish and unenforced NHS handbook.
One of the Nurse's functions is to make the patient comfortable. some find the idea of Religion unsettling. Especially with so many different religions out there.

Also because offering a 'prayer' can also be taken as the situation is grim and almost beyond modern medicine.

Pretty much.

Those are the options, Prayer Warriors.

Either she's too stupid to understand a very straight-forward warning, or she's too rude to obey it.

I would add she didn't understand the reasoning behind the request. It is not because you are doing anything wrong by praying for her it is because your patient might be embarrassed and therefore may become offended.

That is how you phrase a reasonable request. Now please cease and desist of all praying or offers of praying on company time. If you wish to pray for your patients do so on your own time and do not inform them of this fact. Please keep the matter a personal matter between you and God.

I'm not sure that asking if they would like to be prayed for counts as any actual promotion of religion.

Perhaps you missed my explanation that a reprimand can be ignored if it's too broad. So, if you're done for stealing "office supplies" when you got caught stealing paper clips, that means you can keep on stealing, so long as you switch to pencils instead.

Likewise, if you get caught handing out prayer cards and your boss orders you to stop "promoting your religious beliefs on the job" (paraphrase), that means you can carry on doing it, as long as you switch from written prayers to verbal ones.

*Nods in agreement*

Especially if she was done with her 'duties as a nurse' and offered the prayer as an "I'm now off the clock and technically not a nurse". thus she could've seen it as not being 'on the job' and thus ok to do.

*Nods in agreement*

Especially if she was done with her 'duties as a nurse' and offered the prayer as an "I'm now off the clock and technically not a nurse". thus she could've seen it as not being 'on the job' and thus ok to do.

There is "union" answer for you. I vote Junii head of the union.

*Nods in agreement*

Wait, you're agreeing with that, really?

Now someone who is local copy all this stuff down and sell it to the lawyer doing defense for NHS. Then walk across town whatever to Chrisitan group and offer to sell it to them as well.

Probably worth a couple $1000 depending on your sales ability.

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


Not surprising, no. Also not surprising when you consider the relative budgets of the various churches.

But that doesn't help if you're trying to cater to a diverse population.


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.

Did she offer to perform other rituals? She offered one type of spiritual assistance (in an industry that actually provides specialists for that purpose, so she lacked the required 'qualification').

Not surprising, no. Also not surprising when you consider the relative budgets of the various churches.

But that doesn't help if you're trying to cater to a diverse population.



Did she offer to perform other rituals? She offered one type of spiritual assistance (in an industry that actually provides specialists for that purpose, so she lacked the required 'qualification').

Praying requires no qualifications aside from faith, as I understand it.

Also because offering a 'prayer' can also be taken as the situation is grim and almost beyond modern medicine.

That's actually a very good point.

She's looking at my leg, rewrapping the bandages, and she starts asking me if I would like some help seeking divine assistance... I can definitely see how that could make someone uncomfortable.

This nurse could just be the living version of the doctor in Family Guy...

Wait, you're agreeing with that, really?

the fact that she may have 'misunderstood' the order? yes.

does that make what she did OK? no. ignorance of the law is not a defense. just saying that she may have considered herself 'off the job' and that's why she offered the prayer after X number of warnings.

I'm not sure that asking if they would like to be prayed for counts as any actual promotion of religion.

Yeah. Maybe she meant 'pray' in a non-religious way.

Praying requires no qualifications aside from faith, as I understand it.

Which is why the 'qualification' was emphasised as it was.

You're talking about an industry that has professionals who are employed to meet spiritual needs. Those ministers don't deliver babies or do heart transplants. The people who change the light bulbs and mop the floors don't do bandages or perfrom last rites. And the people who irrigate wounds and change old people's diapers don't wax and polish, or minister to the needy.

That's what the 'qualification' is.

That's actually a very good point.

She's looking at my leg, rewrapping the bandages, and she starts asking me if I would like some help seeking divine assistance... I can definitely see how that could make someone uncomfortable.

This nurse could just be the living version of the doctor in Family Guy...

LOL... I know my first thought of being asked about prayer by a strange nurse (and it sounds like those nurses don't have 'regular' home patients) would be "Is it THAT bad?"

Yeah. Maybe she meant 'pray' in a non-religious way.

Even if it is technically 'promoting religion', I do not regard that as a compelling justification for suspension by any means.

If you are a Defense lawyer then you want to make that claim and drive it home. This about religion. It is very personal. Their best hope is to try to make it a Free Speech / Free Expression issue.

On the other side

No way is this a religious issue it is because she disobeyed an order. It is not that it is offensive it might embarrass the client or scare the client which contrary to the intention even though well meaning. If they can prove that it might do harm to a client then they might win.

Even if it is technically 'promoting religion', I do not regard that as a compelling justification for suspension by any means.

Which is fine. Becuase they didn't.

The suspended her while they waited for an investigation.

She got involved in the escalation of the disciplinary procedure. She was invovled in that escalation as a direct result of her own actions, and with prior fore-warning.

The specifics are irrelevent. 'Praying', 'asking to pray', or 'beating the patient with lengths of hose'... it doesn't matter. She hasn't (yet) been 'punished' for any actions.

If you are a Defense lawyer then you want to make that claim and drive it home. This about religion. It is very personal. Their best hope is to try to make it a Free Speech / Free Expression issue.


'Personal' is the thorn in your side, there.

It stops being 'personal' when you say it to me.

Key point is don't let the "other side" frame the issue.

I just like the strategic thinking of this issue. I hope the "good" guys win but I think they have an uphill battle.

Key point is don't let the "other side" frame the issue.

I just like the strategic thinking of this issue. I hope the "good" guys win but I think they have an uphill battle.

Who are the good guys?

The general public? Overall, they probably will. The service improves for all.

If you mean the patient... the patient seems to be okay.

But, I'm thinking you mean the Christian who acted unprofessionally, broke the rules, and stirred up the whole issue. That would be hypocrisy, again.

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?

From the sound of it there was a polite question and a refusal and it was left at that. I don't begrudge anyone wishing me well even if that includes prayer or other non harmful wellwishing

I do not wish to observe or partake

From the sound of the story the lady was not even the one to overreact rather the bosses

*Nods in agreement*

Especially if she was done with her 'duties as a nurse' and offered the prayer as an "I'm now off the clock and technically not a nurse". thus she could've seen it as not being 'on the job' and thus ok to do.


Actually, I find that a worse scenario - her only premise for being in her patients home is to carry out specific duties within her remit as a nurse. If she is "off the clock" she shouldn't be there at all, let alone to push her personal agenda unsolicited by the patient.

Actually, I find that a worse scenario - her only premise for being in her patients home is to carry out specific duties within her remit as a nurse. If she is "off the clock" she shouldn't be there at all, let alone to push her personal agenda unsolicited by the patient.

I would agree with you if she didn't ask and just started praying. We don't know when she asked, only that it was after she changed her patient's bandages. it could be when she was getting ready to leave, or not.

but the one thing both sides agree on, is that she politely asked and the patient politely refused and the matter was dropped until the patient mentioned it to another nurse the next day.

I would agree with you if she didn't ask and just started praying. We don't know when she asked, only that it was after she changed her patient's bandages. it could be when she was getting ready to leave, or not.

but the one thing both sides agree on, is that she politely asked and the patient politely refused and the matter was dropped until the patient mentioned it to another nurse the next day.

She either asked on the clock as a nurse, which is outside of her remit, unprofessional and improper, or she asked off the clock when she has no right to be there at all. I'm a big fan of manners, but saying please and thank you doesn't negate the inappropriateness of the rest of her speech.

Religion or spirituality is a private matter - having a stranger ask to pray with or for me would be extremely intrusive, overly familiar and downright patronising - apart from the implication, from a health professional, that my case needs divine intervention.

She may evangelise and pray and do anything else she likes in her spare time, but using her privileged access to immobile patients to push her own agenda against the explicit directions of the organisation that grants such access is unethical.

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?

Because jackasses love to make trouble!

The suspended her while they waited for an investigation.


I'm saying that it shouldn't warrant such an investigation, an investigation to the extent that it's required for her to be suspended.

She either asked on the clock as a nurse, which is outside of her remit, unprofessional and improper, or she asked off the clock when she has no right to be there at all. I'm a big fan of manners, but saying please and thank you doesn't negate the inappropriateness of the rest of her speech. and if you read my posts. I never said she should've been excused for her actions.

and if you read my posts. I never said she should've been excused for her actions.

fair play.

I'm saying that it shouldn't warrant such an investigation, an investigation to the extent that it's required for her to be suspended.

Why shouldn't it warrant an investigation?

You want to decide NHS policy?

Because jackasses love to make trouble! and would the jackass in this case is the second nurse who reported her in?

I'm saying that it shouldn't warrant such an investigation, an investigation to the extent that it's required for her to be suspended.
I can see the suspension being necessary. being under investigation may be distracting enough to cause a serious mistake when caring for someone else.

I certainly wouldn't want a nurse caring for me to be distracted when administering any of my meds. :tongue:

the suspension may be SOP when under investigation.

Because jackasses love to make trouble!

So, the second nurse is a jackass?

and would the jackass in this case is the second nurse who reported her in?

Considering the first nurse DID NOT push him into anything, and that she did not force her ideals on the patient....

I can see the suspension being necessary. being under investigation may be distracting enough to cause a serious mistake when caring for someone else.

Considering there should not be any investigation whatsoever.

I certainly wouldn't want a nurse caring for me to be distracted when administering any of my meds. :tongue:

the suspension may be SOP when under investigation.

There's nothing to investigate.

Why shouldn't it warrant an investigation?


It could warrant a seeing to, but its triviality doesn't warrant them being all SUPER SRS about it all. The NHS should only be suspending people and conducting serious investigations if there is probable cause of her actually being a threat, or seriously breaching the rules, which I'm not seeing.

It could warrant a seeing to, but its triviality doesn't warrant them being all SUPER SRS about it all. The NHS should only be suspending people and conducting serious investigations if there is probable cause of her actually being a threat, or seriously breaching the rules, which I'm not seeing.

Neither am I!

It could warrant a seeing to, but its triviality doesn't warrant them being all SUPER SRS about it all. The NHS should only be suspending people and conducting serious investigations if there is probable cause of her actually being a threat, or seriously breaching the rules, which I'm not seeing.

There's no mention of her being suspended for the first incident.. is there?

Suspension as part of the investigation of a second, related, incident... doesn't seem unreasonable as part of the normal escalation.

Considering the first nurse DID NOT push him into anything, and that she did not force her ideals on the patient....


Which doesn't answer the question asked, and has nothing to do with the question asked.

Try again?

You said that "jackasses love to make trouble", yes?

Considering the first nurse DID NOT push him into anything, and that she did not force her ideals on the patient....agreed. she did not force her religion on anyone.

However...
Considering there should not be any investigation whatsoever. the investigation is after many repeated 'warnings' from her supervisor about her bringing religion into her visits.

There's nothing to investigate. considering it's a breach of policy... it has to be investigated. if they don't then they send a message to everyone that they condone the actions of bringing religion into a field that it's not supposed to be in.

BTW, I agree that this incident shouldn't have to be investigated since it seems that no one complained. the fact that she was given repeated warnings warrants and was caught again... that warrants the investigation. I think the second nurse took the patients concern as a complaint and reported it as such. and given the nurse's work history...

What I don't understand is... is it natural for NHS to schedule different nurses for patients? here they try to keep the nurses and patients the same because it fosters a rapport and a level of trust between the patient and nurse.

There's nothing to investigate.

yeah, back of NHS managers, random internet guy has done your job for you!

I think 'random internet guy' could be the next NSG meme.

I think 'random internet guy' could be the next NSG meme.

I'm working hard.

I'm working hard.

And not in the euphemistic way that involves hand lotion... right? right?

And not in the euphemistic way that involves hand lotion... right? right?

feels good man.

o.o I find that story hard to believe. How can I be sure the BBC didn't make this up for ratings?

Anyway, that story is a bit disturbing. Prayer is a superstition, but it's a fairly common one, and at the very worst, mentioning it would indicate that the nurse was somewhat superstitious. But surely if the nurse was qualified, the influence of superstition wouldn't be strong enough to distort their perception of reality to an extent strong enough to wreck their performance in the job.

But yeah, suspending them without pay over it is a hell of an over-reaction...

But yeah, suspending them without pay over it is a hell of an over-reaction...

The suspension wasn't a punishment, so how is it an over-reaction?

Actually, I find that a worse scenario - her only premise for being in her patients home is to carry out specific duties within her remit as a nurse. If she is "off the clock" she shouldn't be there at all, let alone to push her personal agenda unsolicited by the patient.
One would hope that she would not be in the patient's home on her off time unless she was specifically invited over by the patient, in which case, I suppose she can converse with the patient in a far less restricted manner than while on the job.

One would hope that she would not be in the patient's home on her off time unless she was specifically invited over by the patient, in which case, I suppose she can converse with the patient in a far less restricted manner than while on the job.

I a not certain she is allowed to visit patients while they are still patients in her off time. It seems like abuse of the professional relationship.

Because jackasses love to make trouble!

True she did, even after being warned to stop by her managers.

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.

Would it be just as offensive if they asked if they could pray for you?

*Prays for KOL*:tongue: No not really I want you to go to hell, I need some company. :)

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

How is asking pushing?

I a not certain she is allowed to visit patients while they are still patients in her off time. It seems like abuse of the professional relationship.

Why? We had our family doctor over at our place and we over at his all the time how is it an abuse of a professional relationship? If they had developed a good report and she had invited the nurse over or to see each other in a non-professional manner what would be wrong with that?

I a not certain she is allowed to visit patients while they are still patients in her off time. It seems like abuse of the professional relationship.
Since it is not obvious from the story what the NHS's rules on that would be, I didn't want to make any assumptions. In general, in most jobs, you have more leeway to talk to customers/clients about personal things in a personal, off-duty, social context, than you do on the job. In some jobs, you don't. So, it is possible, that if the nurse struck up a personal friendship with a patient, she could visit on her off hours and they could do whatever they liked together. But it is also possible that if the nurse did strike up such a personal friendship, she would have had to give up acting as that person's nurse.

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?

Thats just dumb. She said no thank u and nurse left. No need for any action, let alone a suspension.

Likely all the action required was another reprimand. I begs another question while in the employment of an organization do you surrender your "Right" of Freedom of Expression / Freedom of Speech?

What if she wore a cross?

What if she carried a Bible with her for her own use in her pocket?

What if she said a prayer under "her breathe" before starting the treatment and was heard?

What if she was humming a religious tune while she came to the door?


I think this could set a dangerous precedence. If we don't like your speech while you are in our employ we may fire you.

I think this could set a dangerous precedence. If we don't like your speech while you are in our employ we may fire you.


That's..um...that's been precident for quite a while. Go mouth off to your boss, see what happens.

That's..um...that's been precident for quite a while. Go mouth off to your boss, see what happens.

Not quite the same thing. While doing my job, which at the moment is "crunching numbers", I say something religious can I be fired for that?

Something Like the song lyrics "Jesus is just alright with me". This could embarrass someone?

Sidenote: I can crunch number and still put forward ideas. Multi-processing

That's..um...that's been precident for quite a while. Go mouth off to your boss, see what happens.

Come on Neo Art. The two are not the same in reality. I thought you would know that.

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 had this very thing out in another place a few years ago.

As a religious (non Christian) man myself I really couldn't care. An atheist friend of mine was disgusted and kicked up a hughe stink when the same thing happend to him whilst visiting his mother in hospital a few years back, and I really couldn't understand why then and even now I fail to understand why.

It all sounds kinda childish to me.

I think this could set a dangerous precedence. If we don't like your speech while you are in our employ we may fire you.

Yes, shocking that a health service would want to regulate discussions between staff and patients. :rolleyes:

Go ahead and demonstrate how this will set a dangerous precedent, using your phenomenal grasp of the UK legal system. I'll wait here.

I had this very thing out in another place a few years ago.

As a religious (non Christian) man myself I really couldn't care. An atheist friend of mine was disgusted and kicked up a hughe stink when the same thing happend to him whilst visiting his mother in hospital a few years back, and I really couldn't understand why then and even now I fail to understand why.

It all sounds kinda childish to me.

With respect, it not being offensive to you =/= it not being offensive.

Yes, shocking that a health service would want to regulate discussions between staff and patients. :rolleyes:

Go ahead and demonstrate how this will set a dangerous precedent, using your phenomenal grasp of the UK legal system. I'll wait here.

Admittedly, I have no grasp of the UK legal system. I am just interested in the questions it brings up. You never know free speech / free expression legislation may be furthered because of this issue.

Admittedly, I have no grasp of the UK legal system. I am just interested in the questions it brings up. You never know free speech / free expression legislation may be furthered because of this issue.

...except it won't. Because it doesn't come close to being a legitimate free expression issue. So... yeah, not buying that.

the bosses were idiots i personally dont believe that there is a god/gods/superior beings/anythin like that but if someone wanted to pray top a god for my healing i'd accept cause i believe that....whatever u believe in. the power of the simple belief can sometimes do very big things INDEED a freind of mine (a fully grown adult who isnt playing opranks all the time ) was once at a concert...a man (little and very light bu the appearences with not many muscles or heavy objects) went and stood before them... they asked him to move and he said : ''move me you , you and you '' and pointed at my friend annd to other ''muscles'' they tried and they COULDNT PICK HIM UP he wasnt resisting in anyway but afterwards he said that he had ''drained '' tehir energy and that if tehy meet him at the same place the next day he would put thir energy right again. my friend did indeed fall a bit sick and had a slight headache but didnt return cause he had some work to do.

thats why i believe that , whatever u belief in, it exists or not , simp0ly believeing is a force of nature capable of miracles in the good hands (and a little knowledge...the guy said he had practised yoga and other relax and energy sport for years)

- article signed by the peacefull nation of new-danemark (after the other one sunk into the ocean).

the bosses were idiots i personally dont believe that there is a god/gods/superior beings/anythin like that but if someone wanted to pray top a god for my healing i'd accept cause i believe that....whatever u believe in. the power of the simple belief can sometimes do very big things INDEED a freind of mine (a fully grown adult who isnt playing opranks all the time ) was once at a concert...a man (little and very light bu the appearences with not many muscles or heavy objects) went and stood before them... they asked him to move and he said : ''move me you , you and you '' and pointed at my friend annd to other ''muscles'' they tried and they COULDNT PICK HIM UP he wasnt resisting in anyway but afterwards he said that he had ''drained '' tehir energy and that if tehy meet him at the same place the next day he would put thir energy right again. my friend did indeed fall a bit sick and had a slight headache but didnt return cause he had some work to do.

thats why i believe that , whatever u belief in, it exists or not , simp0ly believeing is a force of nature capable of miracles in the good hands (and a little knowledge...the guy said he had practised yoga and other relax and energy sport for years)

- article signed by the peacefull nation of new-danemark (after the other one sunk into the ocean).

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021011h.gif

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20021011h.gif

Have I ever mentioned that I love you?

Not quite the same thing. While doing my job, which at the moment is "crunching numbers", I say something religious can I be fired for that?

Something Like the song lyrics "Jesus is just alright with me". This could embarrass someone?

Sidenote: I can crunch number and still put forward ideas. Multi-processing
Do you make a habit of just making up unrealistic scenarios when the story of what really happened doesn't support the argument you want to make?

I don't mind the prayer thing, some people do. As was stated before, this is one person's perspective on the matter. I wouldn't complain if they asked, but pestering me about it is something I would be offended by. Similarly, there are some people who would be offended by the simple act. We're living in a world set out to please everybody, and what's left is a mediocre state that pleases nobody. Some shit needs to go, or be actually clear.

Do you make a habit of just making up unrealistic scenarios when the story of what really happened doesn't support the argument you want to make?

My questions might be extreme cases. :p

Just having fun. Everyone is so touchy. Besides debate, I think philosophy is part of this site. May be I got it wrong.
:(

My questions might be extreme cases. :p

Just having fun. Everyone is so touchy. Besides debate, I think philosophy is part of this site. May be I got it wrong.
:(

It tends to disrupt the flow of debate with you alternately agreeing with everyone, posting nonsense or inventing scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

It tends to disrupt the flow of debate with you alternately agreeing with everyone, posting nonsense or inventing scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

Ouch. Alternately agreeing with everyone? I didn't think I was.

Ouch. Inventing scenarios? I just wanted to see what the limits were to free speech in the UK because they are not the same as the US?

Of course the above would require theorizing. Sorry to offend.

Not quite the same thing. While doing my job, which at the moment is "crunching numbers", I say something religious can I be fired for that?

Something Like the song lyrics "Jesus is just alright with me".
It would depend on how loudly you were singing. If you were actually annoying your co-workers, or if you are in the habit of singing so loudly that you might start annoying your co-workers, you will surely be asked to stop. If you persist in doing it after your boss has told you to stop (maybe switching to "Jesus loves me, this I know, cause the Bible tells me so" on the lame excuse that the order to stop only referred to one particular song), eventually you are going to get fired.

Likely all the action required was another reprimand.


Which still might be the result, unless I've missed something about the suspension being over and the investigation having been conducted.

The suspension was not a punishment.


I begs another question while in the employment of an organization do you surrender your "Right" of Freedom of Expression / Freedom of Speech?


Yes. Maybe.


What if she wore a cross?


Yes. Maybe.

Depending on employer and/or relevent laws and regulations.


What if she carried a Bible with her for her own use in her pocket?


What if she did?


What if she said a prayer under "her breathe" before starting the treatment and was heard?


These are getting a bit stretched - what is the importance supposed to be. If she said it 'under her breath' no one would be able to hear it, would they?


I think this could set a dangerous precedence. If we don't like your speech while you are in our employ we may fire you.

Welcome to 49 of the 50 US states.

Not quite the same thing. While doing my job, which at the moment is "crunching numbers", I say something religious can I be fired for that?


In New York State?

Yes.

In New York you can be fired for nothing at all, no reason what so ever. We are the worst state in that regard.

More to the point.

I am not the only one who see this as free speech issue.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2178007/posts


Scroll down to the bottom.


Look at the headlines.

Daily Telegraph: Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html

BBC: Nurse suspended for prayer offer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

Daily Mail: Persecuted for praying: Nurse who faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133423/Nurse-faces-sack-offering-pray-sick-patient.html

Most states are at will states Truly Blessed.

My questions might be extreme cases. :p

Just having fun. Everyone is so touchy. Besides debate, I think philosophy is part of this site. May be I got it wrong.
:(

Philosophy is part of this site, but much like debate, it benefits from cogently presented reasoning supported with diligently gathered information on the topic. It benefits less from distorting amplifications and day after day of fallacious, easily refuted assertions. Those things may be fun for you; they are less entertaining for debaters, and even less fun for philosophers who have progressed beyond the fish in a barrel phase.

Most states are at will states Truly Blessed.


I know it is a shame too. They should at least give you a reason even if they are not required to. Labor laws need to be looked into.

Hooter Girl that was us. You don't speak "American" well enough

What a crock!

The list on and on.

I know it is a shame too. They should at least give you a reason even if they are not required to. Labor laws need to be looked into.

Hooter Girl that was us. You don't speak "American" well enough

What a crock!

The list on and on.

So, you know that most states share the employment doctrine as New York in reasons for dismissal, yet you don't see how it refutes your claim that New York is "the worst in that regard." Corenliu's point may have been that it is similar "in that regard" to most other states, and thus not "the worst".

If I were to get on Westlaw and make a general review of New York's protection for employees and compare it to that of other States (or to truly examine your claim of NY being "the worst" I would have to compare it to all States) what might I find?

More to the point.

I am not the only one who see this as free speech issue.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2178007/posts


Scroll down to the bottom.


The comments?

What does a Fresno, California message board have to do with English law?


Look at the headlines.

Daily Telegraph: Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html

BBC: Nurse suspended for prayer offer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

Daily Mail: Persecuted for praying: Nurse who faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133423/Nurse-faces-sack-offering-pray-sick-patient.html

I'm shocked. Newspapers making incendiary and not necessarily totally accurate headline claims.

Look at the headlines.

Daily Telegraph: Nurse suspended for offering to pray for elderly patient's recovery www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html

From the article:

""Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'.""

Which sort of resolves the "Is it really against the rules?" line. Doesn't say that it's being raised as a freedom of expression issue, just says that they've taken advice from a Christian legal group.

BBC: Nurse suspended for prayer offer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7863699.stm

See above. The Christian legal group they've contacted is backing her, and I assume they'll be trying to paint it as a violation of her freedom of expression/freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

And I'm saying that she has less chance of succeeding than the air hostess, months earlier, who was fired for refusing to take off her crucifix necklace in accordance with company jewelry policy.

You might not be the only person who sees this as a free speech issue; but it really isn't, and the law tends to agree.

Daily Mail: Persecuted for praying: Nurse who faces the sack after offering to pray for sick patient www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133423/Nurse-faces-sack-offering-pray-sick-patient.html

And finally, never cite the Daily Fail as an authoritative source. Hell, look at their bloody headline: "Persecuted for praying". Objective journalism at its best :rolleyes:.

I put 2 of your posts together.




Philosophy is part of this site, but much like debate, it benefits from cogently presented reasoning supported with diligently gathered information on the topic. It benefits less from distorting amplifications and day after day of fallacious, easily refuted assertions. Those things may be fun for you; they are less entertaining for debaters, and even less fun for philosophers who have progressed beyond the fish in a barrel phase.


I admit I am not as astute as my esteemed colleges. That is too all their credit.

Second I am new here are I am still feeling my way around.

Thirdly, there is admittedly a different concept of Free Speech / Free Expression in the UK vs. Free Speech in the US. I was looking for where the proverbial line was.

"day after day of fallacious, easily refuted assertions"

I apologize for wasting yours and others time. I am sorry you do not find it fun. I learn how others see the world. I grow and adapt because of that knowledge. A big smarty-marty writer like yourself should know that. Wisdom comes from many sources.


So, you know that most states share the employment doctrine as New York in reasons for dismissal, yet you don't see how it refutes your claim that New York is "the worst in that regard." Corenliu's point may have been that it is similar "in that regard" to most other states, and thus not "the worst".

I submit that as a "man on the street" opinion. You would have to live and work here to understand. I stand by my statement the New York is the worst in that regard.


If I were to get on Westlaw and make a general review of New York's protection for employees and compare it to that of other States (or to truly examine your claim of NY being "the worst" I would have to compare it to all States) what might I find?

Likely you would find that the labor code heavily favors the employer. That employees here are little more than "beast of burden". To be used, abused, and discarded. There is no appeals process you are just out. Tough luck, better luck next time.


Reminds of a story from my own life. Upon quitting a job in our wonderful state. To which it is in most other regards. I flipped a 10 cent coin at him and said "the next dozen is on me". Time and time again he told me "people like you are a dime a dozen". I am easily malleable, I get bent out of shape easily.

The cost of living in this state compounded with the lack of labor code make this among the most difficult places to work.

However I must admit certain employers are top notch like my current one. When one door closes another always opens.

Within an almost 3 State radius of New York City you can not find affordable housing without adding about 1.5 to 2 hours of commuting time each way. Parking and driving are insane and life threatening. Apartment prices are always way too high. There is shortage most of the time.

The only state that can even remotely complain is California and they have better weather.

I submit that as a "man on the street" opinion. You would have to live and work here to understand. I stand by my statement the New York is the worst in that regard.

As a "man on the street", the "regard" you are referencing, the governing dynamic of impetus for termination of employment, is called at will employment and it is the same in New York as in the majority of States. Men and women on the streets of many other States cope with the same at will employment conditions.


Likely you would find that the labor code heavily favors the employer. That employees here are little more than "beast of burden". To be used abused and discarded. There is no appeals process you are just out. Tough luck, better luck next time.

And what makes you think there isn't a single state where it isn't the same or worse? Again, what you describe is called "at will employment", and it is the same in many States. The conditions you describe are a function of the employer, not the State, and you have no fewer protections than many other States.


Reminds of a story from my own life. Upon quitting a job in our wonderful state. To which it is in most other regards. I flipped a 10 cent coin at him and said "the next dozen is on me". Time and time again he told people like you are a dime a dozen.

And you think that indicates that the employment regulations in your State are thus the worst? You don't think there are worse stories from other States?


The cost of living in this state compounded with the lack of labor code make this among the most difficult places to work.

Are you quite sure New York has no labor code? If you were to find that one exists, how thoroughly have you compared it to all the other States?


However I must admit certain employers are top notch like my current one. When one door closes another always opens.

Within an almost 3 State radius of New York City you can not find affordable housing without adding about 1.5 to 2 hours of commuting time each way. Parking and driving are insane and life threatening. Apartment prices are always way too high. There is shortage most of the time.

The only state that can even remotely complain is California and they have better weather.

This is a highly illustrative example of attempting to cover an untennable assertion with an emotional appeal and a striking dearth of relevance. For someone who tries to give others debate advice, you really don't seem to be able to make or maintain a coherent line of reasoning.

Okay just for fun. Anyone who does not wish to participate please ignore me. Okay poof you are now the attorney for whichever side what questions would you ask and of whom to win your case?

http://www.nmc-uk.org/aArticle.aspx?ArticleID=3056

You must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity.

My first question would be for the Nurse
"Did anyone ever specifically say you could not pray for a patient"?

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Did you feel you were harming a patients "equality and diversity" by asking to pray for them.

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Are you aware of any other nurse who was informed of either of the 2 previous questions?

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Okay just for fun. Anyone who does not wish to participate please ignore me. Okay poof you are now the attorney for whichever side what questions would you ask and of whom to win your case?

http://www.nmc-uk.org/aArticle.aspx?ArticleID=3056

You must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity.

My first question would be for the Nurse
"Did anyone ever specifically say you could not pray for a patient"?

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Did you feel you were harming a patients "equality and diversity" by asking to pray for them.

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Are you aware of any other nurse who was informed of either of the 2 previous questions?

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

The third would be discarded as irrelevent. The second discusses how the nurse FEELS about what she did, which doesn't speak to whether it was allowed, right or legal - it would be discarded, too.

The first might be allowed, but the corss examination question would ask if she'd specifically been told she wasn't allowed to place live badgers in her patients anal openings, to which - one assumes - she would be forced to answer no.

Simply never having been told - expressly - not to do something, doesn't make it allowed.

Your three questions would actually, overall, probably help the 'prosecution'.

When one door closes another always opens.


30 million unemployed would argue otherwise.

My first question would be for the Nurse
"Did anyone ever specifically say you could not pray for a patient"?

Counselor, you may wish to examine the fact set of the case. She was not investigated for praying for a patient, but for approaching a patient and offering to pray for her, while at work.


To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Did you feel you were harming a patients "equality and diversity" by asking to pray for them.

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Are you aware of any other nurse who was informed of either of the 2 previous questions?

To which she would undoubtedly answer"No"

Undoubtedly? So, she hadn't prior received reprimand for religious approach to patients while on duty, such as offering a prayer card? She was not ordered, previous to this event, to attend sensitivity training as a result of that, and thus should have clearly been aware of the potential difficulty here?

...Okay poof you are now the attorney for whichever side what questions would you ask and of whom to win your case...


Who you calling poof - that's fighting talk that is? :mad::D

With respect, it not being offensive to you =/= it not being offensive.

Fair point, what I fail to understand is how can it be offensive to anybody?

So your an atheist right, some Christian pops along and offers to pray for you.

Now what about that is offensive? Is it that they are offering you some comfort, or that they are wanting to pray on your behalf to a God that you simply do not belive exists?

The old belife in God has often been seen alongside a belife in Santa as delusional. Would you then be offended if I told you that I was going to put in a good word with Santa this year as you have been an ever so good boy?

So can you explain why anybody would take offeanse at something like this?

So your an atheist right, some Christian pops along and offers to pray for you.

Now what about that is offensive? Is it that they are offering you some comfort, or that they are wanting to pray on your behalf to a God that you simply do not belive exists?


Why are all the believers assuming that it would be an atheist who would find it offensive? Seems to me it is far more likely to be a believer from a different religion/denomination who would find it offensive. Can you imagine Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him?

Why are all the believers assuming that it would be an atheist who would find it offensive? Seems to me it is far more likely to be a believer from a different religion/denomination who would find it offensive. Can you imagine Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him?

Meh! One of those things I guess.

Both Catholics and Prodies belive in the same God, I can't imagine Ian Paisley being too cut up about it.

Meh! One of those things I guess.

Both Catholics and Prodies belive in the same God, I can't imagine Ian Paisley being too cut up about it.

Seeing as he always described the Pope as the antichrist I think he might have.

Seeing as he always described the Pope as the antichrist I think he might have.

Ahhh that's the job of prodies though innit!:D

Why are all the believers assuming that it would be an atheist who would find it offensive? Seems to me it is far more likely to be a believer from a different religion/denomination who would find it offensive. Can you imagine Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him?

A new HD LCD TV... £280
A trip to Ireland... £50
A cup of coffee... £1.20

Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him... Priceless

So can you explain why anybody would take offeanse at something like this?

Just so we're clear about the hypothetical; I'm going about my day, a Christian I'm not closely associated with offers to pray for me? We'll assume it's within some sort of context, as opposed to a stranger popping out of nowhere with prayer solicitations when I'm having my lunch.

The reason some people I know would find it offensive is that it belies a certain arrogance on the part of the offeror. Maybe not intentionally, it comes across as saying, "You're not capable of holding your own beliefs correctly; here, have some of mine!"

Or worse, if it is coming across as being malicious, it sounds more like, "I'm judging your lifestyle choice; let me express this in the harshest possible sense."

People who don't see the problem with being offered a prayer are, generally, the sort of people who would accept them.

Why are all the believers assuming that it would be an atheist who would find it offensive? Seems to me it is far more likely to be a believer from a different religion/denomination who would find it offensive. Can you imagine Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him?

As peeps says one of those things but then again other articles on this story have various atheist and secular groups saying that suspension is the right thing to do.

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 would consider it an insult only if the prayer were done despite my wishes. I don't have "atheist" tattooed to my forehead, so I don't expect anyone to know unless they ask.

If someone simply asks if I want them to pray for me, that's okay. I will say "no, thank you", and expect that to be the end of it.

It would depend on how loudly you were singing. If you were actually annoying your co-workers, or if you are in the habit of singing so loudly that you might start annoying your co-workers, you will surely be asked to stop. If you persist in doing it after your boss has told you to stop (maybe switching to "Jesus loves me, this I know, cause the Bible tells me so" on the lame excuse that the order to stop only referred to one particular song), eventually you are going to get fired.
At the very least, fired for being a habitual annoying smart-ass. That's generally what I think of all that "but she was reprimanded for CARDS, and this is a PRAYER -- totally different, so how could she possibly have known???" crap. It's the kind of squirming smart-ass kids try on their parents and teachers.

Fair point, what I fail to understand is how can it be offensive to anybody?

You know what I don't understand? Why you are still asking that question after the answer has been explained to you numerous times in this thread.

Also, as I said before, it doesn't matter WHY a person is offended, or whether you think their reasons for being offended are good or bad. The fact remains they are offended by it. That being the case, the person giving offense -- no matter how accidentally -- should stop doing the offending thing.

Unless, of course, as Bottle said repeatedly, the person's goal is to offend someone else or they just don't give a shit about others in general, which would explain how, knowing it is offensive to some people, they still keep on doing it with strangers whose beliefs they don't know.

As a "man on the street", the "regard" you are referencing, the governing dynamic of impetus for termination of employment, is called at will employment and it is the same in New York as in the majority of States. Men and women on the streets of many other States cope with the same at will employment conditions.



And what makes you think there isn't a single state where it isn't the same or worse? Again, what you describe is called "at will employment", and it is the same in many States. The conditions you describe are a function of the employer, not the State, and you have no fewer protections than many other States.



And you think that indicates that the employment regulations in your State are thus the worst? You don't think there are worse stories from other States?



Are you quite sure New York has no labor code? If you were to find that one exists, how thoroughly have you compared it to all the other States?



This is a highly illustrative example of attempting to cover an untennable assertion with an emotional appeal and a striking dearth of relevance. For someone who tries to give others debate advice, you really don't seem to be able to make or maintain a coherent line of reasoning.

I would be happy to discuss this with you but we should make a new forum. With regards to debates, you will likely rip me a part. The point is to gain wisdom. So worst in what sense is the question? It was of course a personal opinion. Getting the facts to prove the matter are very difficult but possible. Here is one such link. Read it through. It is sickening.


http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/labor/faqs.html

Here is my favorite just for an example

Question: I am not in a union and do not have an employment contract. My employer wants to reduce my salary or change my hours or my job, and says I will be fired unless I accept the change. Can he do this?

Answer: Yes. If you are not in a union and do not have an employment contract, an employer may change the conditions of employment, including salary, provided that he or she pays at least the minimum wage and any required overtime, and continues to follow any other applicable laws. An employer may not, however, change your salary retroactively for time you have already worked.

A new HD LCD TV... £280
A trip to Ireland... £50
A cup of coffee... £1.20

Ian Paisley's reaction getting an offer from a Catholic to pray for him... Priceless

That would be priceless. I think his head may actually explode

Counselor, you may wish to examine the fact set of the case. She was not investigated for praying for a patient, but for approaching a patient and offering to pray for her, while at work.


See the danger counselor you played right into their hands. That sounds like free speech to me and it may to jury as well. See what happens when you allow the other side to frame the issue. Much the way Bush did in his election "Terrorist". You either with us or a against us. You stay on message, keep dragging them back to "bad guys" vs. "good guys"



Undoubtedly? So, she hadn't prior received reprimand for religious approach to patients while on duty, such as offering a prayer card? She was not ordered, previous to this event, to attend sensitivity training as a result of that, and thus should have clearly been aware of the potential difficulty here?

We may challenge this as well. One thing at a time though.

To answer "she was ordered to attend and did attend the sensitivity training" If she were not allowed to offer to pray for people while on duty wouldn't you think they would have mentioned this in that training? Maybe the sensitivity training was substandard which lead to this whole "misunderstanding".

The third would be discarded as irrelevant. The second discusses how the nurse FEELS about what she did, which doesn't speak to whether it was allowed, right or legal - it would be discarded, too.

The first might be allowed, but the cross examination question would ask if she'd specifically been told she wasn't allowed to place live badgers in her patients anal openings, to which - one assumes - she would be forced to answer no.

Simply never having been told - expressly - not to do something, doesn't make it allowed.

Your three questions would actually, overall, probably help the 'prosecution'.

Redirect

My question is to the nurse again "Do you think that putting a live badger in her anal opening might be dangerous?"

The nurse would likely answer yes

Follow up.
My question is to the nurse again "By your own admission you have offered these types of prayer in the past, yes or No?"
The nurse would say "yes"
Me: Did any of your patients take you up on the offer?
Nurse: yes
Me: and was was the reaction of the patients to your request
Nurse: They seemed surprised but happily accepted
Me: Did you observe any negative results because of asking them to prayer for them?
Nurse: No
Me: So you mentioned previously that you have asked in the past, did any patients reject the offer?
Me: and was was the reaction of the patients to your request?
Nurse: They acted a little surprised but politely declined
Me: Did you observe any negative results because of asking them to prayer for them?
Nurse: No
Me: and what did you do after they declined?
Nurse: I thanked them and left for my next assignment

Your witness, reserve the right to recall (or whatever the term is)

See the danger counselor you played right into their hands. That sounds like free speech to me and it may to jury as well.

Civil actions are generally juryless, since they tend to revolve around points of law, rather than points of fact. Judges handle them better than the untrained public.

Towards the rest of your points, the Nurse was informed that she had violated the terms of her employment. Her employment was suspended. This is not a free speech issue.

Civil actions are generally juryless, since they tend to revolve around points of law, rather than points of fact. Judges handle them better than the untrained public.

Towards the rest of your points, the Nurse was informed that she had violated the terms of her employment. Her employment was suspended. This is not a free speech issue.

Okay that is a good point. Suppose you get a "Christian Judge" then or one with a leaning towards free speech. His/her interpretation of that law is critical to your case.


You are arguing the right way though drag it back to your side. Now how is what she did violating the terms of her employment. Since the rule is very open to interpretation. You must respect the patient's cultural and ethnic diversity.

http://www.ggalanti.com/articles/articles_home_health.html

This may not be a UK based document but it shows what I think of and maybe many other do of what "respecting someone cultural and ethnic diversity" means. At least in the US these training session have more to do with race than anything else.

Here is just one example and yet no where in this document does it say not to offer a prayer for an individual.

Okay that is a good point. Suppose you get a "Christian Judge" then or one with a leaning towards free speech. His/her interpretation of that law is critical to your case.

If the judge felt that his religious leanings would influence his decision, he is obliged to stand down. Judges are required to be impartial.

Again, I'll repeat it; the UK law is very clear that this is not a free speech issue. A court is not the place to change the law.


Now how is what she did violating the terms of her employment. Since the rule is very open to interpretation.

Except it's not, it's pretty clear from the Nurses Code of Conduct, which is the basis of her employment. And this line of reasoning has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you're arguing more along unfair dismissal.

You must respect the patient's cultural and ethnic diversity.

http://www.ggalanti.com/articles/articles_home_health.html

Your article says absolutely nothing relevant to your argument. It goes over basic nursing technique, but doesn't say, "Religion can be a good way of bonding with the patient". And even if it did, it's not even a legal document, so carries little authority.

Here is just one example and yet no where in this document does it say not to offer a prayer for an individual.

It doesn't say you shouldn't offer to ram a skunk up the patient's anus either.

...and it's not a legal document.

...nor is it relevant.

Just so we're clear about the hypothetical; I'm going about my day, a Christian I'm not closely associated with offers to pray for me? We'll assume it's within some sort of context, as opposed to a stranger popping out of nowhere with prayer solicitations when I'm having my lunch.

The reason some people I know would find it offensive is that it belies a certain arrogance on the part of the offeror. Maybe not intentionally, it comes across as saying, "You're not capable of holding your own beliefs correctly; here, have some of mine!"

Or worse, if it is coming across as being malicious, it sounds more like, "I'm judging your lifestyle choice; let me express this in the harshest possible sense."

People who don't see the problem with being offered a prayer are, generally, the sort of people who would accept them.

No I don't buy any of that. If you look at this particular situation then the offer of a prayer can be equated with thoughts of sympahy, an empathasising with the condition of a fellow human, and in a way says 'I hope she gets better soon'.

That is really the only way to take such an offer, any other way is plainly wrong, and misunderstands what the offer is about.

No I don't buy any of that. If you look at this particular situation then the offer of a prayer can be equated with thoughts of sympahy, an empathasising with the condition of a fellow human, and in a way says 'I hope she gets better soon'.

Hang on, I thought we were using a hypothetical situation? You asked how atheists can take offence to an unsolicited offer of prayer, I explained it.

That is really the only way to take such an offer, any other way is plainly wrong, and misunderstands what the offer is about.

No, that's the only way to take an offer for some people. But for some of us, like those of us in the thread, it's not how we see it. Which is the crux of the matter.

You know what I don't understand? Why you are still asking that question after the answer has been explained to you numerous times in this thread.

Also, as I said before, it doesn't matter WHY a person is offended, or whether you think their reasons for being offended are good or bad. The fact remains they are offended by it. That being the case, the person giving offense -- no matter how accidentally -- should stop doing the offending thing.

Unless, of course, as Bottle said repeatedly, the person's goal is to offend someone else or they just don't give a shit about others in general, which would explain how, knowing it is offensive to some people, they still keep on doing it with strangers whose beliefs they don't know.

Then understand this. I asked only once!

Yes the decent thing to do would be to applogise, say I didn't mean to offend you and wonder off. Did that not happen in this case?

That though does not negate the fact that people get offended at the most stupid of things.

To what degree though would you advocate changeing ones normal habits to accomedate the feelings of somebody else?

To what degree though would you advocate changeing ones normal habits to accomedate the feelings of somebody else?

If your job is centred around dealing with all sorts of people, and caring for them? Yes, I think it's reasonable for you to change your normal habits to try and minimise the risk of offending some of those people.

4 million jews killed at auschwitz is worth 533 posts on NSG.
A nurse asks if she may pray for a patient and it inspires 656 and counting...

Funny where peoples priorities lie...

4 million jews killed at auschwitz is worth 533 posts on NSG.
A nurse asks if she may pray for a patient and it inspires 656 and counting...

Funny where peoples priorities lie...

When the Titanic sank, an Aberdeen newspaper ran the headline: "North-East Man Lost at Sea!"

My irrelevant post is funnier than yours.

Hang on, I thought we were using a hypothetical situation? You asked how atheists can take offence to an unsolicited offer of prayer, I explained it.

Heh perhaps you where, but I was thinking about the OP. In fact I aksed how anybody can take offence.


No, that's the only way to take an offer for some people. But for some of us, like those of us in the thread, it's not how we see it. Which is the crux of the matter.

Yep it is, if that is not how you see it, then how you see it,(as expleind in my previous post) is clearly wrong, and probably because of your misundertanding on what the offer is about.

If somebody offers to pray for you, belive me it is not likely to be an underhand swipe at you for any reason, and is most likely to be because that person feels some sort of compassion towards you, or your situation.

If you belive otherwise, then instead of takeing offense, why not just ask them for what porpose would they offer such a thing?

If your job is centred around dealing with all sorts of people, and caring for them? Yes, I think it's reasonable for you to change your normal habits to try and minimise the risk of offending some of those people.

Okay well I have a job like that. Would you recomend that I not wear my Manowar T-shirt to work in case some 'townny', 'trendie' or 'chav' takes offence at my musical taste?

Or perhaps refrain from wearing my Santa hat at crimbo incase it upsets those who do not belive in Santa?

As I aksed earler would you get offended if I offered to put in a good word with Santa this year as you've been ever-so-good?

Or would you just give me that strange look and think me slighly mad?

Yep it is, if that is not how you see it, then how you see it,(as expleind in my previous post) is clearly wrong

I'm not sure you can really say someone's empirically wrong for taking offence to something. You're deriving an "is" from an "ought", so to speak.

why not just ask them for what porpose would they offer such a thing?

My point is that the offence has already been taken at that point. I know they're trying to do a nice thing, but it doesn't alter that it is somewhat offence to an atheist. It's just contrary points of view, y'know?

Okay well I have a job like that. Would you recomend that I not wear my Manowar T-shirt to work in case some 'townny', 'trendie' or 'chav' takes offence at my musical taste?

Well... not sure they're really a recognised ethnic/religious group.

And besides, I can't help but think that anything that offends a ned could only be a good thing :p

Or perhaps refrain from wearing my Santa hat at crimbo incase it upsets those who do not belive in Santa?

As I aksed earler would you get offended if I offered to put in a good word with Santa this year as you've been ever-so-good?

Or would you just give me that strange look and think me slighly mad?

Depends. Personally, I don't see that as coming over quite as judgemental as an offer for a prayer, but I'm biased by my undying love of Santy Clause.

I'm not sure you can really say someone's empirically wrong for taking offence to something. You're deriving an "is" from an "ought", so to speak.

No not at all. I'm talking about intent. Of course you can take offense even if offense was not intended. In such a case you have got it wrong, you have misunderstood the intent and so are wrong about it.


My point is that the offence has already been taken at that point. I know they're trying to do a nice thing, but it doesn't alter that it is somewhat offence to an atheist. It's just contrary points of view, y'know?

And why, is the question, why is it offenseive? You have stated that you realise that the offer is because the person is trying to do a nice thing, so why take offence over that?

I can think of only one such occasion when an offer of aid may be taken as offensive. If you take that offer to somehow mean 'you are incapable of doing it by yourself'.

Even in such a case, it is still a misunderstanding that causes the offence, not by the offerer, but by the offeree!

Offence in general looses it's power if you opt not to be offended. So in a real sense the power of offense is not in the hands of the offender.

Well... not sure they're really a recognised ethnic/religious group.

And besides, I can't help but think that anything that offends a ned could only be a good thing :p



Depends. Personally, I don't see that as coming over quite as judgemental as an offer for a prayer, but I'm biased by my undying love of Santy Clause.

Heh and that's the thing, you clearly demostrate here that the offence came from the fact that this woman is Christian.

Or how can you square it? An offer of intersetion on your behalf to one figure of the womans imagination is offensive, whilst the offer of intersetion on your behalf to a differant figure of the womans imagination is not.

Now that makes no sense does it?:D

No not at all. I'm talking about intent. Of course you can take offense even if offense was not intended. In such a case you have got it wrong, you have misunderstood the intent and so are wrong about it.



And why, is the question, why is it offenseive? You have stated that you realise that the offer is because the person is trying to do a nice thing, so why take offence over that?

I can think of only one such occasion when an offer of aid may be taken as offensive. If you take that offer to somehow mean 'you are incapable of doing it by yourself'.

Even in such a case, it is still a misunderstanding that causes the offence, not by the offerer, but by the offeree!

Offence in general looses it's power if you opt not to be offended. So in a real sense the power of offense is not in the hands of the offender.


Well said!

No not at all. I'm talking about intent. Of course you can take offense even if offense was not intended. In such a case you have got it wrong, you have misunderstood the intent and so are wrong about it.

Okay, so I buy a bacon sandwich for my muslim friend. I'm not intending to be offensive. I'd understand if she took offense, though.

Or I offer to sacrifice a goat to appease Bhaal for my Christian friend. Same as a above.

Intent counts for a lot, but it doesn't excuse being insensitive. Not everyone will agree with you, and you can't declare them "wrong" when it happens.


And why, is the question, why is it offenseive? You have stated that you realise that the offer is because the person is trying to do a nice thing, so why take offence over that?

I can think of only one such occasion when an offer of aid may be taken as offensive. If you take that offer to somehow mean 'you are incapable of doing it by yourself'.

Even in such a case, it is still a misunderstanding that causes the offense, not by the offerer, but by the offeree!

Maybe still some insensitivity on the part of the offeror.

Offence in general looses it's power if you opt not to be offended. So in a real sense the power of offense is not in the hands of the offender.

Surely taking offense is such an instinctive, personal thing that it's hard to choose to not be offended without first being offended, then consciously ignoring it. If you follow.

Heh and that's the thing, you clearly demostrate here that the offence came from the fact that this woman is Christian.

Or how can you square it? An offer of intersetion on your behalf to one figure of the womans imagination is offensive, whilst the offer of intersetion on your behalf to a differant figure of the womans imagination is not.

Now that makes no sense does it?:D

Heh, whoever said I had to make sense? :p

Nah, seriously, I think that taking offense in this particular sense is very much a personal issue. What I find offensive, plenty of others won't. Vice versa. Gimme a few days and a lot more free time and I'll find you someone who takes offense to the Santa Clause offer! There's no universal morality.

EDIT: I'm away to grab some dinner. I'll catch up with replies as soon as I can. Take it easy!

Okay, so I buy a bacon sandwich for my muslim friend. I'm not intending to be offensive. I'd understand if she took offense, though.

That don't really say anything. You would not buy a bacon sandwhich for your Muslim freind, because you clearly understand that it may cause offence.


Or I offer to sacrifice a goat to appease Bhaal for my Christian friend. Same as a above.

Both of these examples though are dependant on those that belive in God. They are not really the same situation as the OP.

Yet in both cases, the choice to take offence rests with these friends of yours. Is it offensive to offer a vegiterian a bacon sandwhich, would you expect the veggie to take offensive or brush it off perhaps with the words, 'sorry mate I'm a veggie'?


Intent counts for a lot, but it doesn't excuse being insensitive. Not everyone will agree with you, and you can't declare them "wrong" when it happens.

But I have not done that. I can though declare them wrong if they misunderstand my intent.


Maybe still some insensitivity on the part of the offeror.

Perhaps, but how can you be insensitive if you have no idea of that persons belife structure? That is ignorance, not insensitivity.



Surely taking offense is such an instinctive, personal thing that it's hard to choose to not be offended without first being offended, then consciously ignoring it. If you follow.


Yeah I can get with that, heh perhaps though that I have practiced such a thing for so long that I just don't instinctivly take offense.

It's a very strange thing really (getting of topic just a tad), I am a religous man, and during the many debates I have had with Atheists the common denomenator has always been the delusion that I suffer, you know the one, the delusion of faith. I am offten told that such a belife is not logical, and yet here again am I being offered up no more than gut feeling, instictive reaction, and when I try to make a point logicaly what to I get in return, yep emotional based argument.

A very strange thing indeed!:D

Both of these examples though are dependant on those that belive in God. They are not really the same situation as the OP.

True. Perhaps it comes back to the old argument that God (and Jesus) really is not so... friendly... towards unbelievers, and that offering to draw His attention to them is therefor rather... mean ?
As Mr Godwin would say: it is like telling a Jew you will mention his name to the ghost of Adolf Hitler. The Jew may not believe in ghosts, but that does not mean he can not dislike the sentiment.

True. Perhaps it comes back to the old argument that God (and Jesus) really is not so... friendly... towards unbelievers, and that offering to draw His attention to them is therefor rather... mean ?
As Mr Godwin would say: it is like telling a Jew you will mention his name to the ghost of Adolf Hitler. The Jew may not believe in ghosts, but that does not mean he can not dislike the sentiment.

Ahhh now that almost makes sense.

I'm still not satisfied though. How can it be offensive to make an offer to talk to a thing that you do not belive in?

The Jew would probably smart at the mention of Adolf, whether or not he belives in ghosts, the mention of that name to a Jew is bound to illicit some response.

I do not belive in this pasta monster with it's noodly appendges, therefore offer me as many times as you like to pray to it on my behalf, it makes no differance, I would probably give you that look and mumble, 'Umm yeah go right ahead, knock yourself out mate'

I can see no logical reason why I would be offended by such an offer, can you?

I'm still not satisfied though. How can it be offensive to make an offer to talk to a thing that you do not belive in?

It is perfectly possible to not believe in something, but disliking what it is supposed to represent.

The Jew would probably smart at the mention of Adolf, pendges, therefore offer me as many times as you like to pray to it on my behalf, it makes no differance, I would probably give you that look and mumble, 'Umm yeah go right ahead, knock yourself out mate'

Does the FSM represent anything you dislike/despise ?
Does the holy book of the FSM call upon its followers to harm you, or does it describe you as an inferior being or with some other insults ?

I doubt it. That is quite possibly the difference here.

I can see no logical reason why I would be offended by such an offer, can you?
It may.. annoy.. me that the person in question never even thought about what his or her image of God might represent for other people and just automatically assumes that everybody loves and respects Him and everything He stands for. Kinda like the Hitler argument - a clueless neonazi may well believe his offer to talk with Hitlerghost is a nice thing to say, without ever thinking about the fact that some people may not see Hitler as the glory and hope for the world.

Fair point, what I fail to understand is how can it be offensive to anybody?

So your an atheist right, some Christian pops along and offers to pray for you.


While I doubt if it would have bothered me, I can see how it could.

There are a couple of reasons - it is kind of insulting to have it assumed that - not only do you share the religion of someone else, but that you want to actually 'SHARE' it.

There is also the possibility it could be uncomfortable - being asked by your medical care might make some people feel that they HAVE to be Christian, and accept the offer. Especially since it's not that uncommon for Christians to try to witness to you if you DON'T share their beliefs. So - simply being asked the question.. means you need to have arguments ready for your answer.

I've also been asked by Christians what the difference is between Atheism and Satanism.

But the rest of it can be true of any religion - which is why it has no real place in the workplace. (Unless you work in a church or something...)

No I don't buy any of that. If you look at this particular situation then the offer of a prayer can be equated with thoughts of sympahy, an empathasising with the condition of a fellow human, and in a way says 'I hope she gets better soon'.

That is really the only way to take such an offer, any other way is plainly wrong, and misunderstands what the offer is about.

You know what says "I hope you get better soon" even better than offering to pray?

Saying "I hope you get better soon".

The English language is funny like that.

You would not buy a bacon sandwhich for your Muslim freind, because you clearly understand that it may cause offence.


And would you think it was okay to keep asking them if they wanted a bacon sandwich?

This is about protecting the rights of the patient (ie the most important person in this case) not the nurse. The patient has a right to not be bothered by a string of people of different religious beliefs asking them if they would like someone to pray to Jesus, Jehovah, Zeus, sacrifice a goat for them etc.. It doesn't matter if no one would be insulted because they should not be put in a position like this. If they want someone to pray for them they can ask for that because the NHS has a system in place for this (so nobody here can argue that this is about prejudice against religion). The fact is that something about the way the nurse behaved caused someone, even though they weren't insulted by the question, to complain about her behaviour. Seemingly this was not the first complaint. Having spent over a decade working in the NHS I am pretty certain this would have gone through verbal warnings before it reached her being suspended. In other words she is determined to keep doing this even if she is told not. As she is a bank nurse they are perfectly within their rights to not employ her in this role in the future. She is making herself unemployable by the NHS because she cannot control her evangelical zeal, and she has no-one to blame but her self.

To what degree though would you advocate changeing ones normal habits to accomedate the feelings of somebody else?

Does your job depend on it?

If yes, then "changing one's normal habits to accomodate the feelings of somebody else" is redundant. You toe the party line.

If not - it rather depends on whether you want people to think you're a prick or not.

Offence in general looses it's power if you opt not to be offended. So in a real sense the power of offense is not in the hands of the offender.

Whilst this has elements of truth to it, I'm going to resort back to an argument I used before.

Some people like to be pissed on. Such people would probably be a little less likely than others to get offended by the propsect of getting soaked in urine than another person might be.

That THOSE people exist, doesn't make it okay for you to walk around slashing on people, and then blaming them for being offended.

Whilst this has elements of truth to it, I'm going to resort back to an argument I used before.

Some people like to be pissed on. Such people would probably be a little less likely than others to get offended by the propsect of getting soaked in urine than another person might be.

That THOSE people exist, doesn't make it okay for you to walk around slashing on people, and then blaming them for being offended.

which is why, it's considered polite to ask before pissing on someone. :D

I am offten told that such a belife is not logical, and yet here again am I being offered up no more than gut feeling, instictive reaction, and when I try to make a point logicaly what to I get in return, yep emotional based argument.

A very strange thing indeed!:D

In fairness, I'm pretty sure the human race is comfortably far removed from being logical to start with. But again, you're questioning why an emotive subject raises emotive responses to logical questioning.

From a more logical view, I could say that everyone has different views on subjects based on a combination of factors throughout their life; and when their views are challenged, expressly or impliedly, then they attempt to defend their views or criticise the others'. This is an instinctive self-defence action.

...god damn, I suck at this.

Seeing as this thread has already reached 46 pages and will no doubt go further like most religious arguments on NSG

1) Do we all agree that religion can be a controversial topic leading to heated feelings?

2) Can we also agree that raising a topic with elderly and infirm patients that is potentially controversial and may lead to a heated argument is not going to be good for the patient?

3) Can we then agree that health professional should not do things that may not be good for their patients?

which is why, it's considered polite to ask before pissing on someone. :D

Exactly.

And some (touchy) people will object to even that.

See the danger counselor you played right into their hands.

By accurately rendering the fact set? The facts must be portrayed accurately, as a matter of ethics.


That sounds like free speech to me and it may to jury as well.

Then you should study Free Speech more thoroughly, including its case law. By free speech, I could espouse German Nationalist Socialism, but if I did it to my employers customers on work time, would that be protected speech or could I be fired?

Similarly, she can offer to pray for people or approach them about religion on her own time, but I realize Free Speech is different in the UK, but what you do while an agent of your employer is different than what you do on your own time.



See what happens when you allow the other side to frame the issue. Much the way Bush did in his election "Terrorist". You either with us or a against us. You stay on message, keep dragging them back to "bad guys" vs. "good guys"

You already falsely framed the issue when you claimed she was "undoubtedly" punished for praying for patients.

That's not what she was punished for, and if it were, privately praying would be far more protected as religious practice than the act of approaching a patient about religion while on duty when she is supposed to be carrying out her professional duties not pressing her private beliefs.

As for "allowing" the other side to frame the issue, both sides present a position and each may attempt to "frame" it as they will. What you did, however, was blatantly and demonstrably mis-state the fact set.


We may challenge this as well. One thing at a time though.

It was the "thing" you brought up. You claimed she would "undoubtedly" answer "no", that she had not been told about religious approach to patients before. The previous event directly refutes that, thus refuting your claim. Suddenly you want to talk about it later, when it applies directly to the issue that you yourself just raised, "undoubtedly"?


To answer "she was ordered to attend and did attend the sensitivity training" If she were not allowed to offer to pray for people while on duty wouldn't you think they would have mentioned this in that training?

How do you know she wasn't? And if being reprimanded and ordered to training for religious approach to a patient got her in trouble the first time, she should have been able to apply that general principle to the second event on her own: don't approach patients with your personal religious beliefs when you are acting as the agent of your employer.


Maybe the sensitivity training was substandard which lead to this whole "misunderstanding".

If a nurse can't understand that, after being reprimanded once for religious approach to patients, she shouldn't do it again, the fault is hardly with the training.

By your own questions, you represented to the jury that she was punished for praying for a patient. That is demonstrably false by the fact set. A jury can and would be shown that.

You raised a point about what she was previously instructed, and when it was directly refuted, you suddenly wanted to defer it, "one thing at a time", as if the rebuttal wasn't directly and immediately pertinent to what you raised at the time. A jury can and would be shown that.

You claimed that she was not told she could not. Yet she was ordered to attend training as a response to previous religious approach to a client. Basic reasoning should allow her to understand that further religious approach to her clients could be cause for complaint. A jury can and would be shown that.

The only person playing into anyone's hands is you.

I would be happy to discuss this with you but we should make a new forum. With regards to debates, you will likely rip me a part. The point is to gain wisdom. So worst in what sense is the question? It was of course a personal opinion. Getting the facts to prove the matter are very difficult but possible. Here is one such link. Read it through. It is sickening.

Here's a piece of wisdom. When you claim that "A is the worst", should you just give information about A, or perhaps look at information about the other things it is compared to? And if you say it is the "worst", how many of the other things do you have to compare it to?


http://www.oag.state.ny.us/bureaus/labor/faqs.html

Here is my favorite just for an example

Question: I am not in a union and do not have an employment contract. My employer wants to reduce my salary or change my hours or my job, and says I will be fired unless I accept the change. Can he do this?

Answer: Yes. If you are not in a union and do not have an employment contract, an employer may change the conditions of employment, including salary, provided that he or she pays at least the minimum wage and any required overtime, and continues to follow any other applicable laws. An employer may not, however, change your salary retroactively for time you have already worked.

Now, do you think its only this way in New York?

If you are using these facts to "prove" your claim that "New York is the worst in this regard", you have to show that the above is worse than any other state.

Since its already been explained to you that most states are at will employment, how many States do you think there are where the above is true? And what will that prove about your claim that New York is the worst?

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.

in which case she should be disiciplined, religion has no place in the NHS, she can believe what she wants and practice it in the privacy of her own home, but she should not force her views on others (btw this applies to all religions, not just christians)

By accurately rendering the fact set? The facts must be portrayed accurately, as a matter of ethics.

If there one thing I learned from statistics it is facts can be strung. What is important is context. The a law suit is about interpretation of facts and examining them against the law.

Fact she was suspended for offering to pray for a patient
Fact she was ordered to take sensitivity training for handing out religious literature to patients



Then you should study Free Speech more thoroughly, including its case law. By free speech, I could espouse German Nationalist Socialism, but if I did it to my employers customers on work time, would that be protected speech or could I be fired?

This is my point in the US it could be protected depending on context


Similarly, she can offer to pray for people or approach them about religion on her own time, but I realize Free Speech is different in the UK, but what you do while an agent of your employer is different than what you do on your own time.


This may be true in the UK.


You already falsely framed the issue when you claimed she was "undoubtedly" punished for praying for patients.

Am I or are you interpreting the facts in your own way?


That's not what she was punished for, and if it were, privately praying would be far more protected as religious practice than the act of approaching a patient about religion while on duty when she is supposed to be carrying out her professional duties not pressing her private beliefs.

You could also view it as a holistic approach to medicine. Treating the whole being instead of just changing a bandage.


As for "allowing" the other side to frame the issue, both sides present a position and each may attempt to "frame" it as they will. What you did, however, was blatantly and demonstrably mis-state the fact set.

Did I miss state the facts or did I characterize the facts looking for the motive behind the "facts"?



It was the "thing" you brought up. You claimed she would "undoubtedly" answer "no", that she had not been told about religious approach to patients before. The previous event directly refutes that, thus refuting your claim. Suddenly you want to talk about it later, when it applies directly to the issue that you yourself just raised, "undoubtedly"?

Is this sensitivity training to be "viewed" as a "punishment" implying she did something wrong? Training in and of itself is not punishment nor should it be viewed in that light. Possibly the intent was what you did was not a problem per say we just want to make sure you do not create any in the future. Did she see this in the same light as handing out religious literature it goes to the nurse's state of mind? Since she was not specifically told not to pray for patients we have to go on what she thought that meant. If you can show she is lying then by all means ask away.


How do you know she wasn't? And if being reprimanded and ordered to training for religious approach to a patient got her in trouble the first time, she should have been able to apply that general principle to the second event on her own: don't approach patients with your personal religious beliefs when you are acting as the agent of your employer.

For that we would have to call whoever reprimanded her and ask why she was reprimanded and what she was told. I don't have that info.


If a nurse can't understand that, after being reprimanded once for religious approach to patients, she shouldn't do it again, the fault is hardly with the training.

Maybe she felt that the first reprimand was unjust and decide it was better not to pursue it at that time? Maybe she was not made aware how serious this offense was? Maybe her superiors incorrectly interpret the rules? Maybe her superior are for lack of a better word looking for any reason to get rid of her, push her out, show her she is not welcome.


By your own questions, you represented to the jury that she was punished for praying for a patient. That is demonstrably false by the fact set. A jury can and would be shown that.

The Jury is made up of people who can "sense" injustice you better come with some pretty good facts. These are people like you and me and they may just sympathize with her case.


You raised a point about what she was previously instructed, and when it was directly refuted, you suddenly wanted to defer it, "one thing at a time", as if the rebuttal wasn't directly and immediately pertinent to what you raised at the time. A jury can and would be shown that.

Since you pulled it out I am questioning whether she should have been reprimanded the first time.



You claimed that she was not told she could not. Yet she was ordered to attend training as a response to previous religious approach to a client. Basic reasoning should allow her to understand that further religious approach to her clients could be cause for complaint. A jury can and would be shown that.

The only person playing into anyone's hands is you.

Wait until Geraldo gets a hold of it and then tell me that. Lawsuits can be a circus. Then you have to show that any reasonable person would come to that on their own. In any event it would be which story did the jury like best. I am sure they would like you better you are/were a world renown author and I am software QA guy.

I am in the subjective camp just in case it wasn't obvious.

Here's a piece of wisdom. When you claim that "A is the worst", should you just give information about A, or perhaps look at information about the other things it is compared to? And if you say it is the "worst", how many of the other things do you have to compare it to?

You also have to look at the context of "worst". Since I can't assume that all of you live in the USA nor in a US State when I say worst. I mean one of the worst things about living here. Not comparing them from first to last on scale of 1 to 50.



Now, do you think its only this way in New York?

I know that several other states use at will employment and my sympathies to them as well.


If you are using these facts to "prove" your claim that "New York is the worst in this regard", you have to show that the above is worse than any other state.

Context, context again.


Since its already been explained to you that most states are at will employment, how many States do you think there are where the above is true? And what will that prove about your claim that New York is the worst?

I showed some of the other reasons why this state is the worst to work in and that working in New York is one of the worst things about living here. Now since you don't live here prove me wrong. It is a subjective thing as is about everything I say.


My biases are as follows: I live in New York, White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian ( I was born protestant but became Catholic), 40 years of age, Generation Xer.

Again depends on your definition of Worst.

Main Entry:worst
Pronunciation:\ˈwərst\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English werste, worste, from Old English wierresta, wyrsta, superl. of the root of Old English wiersa worse
Date:before 12th century
superlative of bad or of ill
1: most corrupt, bad, evil, or ill <his worst fault>
2 a: most unfavorable, difficult, unpleasant, or painful <the worst news> <your worst enemy> b: most unsuitable, faulty, unattractive, or ill-conceived <has the worst table manners> c: least skillful or efficient <the worst person for the job>
3: most wanting in quality, value, or condition <the worst results>
— the worst way : very much <such men…need indoctrination the worst way — J. G. Cozzens> —often used with in<wanted a new bicycle in the worst way>

This is my point in the US it could be protected depending on context

Preaching German National Socialism to your employers' customers during working hours? Are you really sure about that?



This may be true in the UK.

It is. And it's also true in the US. What you can and can't do as a private individual =/= what you can do during the hours of your employment.



Am I or are you interpreting the facts in your own way?

The facts are that she was suspended after offering prayers to patients. You introduced the unnecessary vocabulary of "punished" and "undoubtedly".


You could also view it as a holistic approach to medicine. Treating the whole being instead of just changing a bandage.

Which, I submit, she is neither qualified nor employed to do.

Did I miss state the facts or did characterize the facts looking for the motive behind the "facts"?

You've already suggested that she's after money, that the NHS is trying to get rid of her... baseless conjecture is very poor form.

Did she see this in the same light as handing out religious literature in goes to the nurse's state of mind? Since she was not specifically told not to pray for patients we have to go on what she thought that meant. If you can show she is lying then by all means ask away.

She was also not specifically told not to bite a patient's ear off after shift.

She was, however, disciplined for promoting religion during work hours. That tends to be pretty clear in its intent, no matter how you frame it. From that point onwards, ignorance of the rules is no longer an excuse.

For that we would have to call whoever reprimanded her and ask why she was reprimanded and what she was told. I don't have that info.

"Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."

This was in response to handing out prayer cards during visits.

Maybe she felt that the first reprimand was unjust and decide it was better not to pursue it at that time?

The doctrine of personal bar could apply. She hasn't challenged the decision within a reasonable time limit; she no longer can.

Maybe she was not made aware how serious this offense was?

"In the letter, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: "If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.""

Doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it? And again, ignorance is not an excuse.

Maybe her superiors incorrect interpret the rules?

Then she's free to challenge the decision. If she can cite reasonable grounds for doing so; so far, you haven't demonstrated any.

Maybe her superior are for lack of a better word looking for any reason to get rid of her, push her out show her she is not welcome.

Baseless conjecture is poor form.

The Jury is made up of people who can "sense" injustice you better come with some pretty good facts. These are people like you and me and they may just sympathize with her case.

The jury (which wouldn't normally be present, this either being a civil suit or an employment tribunal) is asked to draw a verdict from the facts presented. Not their instincts, inclinations or hypotheticals.

Since you pulled it out I am questioning whether she should have been reprimanded the first time.

She was pulled up on the same grounds as she has now been suspended. She didn't challenge the action. It's too late to try and overturn the previous decision.

Wait until Geraldo gets a hold of it and then tell me that. Lawsuits can be a circus. Then you have to show that any reasonable person would come to that on their own. In any event it would which story the jury like best. I am sure they would like you better you are/were a world renown author.

See previous comments on juries and civil suits.

If there one thing I learned from statistics it is facts can be strung. What is important is context. The a law suit is about interpretation of facts and examining them against the law.

If this were the examination of a sample set from whence to draw an inference, statistics would be relevant source of doctrine. In the "context", the fact was, she was not punished for praying, yet you rendered your question as if she was. Thus, you falsified the fact set.


Fact she was suspended for offering to pray for a patient
Fact she was ordered to take sensitivity training for handing out religious literature to patients

Yet, you framed it as if she was punished for praying, not for having approached the patient with religious matters after having be trained not to.


This is my point in the US it could be protected depending on context

In the US, if your employer has a policy to not approach clients with your personal religious matters while you are on duty as an agent of the employer, it is not protected speech.


This may be true in the UK.

Am I or are you interpreting the facts in your own way?

My interpretation of the facts are that she was reprimanded, repeatedly, for approaching patients with religious matters. You falsely claimed she was punished for praying. My statement of the facts is far closer to the actual event given in the fact set.


You could also view it as a holistic approach to medicine. Treating the whole being instead of just changing a bandage.

The NHS mode of treatment is for the NHS to decide in conjunction with doctors. For this nurse to spontaneously expand the mode of treatment, without express permission and instructions to do so, is highly actionable.


Did I miss state the facts or did characterize the facts looking for the motive behind the "facts"?

You mistated both the facts and the motive. She was not punished for praying, she was punished for offering to pray to a patient, thus pressing her personal religion while on duty.

The motive for her suspension was thus the action of approaching the patient about prayer, not her prayer itself. Thus, you've mistated both the action that was taken and the motive why.


Is this sensitivity training to be "viewed" as a "punishment" implying she did something wrong? Training in and of itself is not punishment nor should it be viewed in that light.

Its that punishment can be instructive, not that instruction has to be punishment. She was told not to approach patients with her personal religious beliefs while on duty. She was then trained not to do it. She continued to do it.


Possibly the intent was what you did was not a problem per say we just want to make sure you do not create any in the future. Did she see this in the same light as handing out religious literature in goes to the nurse's state of mind? Since she was not specifically told not to pray for patients we have to go on what she thought that meant. If you can show she is lying then by all means ask away.

If she is incapable, in any state of mind, of drawing the relationship between not approaching patients with religious matters and the specific instances of religious literature or prayer, then she should not be a nurse. That lack of capacity for reasoning and grasping simple policy would make her unsafe to patients.


For that we would have to call whoever reprimanded her and ask why she was reprimanded and what she was told. I don't have that info.

Maybe she felt that the first reprimand was unjust and decide it was better not to pursue it at that time? Maybe she was not made aware how serious this offense was? Maybe her superiors incorrect interpret the rules? Maybe her superior are for lack of a better word looking for any reason to get rid of her, push her out show her she is not welcome.

Maybe wild conjencture is even less valuable in the legal context you've tried to address this in. If she feels the rules are unjust, she can work elsewhere. If being ordered to attend training about not approaching people with religious matters on NHS time does not make her sufficiently "aware", she should work in something simpler. Maybe your assumptions about her superiors have no supporting facts at this time.


The Jury is made up of people who can "sense" injustice you better come with some pretty good facts. These are people like you and me and they may just sympathize with her case.

Do NOT presume to speak for what I am like. I make no claim to "sense" injustice, and any jury candidate who voiced such a "sense" would likely be removed from the jury pool for what should be obvious reasons, for what should be obvious reasons.

Thus far, my statement of the facts has been closer to "pretty good" than your premise she was fired merely for praying.

How much have you actually studied the concept of jury instructions or the role of juries in the law?


Since you pulled it out I am questioning whether she should have been reprimanded the first time.

The time for her to challenge that would have been at the time it happened, and if she could not abide by the reprimand and training she received, she should work elsewhere.


Wait until Geraldo gets a hold of it and then tell me that. Lawsuits can be a circus.

How many actual lawsuits have you sat down and studied? How much case law, in this country or any other?


Then you have to show that any reasonable person would come to that on their own. In any event it would which story the jury like best. I am sure they would like you better you are/were a world renown author.

I am in the subjective camp just in case it wasn't obvious.

The premise of what "a reasonable person would believe" has a name in the law. Do you know what that is?


Also, please note, I am not actually Ayn Rand, and I satirically lampoon her so-called Objectivist construct, I don't follow it.

Incidentally,

The nurse has been asked to return (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hpFd-WYDaHY72a01-bA-f-GCtkYg)

A Christian nurse who was suspended after offering to pray for the recovery of an elderly patient was asked to return to work, an NHS trust said.
Caroline Petrie, 45, was accused of failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity after the incident and was awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

A statement from NHS North Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT), for whom Mrs Petrie worked as a bank nurse, said: "NHS North Somerset have contacted bank nurse Caroline Petrie with a view to her returning back to work as soon as she feels able.

"We have always been keen to bring this matter to a timely resolution. It has been a distressing and difficult time for Caroline and all staff involved."
Mrs Petrie, a community nurse who carries out home visits in North Somerset, was suspended after she visited a woman in Winscombe in December.

She asked: "Would you like me to pray for you?" after putting dressings on her legs and the woman refused. It is believed the patient later raised the issue with senior NHS staff.
Mrs Petrie, a married mother-of-two, was suspended by the primary care trust and faced losing her job.

In its statement, the trust said it was "right to investigate concerns" but hoped Mrs Petrie would return soon.

said: "We recognise the concerns raised by the many people who have contacted us about this situation. We feel we were right to investigate the concerns from people about Caroline's actions.

"However, we are keenly aware of the importance of an individual's spiritual belief, and we recognise that Caroline felt that she was acting in the best interests of her patients.

Frankly, I'm disappointed with the North Somerset Trust. They're admitting they did what was required, but they're backing down because people complained?

You also have to look at the context of "worst". Since I can't assume that all of you live in the USA nor in a US State when I say worst. I mean one of the worst things about living here. Not comparing them from first to last on scale of 1 to 50.

Then in the future, say what you mean.


I know that several other states use at will employment and my sympathies to them as well.

Context, context again.

I showed some of the other reasons why this state is the worst to work in and that working in New York is one of the worst things about living here. Now since you don't live here prove me wrong. It is a subjective thing as is about everything I say.

In context, you now proceed to contradict yourself. You now, in conjunction with your backpedaled claim of being the worst thing "about living here", also include the premise that it is "the worst to work in", outlined above. You just reiterated what you claimed you were not meaning the first time.

As for living there, I spend substantial time in New York, with people who live and work there. Not living there does not reflect on my ability to research its labor code (the one you claimed it had a lack of), and to compare it to other states (and you did, and recently as right above, claim it was "the worst to work in", not merely that working is one of the worst things about living there.


My biases are as follows: I live in New York, White, Anglo-Saxon, Christian ( I was born protestant but became Catholic), 40 years of age, Generation Xer.

Again depends on your definition of Worst.

Worst is a comparative term, meaning that there is nothing that is worse. Its fairly straightforward.

Main Entry:worst
Pronunciation:\ˈwərst\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English werste, worste, from Old English wierresta, wyrsta, superl. of the root of Old English wiersa worse
Date:before 12th century
superlative of bad or of ill
1: most corrupt, bad, evil, or ill <his worst fault>
2 a: most unfavorable, difficult, unpleasant, or painful <the worst news> <your worst enemy> b: most unsuitable, faulty, unattractive, or ill-conceived <has the worst table manners> c: least skillful or efficient <the worst person for the job>
3: most wanting in quality, value, or condition <the worst results>
— the worst way : very much <such men…need indoctrination the worst way — J. G. Cozzens> —often used with in<wanted a new bicycle in the worst way>

Now look up the meaning of the word "most", and you'll see why New York being bad does not make it the "worst".

And I remind you that as recently as your post above, you claimed it that "this state is the worst to work in", which is distinct from claiming that working conditions are the worst aspect of working in the state.

Incidentally,

The nurse has been asked to return (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hpFd-WYDaHY72a01-bA-f-GCtkYg)



Frankly, I'm disappointed with the North Somerset Trust. They're admitting they did what was required, but they're backing down because people complained?

Yep.

However, it will be interesting to see whether she has been "clarified" about approaching people with her religious beliefs while at work. They said they felt she was doing what she "thought" was best, but it could be hoped that she now understands the policy better.

Yep.

However, it will be interesting to see whether she has been "clarified" about approaching people with her religious beliefs while at work. They said they felt she was doing what she "thought" was best, but it could be hoped that she now understands the policy better.

Indeed. Being the cynic I am, though, I suspect this might happen again. After her first disciplinary hearing:

"Mrs Petrie said: "I stopped handing out prayer cards after that but I found it more and more difficult [not to offer them]. My concern is for the person as a whole, not just their health."

She would be well advised to transfer to the clergy service, because this line of thought isn't going to end well.

Yep.

However, it will be interesting to see whether she has been "clarified" about approaching people with her religious beliefs while at work. They said they felt she was doing what she "thought" was best, but it could be hoped that she now understands the policy better.

Well there's nothing unfair about that. What I think Is funny is that this was such a big issue when it was really just a small workplace infraction. People sure get worked up when the topic of religion is brought up in regards to anything!

Well there's nothing unfair about that. What I think Is funny is that this was such a big issue when it was really just a small workplace infraction. People sure get worked up when the topic of religion is brought up in regards to anything!

With respect, the people who made it into a big issue were the people who objected to the "small workplace infraction". Most of this thread has been filled with myself, Muravyets and others who have been defending the decision based on NHS policy.

With respect this entire thread and the entire incident was making mountains out of a mole hills.

With respect this entire thread and the entire incident was making mountains out of a mole hills.

Welcome to NSG.

@ Truly Blessed:

It just occurred to me. You were claiming a bit ago that your comment was intended to mean "the worst thing about living in New York", rather than New York compared to other states.

Yet when you made the original comment, you proceeded to contrast it to California, as the sole competitor for the title of "worst", meaning you clearly were making a state to state comparison.

So, at this point, you aren't even being honest in an attempt at cogent discussion.

I will not respond further respond to you except to refute any mischaracterizations you render on me or my arguments. Your many assertions on religion, New York Labor Code, free speech, and the law are yours to make, but I will leave rebuttal to the many able others, like GnI, Mur, Neo Art, etc.

...but I will leave rebuttal to the many able others, like GnI, Mur, Neo Art, etc.

*Runs away crying*

:p

*Runs away crying*

:p

Not at all, you systematically refuted him quite impressively in post #687, I think it was.

But I don't know you well, and didn't want to presume upon you.

Not at all, you systematically refuted him quite impressively in post #687, I think it was.

But I don't know you well, and didn't want to presume upon you.

Cheers! And I don't tend to post around much, tend to be the lurking sort.

Cheers! And I don't tend to post around much, tend to be the lurking sort.

Well bloody stop it! No more lurking. Get in here.

See the sorts that post prolific while you restrain yourself?

No more of it. Come forward, like Captain Darcy's Rifle Brigade!

Well bloody stop it! No more lurking. Get in here.

See the sorts that post prolific while you restrain yourself?

No more of it. Come forward, like Captain Darcy's Rifle Brigade!

Bu... but they're really mean! There was this one time, right, when I asked Neo Art about the electoral college, and he served me with a bill for $600 and threatened to send the Jewhounds on me if I didn't pay!

I mean, I paid him. Had to sell a kidney on ebay to cover my costs, but I don't know if I can spare another. And I'm usually too tired when I get back from Uni that the last thing I need is more debating.

Bu... but they're really mean! There was this one time, right, when I asked Neo Art about the electoral college, and he served me with a bill for $600 and threatened to send the Jewhounds on me if I didn't pay!

I mean, I paid him. Had to sell a kidney on ebay to cover my costs, but I don't know if I can spare another. And I'm usually too tired when I get back from Uni that the last thing I need is more debating.

You should be gladly he apparently only billed you for half an hour.

Attending university is no excuse to spend less time in moot debates with a mixed bag of geezers, tossers, and pretty spanish lasses. Get your priorities straight!

You should be gladly he apparently only billed you for half an hour.

Attending university is no excuse to spend less time in moot debates with a mixed bag of geezers, tossers, and pretty spanish lasses. Get your priorities straight!

*Mutters*

FINE! God. Mark my words, this will be on your head... Seriously, thanks. Nice to be wanted.

*Runs away crying*

:p

I can tell you where you're going wrong if, you like.

Look at the list, what do you notice?

Yep - your name. It doesn't break into 3's. My advice would be to coin yourself a cool 3-letter nickname, then you'll get mentioned too.

...Lance Riprock Uppercut?

I can tell you where you're going wrong if, you like.

Look at the list, what do you notice?

Yep - your name. It doesn't break into 3's. My advice would be to coin yourself a cool 3-letter nickname, then you'll get mentioned too.

I think in Scottish accent, "Dregruk" has 3 syllables...

Let me count, lessee.

"Tha's no ma' name, ya wee bollicks fook, and ah'll thank yee no' to open yer fat yank bint coont of a mouth."

No, I was wrong. It has 25.

Incidentally,

Frankly, I'm disappointed with the North Somerset Trust. They're admitting they did what was required, but they're backing down because people complained?

Heh. That's what I said would happen... like, 30 pages ago. :D

I'm not disappointed, it's a fairly typically 'English' response. Everyone (should have) learned something, the public got to shake their fists on one side, and write angry letters on the other, and one of the big British behemoths got to waddle around a bit, puffing itself up just a little, and then go back to sleep.

I'd be kinda surprised if this had played out any other way.

"Naw man, I'll p-yure glaiss yoo" is the preferred pronunciation around the West coast, Ithankyou.

...Lance Riprock Uppercut?

Letters, darling. The small things in words. Taste like salmon.

Heh. That's what I said would happen... like, 30 pages ago. :D

I'm not disappointed, it's a fairly typically 'English' response. Everyone (should have) learned something, the public got to shake their fists on one side, and write angry letters on the other, and one of the big British behemoths got to waddle around a bit, puffing itself up just a little, and then go back to sleep.

I'd be kinda surprised if this had played out any other way.

Yeah?! Well, at least we achieved...

Well, thankfully there was a...

...

...the newspapers spelt Nurse Petrie's name right?

Letters, darling. The small things in words. Taste like salmon.

Yeah, but you cheated by omitting the "a" and "d" from and. You streetwise, hip kid.

Yeah, but you cheated by omitting the "a" and "d" from and. You streetwise, hip kid.

That's me. I'm cool, daddio. In like flynn, me. Down with all y'alls hip lingo. Low down. Down lo. Slowly bo-ly roly-poly. Word.

(Had to use 'n' to make the idols graven, didn't I?)

@ Truly Blessed:

It just occurred to me. You were claiming a bit ago that your comment was intended to mean "the worst thing about living in New York", rather than New York compared to other states.

Yet when you made the original comment, you proceeded to contrast it to California, as the sole competitor for the title of "worst", meaning you clearly were making a state to state comparison.

So, at this point, you aren't even being honest in an attempt at cogent discussion.

I will not respond further respond to you except to refute any mischaracterizations you render on me or my arguments. Your many assertions on religion, New York Labor Code, free speech, and the law are yours to make, but I will leave rebuttal to the many able others, like GnI, Mur, Neo Art, etc.


me-> Not quite the same thing. While doing my job, which at the moment is "crunching numbers", I say something religious can I be fired for that?

Grave_n_idle -> In New York State?

Yes.

me -> In New York you can be fired for nothing at all, no reason what so ever. We are the worst state in that regard.


Corneliu 2 -> Most states are at will states Truly Blessed.

me ->I know it is a shame too. They should at least give you a reason even if they are not required to. Labor laws need to be looked into.

Hooter Girl that was us. You don't speak "American" well enough

What a crock!

The list on and on.


Originally Posted by Ghost of Ayn Rand View Post
So, you know that most states share the employment doctrine as New York in reasons for dismissal, yet you don't see how it refutes your claim that New York is "the worst in that regard." Corenliu's point may have been that it is similar "in that regard" to most other states, and thus not "the worst".

Originally Posted by Ghost of Ayn Rand View Post
If I were to get on Westlaw and make a general review of New York's protection for employees and compare it to that of other States (or to truly examine your claim of NY being "the worst" I would have to compare it to all States) what might I find?

I guess it is a difference in language. I have heard many times "worst" used as really, really bad or unfavorable. So the the point you are making is the Most part of it? In context: The worst state in that regard = Restated New York is really, really bad in that regard. So when someone say you have the worst luck with women are they implying that they surveyed every other male on the planet to make that claim. They may mean you have really, really bad luck with women. I will be more careful with my language in the future. Yes I did compare with California. I am sure if you survey them you may get a similar answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

"My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think – to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction – to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."


This sums up why we differ. I feel so much of life is not about facts or evidence it is about feeling, about doing the "right" thing because it feels right and if we can't find facts to support the claim, then so be it. You guys use words like conjecture like it is a bad thing. It is putting forth an idea based on gut feelings. The feeling that this is not right.

Why did she have to go and get her job back. It defeats the purpose of debate. Sigh

I wonder if it is because counsel said "wow this could get ugly real quickly" . Guess we will never know without fact, right.

See guys around the water cooler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

"My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think – to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction – to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."

I said I would not reply to you unless you mischaracterized me, which you then did.

As I explained already earlier in the thread, my nation title is a satirical spoof of Objecitivism, which I lampoon rather than follow. Ask around.


This sums up why we differ. I feel so much of life is not about facts or evidence it is about feeling, about doing the "right" thing because it feels right and if we can't find facts to support the claim, then so be it. You guys use words like conjecture like it is a bad thing. It is putting forth an idea based on gut feelings. The feeling that this is not right.

Why did she have to go and get her job back. It defeats the purpose of debate. Sigh

I wonder if it is because counsel said "wow this could get ugly real quickly" . Guess we will never know without fact, right.

See guys around the water cooler.

You think that you've done anything to serve the purpose of debate?

I would have suspected that you're actually a very anti-religious person who posts things to make the side you purport to be on look grotesquely foolish. If that's the case, please do so with more wit. If its not the case, its still having the same effect.

I'd be uncomfortable, and somewhat annoyed...but if the person in question let it go when I said no, I'd let it go too...I don't actually think offence was intended.

If she had prayed for me anyway, THAT would have been offensive.

Preaching German National Socialism to your employers' customers during working hours? Are you really sure about that?
It depends on who you work for. Also let's just say the word. Nazi. In my current position I would talk about anything no computer related. Well occasioanlly entertainment type ideas come up mostly for fun.


It is. And it's also true in the US. What you can and can't do as a private individual =/= what you can do during the hours of your employment.


Some this is because we self censor ourselves. I am not sure what I could get away with and I personally am not willing to try.


The facts are that she was suspended after offering prayers to patients. You introduced the unnecessary vocabulary of "punished" and "undoubtedly".


Some may view this suspended as punished


Which, I submit, she is neither qualified nor employed to do.


I think she is qualified and could use this during her employment however her employer is not allowing her to. She should just get a new job but...


You've already suggested that she's after money, that the NHS is trying to get rid of her... baseless conjecture is very poor form.


This was a mistake on my part. I thought you could sue for money in the UK. I have since retracted that. For what it is worth I apologize for that.


She was also not specifically told not to bite a patient's ear off after shift.

She should not hurt the patient in any way. That is in the rule book.


She was, however, disciplined for promoting religion during work hours. That tends to be pretty clear in its intent, no matter how you frame it. From that point onwards, ignorance of the rules is no longer an excuse.


This usually means there is a specific rule like no parking after 10:00AM


"Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."


This was related to health praying for the patients recovery or well being


This was in response to handing out prayer cards during visits.

One could be seen as forcing while the other a choice.



The doctrine of personal bar could apply. She hasn't challenged the decision within a reasonable time limit; she no longer can.


I will take you at your word on this one. I am not a lawyer.


"In the letter, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: "If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated.""

Doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it? And again, ignorance is not an excuse.


Got me on that one. Okay so she knew the penalty.


Then she's free to challenge the decision. If she can cite reasonable grounds for doing so; so far, you haven't demonstrated any.

What are reasonable grounds?


Baseless conjecture is poor form.

Also called a theory, hunch, guess. Doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way.


The jury (which wouldn't normally be present, this either being a civil suit or an employment tribunal) is asked to draw a verdict from the facts presented. Not their instincts, inclinations or hypotheticals.


Of course all jurys are instructed to base their decision on only the facts. You have not heard of circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction? That would not be basing you decision on facts. Reasonable doubt is a factor sometimes too. Credibility also plays a role.


She was pulled up on the same grounds as she has now been suspended. She didn't challenge the action. It's too late to try and overturn the previous decision.


This may be a misstep on her part.



See previous comments on juries and civil suits.

Same response.

I'd be uncomfortable, and somewhat annoyed...but if the person in question let it go when I said no, I'd let it go too...I don't actually think offence was intended.

If she had prayed for me anyway, THAT would have been offensive.

If you want, I can ask the local Vegas Mormons to baptise you when you're dead, unless you're already LDS.

Or I can ask Rael to plea to the Elohim to clone you.

EDIT: Neesika, you've got the Law Fu. What do you think of some of the descriptions of the law in the last few pages?

Also called a theory, hunch, guess. Doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way.

Since you continue to mischaracterize the argument, I'll respond further. A theory is not a "hunch" or "guess". A theory includes something that is testable, observable, via observations and the gathering of "facts". What you've presented is baseless conjecture, and doesn't meet that standard at all.


Of course all jurys are instructed to base their decision on only the facts. You have heard of circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction?

Circumstantial evidence still consists of a fact set, of a particular kind.


That would not be basing you decision on facts.

See above.


Reasonable doubt is a factor sometimes too.

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof, and in the US, applies to criminal cases, not civil. In civil cases, the standard of proof is generally a preponderance of evidence.

However, in BOTH cases, meeting the standard is a function of the facts, not a departure from them, nor a compliment to them. "Reasonable doubt" is not some nebulous premise separate from the facts. Quite the opposite.

Got me on that one. Okay so she knew the penalty.

This is particularly surgical on the part of Dregruk.

Your original premise, where we took the roles of lawyers, and you introduced what you would ask, and made claims about how she would "undoubtedly" answer (your word), was based on your assumption that she "undoubtedly" was not told.

So, who played into whose hands, then?

If i was the nurse i'd pray for god to kill the patient.

Absolutely ridiculous. What in the world are they investigating????

btw, God isn't going to fulfill that prayer because He doesn't murder. It would contradict His Word.

I think she is qualified and could use this during her employment however her employer is not allowing her to. She should just get a new job but...

Except neither you, nor me, nor the Nurse are in charge of saying what she's employed to do. Oddly enough, that particular right is reserved by the employer and stated outright in the terms of her employment. Which specifically say she is not allowed to do this.


She should not hurt the patient in any way. That is in the rule book.

So is the rule against promoting religion during work hours. But you don't seem to understand that bit.


This usually means there is a specific rule like no parking after 10:00AM

Or a specific rule, like "Do not promote religion during work hours"? But you don't seem to understand that bit.

This was related to health praying for the patients recovery or well being

Which she is not employed to do, since the terms of her employment forbid her from doing it. But you don't seem to understand that bit.

One could be seen as forcing while the other a choice.

And both are violations of her terms of employment. But you... do you see what I'm getting at? I'm getting sick of repeating the same arguments every time you try to frame this as something it's not.

What are reasonable grounds?

For challenging an unfair dismissal (Note, unfair dismissal, not a freedom of speech issue)? Usually if the issue of the dismissal notice was not done correctly, or in the correct form. None of which applies here.

(I'll add that, if she somehow brought her case before an employment tribunal -which is the idea with unfair dismissal, not using the courts- she would be faced with the written terms of her employment, which she has already agreed to, as evidence against her.)

Also called a theory, hunch, guess. Doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way.

It doesn't sound as bad if you call it a meringue, either, but that doesn't make it so. Baseless conjecture by definition is not a theory.

Of course all jurys are instructed to base their decision on only the facts. You have not heard of circumstantial evidence leading to a conviction? That would not be basing you decision on facts.

I have indeed heard of circumstantial evidence. I suspect it does not mean what you think it means. It's a collection of facts that, used together, can infer a conclusion about an unknown. So yes, that would be basing your decision on facts.

Saying, "So maybe she was cornered by her boss, surrounded by an army of ninjas, and told to leave or her firstborn would be killed?" is baseless conjecture.

And hey, look at that, it's not even relevant to the argument!


Reasonable doubt is a factor sometimes too. Credibility also plays a role.

...

Reasonable doubt? The standard of proof for criminal proceedings? ...please stop.

While I doubt if it would have bothered me, I can see how it could.

There are a couple of reasons - it is kind of insulting to have it assumed that - not only do you share the religion of someone else, but that you want to actually 'SHARE' it.

Yes but nobody has yet ansered why. I can only see repititions going on here. 'I wouldn't be insulted but I can understand how some would' does not answer the why question, why would some be insulted, for what reasons?

Taking the above, why is it kinda insulting to have it assumed that you share a religion? Is it kinda insulting to have it assumed that you share a belife in Santa, or that you both love peanut butter? What are the differances here that makes it insulting? Coz I really can't see it.

If i was the nurse i'd pray for god to kill the patient.

:rolleyes:

It is perfectly possible to not believe in something, but disliking what it is supposed to represent.

Well lets just look at that one huh. I don't belive in Satan, and of course I dislike the concept of evil.

But I dont belive in Satan, so I certainly do not think Satan is responisble for evil, and I have actualy had a Satanist threaten me with all of his Satan given powers.

Nothing happend with that though, because despite all of his threats how can what I do not belive in effect me?

I was laughing at the boy, Insulted? Why? I don't belive in Satan.

And would you think it was okay to keep asking them if they wanted a bacon sandwich?

This is about protecting the rights of the patient (ie the most important person in this case) not the nurse. The patient has a right to not be bothered by a string of people of different religious beliefs asking them if they would like someone to pray to Jesus, Jehovah, Zeus, sacrifice a goat for them etc.. It doesn't matter if no one would be insulted because they should not be put in a position like this. If they want someone to pray for them they can ask for that because the NHS has a system in place for this (so nobody here can argue that this is about prejudice against religion). The fact is that something about the way the nurse behaved caused someone, even though they weren't insulted by the question, to complain about her behaviour. Seemingly this was not the first complaint. Having spent over a decade working in the NHS I am pretty certain this would have gone through verbal warnings before it reached her being suspended. In other words she is determined to keep doing this even if she is told not. As she is a bank nurse they are perfectly within their rights to not employ her in this role in the future. She is making herself unemployable by the NHS because she cannot control her evangelical zeal, and she has no-one to blame but her self.

Did this nurse endless repeat her offer, or offer it only the once? What endless string of people?

I read today that this nurse has been reinstated.

I too worked in the NHS for a goodlong time, and really, what is most important to the bosses? Meeting their targets. I have freinds that still work in the HNS and they all tell me that I got out at the right time, patient care is suffering because of goverment targets, and yes you are correct the best of NHS staff fear this, and would like to see patient care improve, but your assertion that the most important person is the patient is just not true today.

Whilst this has elements of truth to it, I'm going to resort back to an argument I used before.

Some people like to be pissed on. Such people would probably be a little less likely than others to get offended by the propsect of getting soaked in urine than another person might be.

That THOSE people exist, doesn't make it okay for you to walk around slashing on people, and then blaming them for being offended.


Of course but you know the act of pissing on somebody I would hazzard to guess is universlay offensive wouldn't you?


There is much, much, much differance between words and physicaly assulting somebody don't you think?

Well lets just look at that one huh. I don't belive in Satan, and of course I dislike the concept of evil.

But I dont belive in Satan, so I certainly do not think Satan is responisble for evil, and I have actualy had a Satanist threaten me with all of his Satan given powers.

Nothing happend with that though, because despite all of his threats how can what I do not belive in effect me?

I was laughing at the boy, Insulted? Why? I don't belive in Satan.

But a devout Christian, who does believe in Satan, may not be too happy if a Sataninst offered to intercede with Satan on their behalf.

In fairness, I'm pretty sure the human race is comfortably far removed from being logical to start with. But again, you're questioning why an emotive subject raises emotive responses to logical questioning.

From a more logical view, I could say that everyone has different views on subjects based on a combination of factors throughout their life; and when their views are challenged, expressly or impliedly, then they attempt to defend their views or criticise the others'. This is an instinctive self-defence action.

...god damn, I suck at this.

Yes you are right of course. I just find it soooo very funny that so many atheist here are resorting to emotional based arguments when any other subject they would be advocating a rational, logical process to debate and understand what the deabte brings up, but thus far all we really have are verious ways of saying 'It's just insulting okay'.

Case in point any time I try to explain why I believe in God, what I get is 1001 ways of people telling my that I am deluded. I accept that, I'm not even insulted by it, why would I be, by the definition of the word I have a deluded belife. There is no logical reason for me to belive such a thing.

Insults though, there must be logical reasons why one would feel insulted, surly? But when I ask about these, I get emotional reactions to the question, instead of logical reasoning. Now you must see why I find that funny?

And you don't really suck, shit man at least you keep a civil tounge, even when it is clear we disagree, I like that, we can talk you and I.:D

But a devout Christian, who does believe in Satan, may not be too happy if a Sataninst offered to intercede with Satan on their behalf.

Of course. Was this patient or the other nurse that made the complaint relgious, or unreligious then?

I get emotional reactions to the question, instead of logical reasoning.

Isn't this actually the point - there may be no logical reason for people to be insulted but as you say yourself people respond emotionally to things relating to religion.

Isn't this actually the point - there may be no logical reason for people to be insulted but as you say yourself people respond emotionally to things relating to religion.

This is certianly true, but then doesn't that make the athiest that becomes insulted at an offer of prayer as guilty of delusional thought as the christian that offered it?

Of course. Was this patient or the other nurse that made the complaint relgious, or unreligious then?

I don't know - the nurse would not necessarily know what the religious views of the patient are. Hell I only found out my mother believed in some kind of spiritual being a couple of years ago. The nurse didn't know what kind of reaction she would get, assuming she didn't set out to have someone complain about her.

This is certianly true, but then doesn't that make the athiest that becomes insulted at an offer of prayer as guilty of delusional thought as the christian that offered it?

There is nothing to say that it would be an atheist who would be insulted. It could equally someone of a different denomination/religion. You are the person bringing in the idea that somehow it would be an atheist.



*damn your spelling seems to be contagious I just spelt atheist incorrectly twice*

Incidentally,

The nurse has been asked to return (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hpFd-WYDaHY72a01-bA-f-GCtkYg)



Frankly, I'm disappointed with the North Somerset Trust. They're admitting they did what was required, but they're backing down because people complained?

*shoots off fireworks*

FINALLY! Good for them.

There is nothing to say that it would be an atheist who would be insulted. It could equally someone of a different denomination/religion. You are the person bringing in the idea that somehow it would be an atheist.



*damn your spelling seems to be contagious I just spelt atheist incorrectly twice*

Since the whole thrust of my arguments have been I can see no logical reason why an Atheist would be insulted by an offer to pray on their behalf from a Christian, then it is atheists that I am talking about.

I mean it is easy to see how a Muslim may be insulted by the offer of a Pagan to whip up a quick rite on their behalf to Odinn.

Fuck who'd have thought it huh, dyslexcia is contagious!:D

Since the whole thrust of my arguments have been I can see no logical reason why an Atheist would be insulted by an offer to pray on their behalf from a Christian, then it is atheists that I am talking about.

I mean it is easy to see how a Muslim may be insulted by the offer of a Pagan to whip up a quick rite on their behalf to Odinn.

Fuck who'd have thought it huh, dyslexcia is contagious!:D

Ah my mistake, I thought you were arguing that the only people who would be insulted would be atheists.

Ah my mistake, I thought you were arguing that the only people who would be insulted would be atheists.

Hah we all make them I guess.:D

Since the whole thrust of my arguments have been I can see no logical reason why an Atheist would be insulted by an offer to pray on their behalf from a Christian, then it is atheists that I am talking about.

I mean it is easy to see how a Muslim may be insulted by the offer of a Pagan to whip up a quick rite on their behalf to Odinn.

Fuck who'd have thought it huh, dyslexcia is contagious!:D

Well, I suppose asking someone about their religious beliefs, directly or impliedly, is asking a very personal question for some people. Asking personal questions tends to elicit emotional responses.

The other point is that atheists, and get ready for a nice big sweeping generalisation here, are often looked upon with suspicion or worse when it comes to a religious discussion. I guess after a while, it becomes a sort of reflex action to take offence against being asked for some.

*shoots off fireworks*

FINALLY! Good for them.

So, hang on, violating your terms of employment, and being re-hired without that being overturned, is okay if you have a vocal enough group supporting you? The rule she was suspended for is still in her terms of employment, and the Trust still say that they followed the correct procedures for the correct reasons... See where I'm coming from?

1) She DID NOT lose her job Dregruk! Suspended =/= firing!

2) She never forced her religion on her patients and respected her patients answers.

1) She DID NOT lose her job Dregruk! Suspended =/= firing!

...I'm aware of that. She's been re-instated. Probably should've said that instead of re-hired, but whatever.

2) She never forced her religion on her patients and respected her patients answers.

Which has nothing to do with the breach of terms of employment, I'm afraid. This has been discussed quite extensively over this thread.

I've read it and I have read the article. The Article was well written and I can see why she was invited back to work. All I can say is good. At least people are starting to learn that not everything religious is offensive when it is not pushed onto people.

I've read it and I have read the article. The Article was well written and I can see why she was invited back to work. All I can say is good. At least people are starting to learn that not everything religious is offensive when it is not pushed onto people.

...

Bear with me here. She was suspended for violation of her employment contract. Right? There's an outcry from the religious public that say she's been punished for her beliefs. The Trust re-instate her to her position, but go on the record as saying they stand by their original decision.

This is the Nurse's second violation of her terms of employment, for the same reason. She must be well aware that the next time she does, what she has said she finds "harder and harder not to do", she will be faced with yet more serious consequences. Do you really think it's sensible for her to return to her current job?

Did anyone ask the person she was caring for thought? All I've been seeing was that she mentioned it and that's when the suspension occured. Could it be that they jumped to conclusions? I could quote the article and what it says in that it COULD BE construed as harassment but I guess that'll fall through the crack.

Did anyone ask the person she was caring for thought? All I've been seeing was that she mentioned it and that's when the suspension occured. Could it be that they jumped to conclusions? I could quote the article and what it says in that it COULD BE construed as harassment but I guess that'll fall through the crack.

I don't think you could quote the article, since you obviously haven't read it. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question.

Did anyone ask the person she was caring for thought? All I've been seeing was that she mentioned it and that's when the suspension occured.

They did. The patient was religious too, and didn't find it offensive, but realised it probably wasn't quite kosher for a nurse to ask patients if she can pray for them.

Could it be that they jumped to conclusions?

The nurse admits she offered to pray for her patient(s). She admitted to the violation she was pulled up for.

I could quote the article and what it says in that it COULD BE construed as harassment but I guess that'll fall through the crack.

Harassment? What, the Trust suspending the Nurse?

No, it really can't. I've been over this with Truly Blessed already; at a push, she could try for an unfair dismissal charge with an employment tribunal. But that would fail since there was nothing irregular about her suspension, and she's been re-instated.

And you still haven't answered the question.

I don't think you could quote the article, since you obviously haven't read it. If you had, you wouldn't be asking the question.

You mean I missed the part where it says that it "could be construed as harrassment"? Yea I read the article but it is nice to see NA that you still jump to idiotic conclusions.

"Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.

"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."

Harassment on part of the Nurse towards patients, not NHS towards the Nurse.

You mean I missed the part where it says that it "could be construed as harrassment"?

No, but I also didn't miss the part where you asked "Did anyone ask the person she was caring for thought?"

That question was directly and specifically answered in the first article. So either you didn't actually read it, or your skills at reading comprehension need SERIOUS work.

"Members of some religions ... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.

"To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures."

Harassment on part of the Nurse towards patients, not NHS towards the Nurse.

But now here in lies the problem. All we have is the person being treated saying no, nurse leaves it at that! Now she just mentions it to the next person and the next thing we all know, BOOM! She's suspended even though we have no idea what the patient said! That's my biggest problem with this. You said it yourself and I even bolded it and underlined it. Maybe the patient did not see it as such. That is the point I am making.

No, but I also didn't miss the part where you asked "Did anyone ask the person she was caring for thought?"

That question was directly and specifically answered in the first article. So either you didn't actually read it, or your skills at reading comprehension need SERIOUS work.

All that article said was that she talked to the people! The article did not go into details about what was said!

But now here in lies the problem. All we have is the person being treated saying no, nurse leaves it at that! Now she just mentions it to the next person and the next thing we all know, BOOM! She's suspended even though we have no idea what the patient said! That's my biggest problem with this. You said it yourself and I even bolded it and underlined it. Maybe the patient did not see it as such. That is the point I am making.

if she had not received a warning before this I would agree with you. However, as it stands, she had already been specifically told not to push her religion at work, during work hours, with patients.

She was already on notice. She already knew she wasn't supposed to be doing it. She was already informed there would be consequences if she continued doing it. She did it anyway.

"But I didn't know anyone would be bothered by me doing the thing I was specifically told not to do" isn't an excuse.

But now here in lies the problem. All we have is the person being treated saying no, nurse leaves it at that! Now she just mentions it to the next person and the next thing we all know, BOOM! She's suspended even though we have no idea what the patient said! That's my biggest problem with this. You said it yourself and I even bolded it and underlined it. Maybe the patient did not see it as such. That is the point I am making.

...re-read the OP article. The patient didn't find it offensive, but thought it wasn't sensible for a nurse to ask in the first place. So she notified the supervisors. The supervisors were aware that 1) this is a violation of her terms of employment, 2) that she'd been warned about it before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/02/nurse-prayer-suspended

Kind of funny how the guardian has it down as not a complaint but just telling the trust and they confronted her about it. Reading two different articles, I'm seeing nothing here NA that she was warned previously.

...re-read the OP article. The patient didn't find it offensive, but thought it wasn't sensible for a nurse to ask in the first place. So she notified the supervisors. The supervisors were aware that 1) this is a violation of her terms of employment, 2) that she'd been warned about it before.

I have twice. Nowhere in there do I see that she was warned previously nor that the elderly woman actually filed a full fledged complaint. Based my readings, looks like someone else filed the compliant.

I'm seeing nothing here NA that she was warned previously.

Dude, seriously?

Petrie said she had been reprimanded over her faith before, in October, when she gave a homemade prayer card to an elderly patient.


You didn't notice that? I mean, I know it was alllll the way down there at the bottom, but I don't consider it TOO much to ask that you read the WHOLE 350 word article, especially when you use it as your own source.

I have twice. Nowhere in there do I see that she was warned previously nor that the elderly woman actually filed a full fledged complaint.

Telegraph Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html)

Mrs Petrie had previously been reprimanded for an incident in Clevedon last October when she offered to give a small, home-made prayer card to an elderly, male patient, who had happily accepted it.

On this occasion, the patient's carer, who was with him, raised concerns over the incident.
Alison Withers, Mrs Petrie's boss at the time, wrote to her at the end of November saying: "As a nurse you are required to uphold the reputation of your profession.

"Your NMC [Nursing Midwifery Council] code states that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."

In the letter, Mrs Petrie, who qualified as a nurse in 1985, was asked to attend an equality and diversity course and warned: "If there is any further similar incident it may be treated as potential misconduct and the formal disciplinary procedure could be instigated."

Based my readings, looks like someone else filed the compliant.

"The woman patient, who is believed to be in her late 70s, is understood to have complained to the trust."

We've been over this several times in this thread. I'm getting pretty sick of having to repeat it.

Yes but nobody has yet ansered why. I can only see repititions going on here. 'I wouldn't be insulted but I can understand how some would' does not answer the why question, why would some be insulted, for what reasons?

Taking the above, why is it kinda insulting to have it assumed that you share a religion? Is it kinda insulting to have it assumed that you share a belife in Santa, or that you both love peanut butter? What are the differances here that makes it insulting? Coz I really can't see it.

The problem here is - you're looking for an answer to a question that didn't even exist in the case we're discussing.

The patient said she wasn't offended.