Nurse suspended for prayer offer

Okay. Different people have different ways of looking at things. I see the nurse making the offer as less likely to cause problems/offense than the patient doing so.

This isn't a case of subjective judgement or "point of view". The nurse- as illustrated by Carnivore's post- had rules regarding her offering to provide the prayer. Doing so anyway is a violation of those rules, by definition a "problem". There are no rules preventing a patient requesting one.
 
This isn't a case of subjective judgement or "point of view". The nurse- as illustrated by Carnivore's post- had rules regarding her offering to provide the prayer. Doing so anyway is a violation of those rules, by definition a "problem". There are no rules preventing a patient requesting one.

Okay, you're right. Carnivore's post does indicate there was more to it and she was out of line.
 
Oh screw her, she's got rationality issues and it's dangerous when someone believes they answer to a power which overrules their employer. She shouldn't be a nurse at all, but certainly not one paid for with my tax revenue.

OK, that was a bit Daily Mail Rant of me but MEH. Stupid woman. I hate people who don't do their job.
 
Well, if it's something to be done during the nurses working hours, you have a point. I was thinking of the nurse praying for the patient during her off hours.
:confused:
Why?

What relevance does that have to this issue?
I thought that was what the nurse was doing - asking permission to pray for them during her off hours.
That still doesn't explain how your point is relevant

Tip: what is re relevant is not the timing but the action of the nurse's offer to pray

Do you assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a believer?.
No, of course not - and I'd really appreciate a concerted affort on you part to quit with the inane, the irrelevant and the rhetorical

I'm agnostic.
I don't believe you

;)

On a more serious note, it's not your personal beliefs (or lack of, etc) that I take issue with. Instead, it's your defense - from a seemingly uncritical-thinking perspective - of the indefensible; a repeat offense

If you had watched the BBC News video in the OP link and/or actually read the posts in this thread, you would have noticed that this is not Caroline Petrie's first such offense

I understand (from the BBC 'Christian Topic' board that the nurse in question had already been disciplined for handing out some sort of prayer cards.
 
Because sacking someone undeservedly is not a good thing to do. Although, depending on the circumstances, about which I know little, she could have crossed the line of what is appropriate and deserve the action. It’s possible there was more to it than was reported in the brief article linked in the OP.
Looks like there is more to it.

Yes, it’s an assumption that it’s okay to ask. Asking doesn’t hurt. What harm was done by her making the request?
I could ask a child if they'd like some heroin.

I see little difference morally, though in practice there's a big difference.

Heroin actually does something.

You do know what the word "pusher" means I'm sure.

This is not, for comparison, the same as asking if they'd like a cup of tea either, just to get some balance in the argument.

Do I think that pushing religion is the same as pushing heroin? no. but it's nearer than asking something that is completely innocuous. Religion changes lives, unfortunatly.
I don’t think that a nurse asking if a patient would like her to pray for them is the equivalent of the nurse wanting to be or acting like a preacher. I think you are seeing things that aren’t there.
Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever.

Not a nurse.

There are of course many examples of this in real life.

I think your response is completely over the top. The nurse has ‘victimized’ her patients by asking them if they would like her to perform an additional service at no charge? She might ‘infect’ them with the meme for religion? You talk as if they’ve never been exposed to it elsewhere!
No my response is not over the top IMO. I would find offensive that she might assume I am of the nurses faith, or have any truck with faith.

The nurse is not "victimising" the patient.

The religion is doing that after already infecting the nurse.

The nurse can't help it. The religion has an expansionist drive, like malaria. It seeks to infect, breed and also reinfect whenever it can. That's a fact.

Yes they might have been exposed to it elsewhere, but the neither the nurse, nor the meme knows that. It's irrelevant. It must breed, or confirm that the victim is already infected.
I look at it this way, it’s a reasonable conjecture that some of her patients would appreciate the gesture.
Of course, and I agree with you. However in that case the asking woouldn't be needed maybe.
It doesn’t harm those who aren’t interested.
It seeks to get them interested. This is not just asking, it's sly preaching. That's my point.

They can decline without any repercussion.
Like if it's an accepted practice then the response from the nurse might in the future be "well go to hell".

You might find it difficult to absolutely deny that that might not cause some stress, maybe just not in the place you are expecting it. Yes? If this became accepted practice.

OTOH, I don’t think it would appropriate for a patient to make the request.
No, but the correct response would be "I'll find the preacher for you", surely?
I think it’s okay for her to offer but not okay for them to ask because I don’t think it would be appropriate for the patient to make any request of their nurse regarding what something to be done during their off hours, whether it be prayer or something else entirely.
See above. This is reversing the argument. It doesn't do much for your case in point, I feel.

Also

Christians hover like vultures over sick people in hospitals. They do not have an automatic right to push their empty dogma onto others, especially the vulnerable. If the woman concerned wants to preach, let her become a preacher.
from
a coment on the BBC site.

The original article, read it.
nurse puts god first.
 
Last edited:
Seems she's got "previous" on this issue as mentioned.Also if she really wanted to pray for anyone she knew she could have done so anyway without anyone's knowledge - without requiring "consent" - the idea of asking specificially implies some kind of directable "service" - either God is omnipotent etc or he isn't - he shouldn't need someones consent to affect them or someone else - "It's a kind of self deluded ego trip for some to think they have a hotline to God.

(the usual standard answer to any incoherency is he "moves in mysterious ways"
 
Last edited:
Seems she's got "previous" on this issue as mentioned.
Somehow I fail to be surprised at that.....
Also if she really wanted to pray for anyone she know could have done so anyway without anyone's knowledge -
Exactly, but of course she's not interested in that. I wonder why lol?
without requiring "consent" - the idea of asking specificially implies some kind of directable "service" - either God is imnipotent etc or he isn't - he shouldn't need someones consent to affect them or someone else - "It's a kind of self deluded ego trip for some to think they have a hotline to God.
good point
(the usual standard answer to any incoherency is he "moves in mysterious ways"

Yeah, so mysterious as to be untraceable......lol
 
Do I think that pushing religion is the same as pushing heroin? no. but it's nearer than asking something that is completely innocuous. Religion changes lives, unfortunatly.
The difference between religion and heroin is that ingesting heroin will change a life- whether the ingester wants it to or not. Ingesting religion isn't going to affect everybody.



No my response is not over the top IMO. I would find offensive that she might assume I am of the nurses faith, or have any truck with faith.
That would be you deciding to be offended, and wouldn't have anything to do with the nurse, or religion. What offends you is all up to you.

The nurse is not "victimising" the patient. The religion is doing that after already infecting the nurse.
"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not.

And you are still using emotive words ("infect"? really?) to try to lend strength to your assertions. That's not going to fly far here.

The nurse can't help it. The religion has an expansionist drive, like malaria. It seeks to infect, breed and also reinfect whenever it can. That's a fact.
Not only is that not a fact (it is just more emotional drivel, and appeal to fear), it is impossible, as "religion" has no drive, no desire, no intelligence. People seek to expand the ranks of those that agree with them. Not ideas.

It seeks to get them interested. This is not just asking, it's sly preaching. That's my point.
So? If critical thinking has any merit at all it should not matter what ideas are spread or championed. Ideas should be welcomed, then analysed, tested, and examined. Never proscripted.

Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever.

Not a nurse.

There are of course many examples of this in real life.

No, but the correct response would be "I'll find the preacher for you", surely?

In "Real Life" I work in an insurance office. Sometimes, that means I get to talk to people who are having really bad days- not "drycleaner lost my best suit and the kid is getting a "D" in algebra" kind of bad day, but the kind where their wife has been diagnosed with cancer. Or their son has been injured in an auto accident. Or the car they need to keep the job that's the only income in the family has just been stolen. Or the house and everything in it has burnt down. Or a spouse has just died, leaving the widow alone for the first time in decades and scared about what's going to happen now. Some of these people ask me to keep them in their prayers. I'm not such an ass that I feel it necessary to refuse, or to "correct" their request.

If that's the kind of person you want to be, that's up to you.
 
The difference between religion and heroin is that ingesting heroin will change a life- whether the ingester wants it to or not. Ingesting religion isn't going to affect everybody.




That would be you deciding to be offended, and wouldn't have anything to do with the nurse, or religion. What offends you is all up to you.

"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not.
"Religion" can't do anything of the sort. People victimise people, ideas do not.
Non sequitur

Religion is a culture, its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam, it is not (merely) an idea
 
Non sequitur
How is that a "non sequitur"? Without people there is no religion.

Religion is a culture,
Sometimes. Fred Phelps and his little band are not a "culture" unless one stretches the definition past the breaking point, and his religion differs enough from any other similar religion that to lump them together would be erroneous at best.

Further, "cultures" do not victimise people, people do- and not all people in any culture victimise other people.

its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals,
Sometimes. Neither "organising societies" nor "controlling individuals" is a fundamental, inseparable quality of "religion". And these qualities and the religions that espouse them do not exist or "do" anything on their own- people do. And not all people that follow the religions- the people you assert are "organised" or "controlled" somehow by a religion that they themselves create- will necessarily do the same things. If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be any schisms.

And without people filling the societies, without individuals to "control", any "system" of doing so is just theoretical- an idea.

, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam,
Sometimes. I won't even stipulate your "usually" without evidence, because in my experience that's not the case (few "hierarchical structures" have anything in common with MLM structures beyond the fact that some members have more authority than others. The only other hierarchical structure that I can think of off the top of my head that is at all similar to an MLM structure is a cell-based guerrilla insurgency.

And without people filling the ranks, any "hierarchical structure" is just an idea.

it is not (merely) an idea
On its own, without followers, it is. Without people desiring things for it, "religion" wants nothing. Without people deciding things in its name, "religion" decides nothing. Without people doing things in its name, "religion" does nothing.

As always, if you have any actual, factual evidence otherwise, I'm all ears.
 
Forgive me if that point had already been made - I did see a similar notion at least:

Who would still think her behaviour was acceptable if she had offered to sacrifice a chicken?
 
Forgive me if that point had already been made - I did see a similar notion at least:

Who would still think her behaviour was acceptable if she had offered to sacrifice a chicken?

Sure. Why not? If anyone asked me if they wanted them to pray for me, I think I would be capable of saying, "Go right ahead but it won't make any difference," and I'm a BAAWA.
 
Religion is a culture, its a system of organising societies and controlling individuals, its (usually) a hierarchical structure as per any MLM scam, it is not (merely) an idea

Huh. I always thought of MLM scams as like ponzi schemes where the people who get in at the top make out like bandits with lesser and lesser rewards as you go down. What was the nurse in question's reward for offering to pray? What was her priest's cut, and the bishop above him?

Perhaps some televangelists organize their "ministries" on an MLM model, but I doubt it: I think all the money goes straight to the top.

On a different note, patients are held to different standards than physicians. A patient is perfectly within her rights to choose a gynecologist because she is a woman. They can even discriminate on the basis of race or religion if the so choose. Physicians and other heath care professionals, however, do not have that right.

I have had several patients (all orthodox Jews) ask to pray with me/over me before performing biopsies on them or their family. I have no idea what they said, and presumed that they were asking God to guide my hand and bring them through alive, or perhaps to make the cancer cells go away. Who knows? I don't know Hebrew. In any event, if it makes the patient even slightly more comfortable during a very stressful time, I see no harm in it. It took a minute or less each time.
 
In "Real Life" I work in an insurance office. Sometimes, that means I get to talk to people who are having really bad days- not "drycleaner lost my best suit and the kid is getting a "D" in algebra" kind of bad day, but the kind where their wife has been diagnosed with cancer. Or their son has been injured in an auto accident. Or the car they need to keep the job that's the only income in the family has just been stolen. Or the house and everything in it has burnt down. Or a spouse has just died, leaving the widow alone for the first time in decades and scared about what's going to happen now. Some of these people ask me to keep them in their prayers. I'm not such an ass that I feel it necessary to refuse, or to "correct" their request.

If that's the kind of person you want to be, that's up to you.
The difference between these very difficult events and the patient/nurse relationship I think is that the patient is being 'cold called' for the prayer, rather than requesting it herself. As has been said (on BBC MB too) the patient should have been informed of services available and could request them.

Yes, and I am just listening to the report at the moment (BBC Radio 4 'Today' at 07:07). I heard earlier that a member of the House of Lords said that to have suspended the nurse was 'political correctness gone mad'. I do hope the BHA and NSS are on to this comment too!
 
The difference between these very difficult events and the patient/nurse relationship I think is that the patient is being 'cold called' for the prayer, rather than requesting it herself. As has been said (on BBC MB too) the patient should have been informed of services available and could request them.
As far as this specific case, yes, you're absolutley right. My comment above was meant to address biomorph's assertion "Look, if you are ill, and you want to be prayed for (why the reason escapes me) you routinely ask for a priest, or whatever. Not a nurse."

The point being, that the person in trouble often asks the person who is there- and that not sharing their faith isn't a license to be a jackass to them when they are stressed or hurting. Biomorph's angry rhetoric suggests to me he does not see people with faith as worthy of consideration or kindness. I'm not sure he sees them as people, frankly, so much as a faceless, nameless "enemy".

I don't like seeing that kind of emotional, partisan, and decidedly uncritical thinking being equated with skepticism.
 
When I went to my last confession, the priest asked me if I wanted him to take my blood pressure while he was there. Of course I was offended, everyone knows that's just a jumpy spider.
 
Woah I thought this was about something that recently happened here (the land of Snåsamans and blasfemy-laws).

A woman was in labor and she said a naughty word, she said two actually; "Faen dette går jævlig tråkt" both words are new versions of the word "devil" (both roughly translates to fcuk).
The midwife then told her that she was summoning the devil, and deserved a horrible birth, then she told her and her family to pray - and she threatened to walk out of the room and let the lady give birth on her own.

Yeah she's suspended now. I'd link to an article but you wouldn't understand a word anyway.
 

Back
Top Bottom