Nurse Suspended For Prayer Offer

[segovius]

The post above reminded me of a study which raises some interesting points.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1627662.stm

Patients admitted to hospital with heart problems suffer fewer complications if someone prays for them, according to scientists in the US.
The study, carried out at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina, found that patients who received alternative therapy following angioplasty were 25% to 30% less likely to suffer complications.

The study, carried out between April 1997 and April 1998, involved 150 patients who had all undergone angioplasty - whereby a balloon is positioned in a hardened and narrowed artery and inflated to force it open.

I believe there have been other studies since with similar results.

Question: if the efficacy of prayer has been proven in scientific studies - and if this in no way implies that the belief framework of the prayer and prayer-practitioner have any basis in actuality - then is not un-scientific to oppose it?

Is it not, in fact, tantamount to a violation of the hypocratic oath on behalf of the medical community and an embracing of some sort of hypocritical one on the part of so-called rationalists to oppose it?







[/quote]

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Or, prayer has no effect on heart patients, as this later study seems to show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm

Prayer 'no aid to heart patients'

BBC News Online. 15 July, 2005

Praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcomes, a US study suggests.

A study found those who were prayed for were as likely to have a setback in hospital, be re-admitted, or die within six months as those not prayed for.

The Duke University Medical Center study of 700 patients, in the Lancet, said music, image and touch therapy did appear to reduce patients' distress.

Heart experts said patients could benefit from feeling more optimistic.

Therapies such as prayer and homeopathy are widely used, although past studies looking at the impact of care on patients' health have had mixed results.

The results of this study contradict earlier findings from the same team which suggested a drop of a quarter or more in "adverse outcomes" - including death, heart failure or heart attack.

However, that trial involved only 150 patients. Other research since has found no evidence of any benefits.

This study looked at 700 patients undergoing angiograms (an X-ray of the blood vessels) or other heart operations at nine hospitals across the US.

Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist prayer groups were assigned to pray for 371 of the patients. The rest had no prayer group.

In addition, 374 of the patients were assigned MIT therapy and the rest none.

MIT involved teaching the patients relaxed breathing techniques and playing them easy listening, classical, or country music during their procedure.

The researchers found that neither therapy alone, or combined, showed any measurable treatment effect on serious cardiovascular events, hospital readmission or death.

But those given music, imagery and touch therapy had less emotional distress and had a lower death rate after six months, though this was not seen as statistically significant.

'Proper subjects'

Dr Mitchell Krucoff, who led the study, said: "If we want to understand the role of human capacities and resources in the midst of our most advanced medical technologies, we have to do good science.

"With no notion of the actual mechanisms involved in ancient healing practices such as prayer or touch or music, structured outcomes research allows us to collect data that we can learn from in many ways."

A Lancet editorial on the paper said it would be premature to rule out the use of such therapies in modern medicine.

It added: "The contribution that hope and belief make to a personal understanding of illness cannot be dismissed so lightly.

"They are proper subjects for science, even while transcending its known bounds."

Dr Charmaine Griffiths, spokesperson for the British Heart Foundation, said: "While this research suggests that prayer and alternative therapies do not improve the clinical outcome for patients undergoing heart procedures, there is increasing interest in the possibility that positive emotional states are beneficial to heart health."

She said associations had been seen between positive emotional states and low levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

"Further evidence is emerging that people with a more positive outlook appear to be less affected by stressful events, such as having surgery."

She added: "Patients learning to relax by using breathing techniques and listening to music, and being aware that others are thinking of them may contribute to a more optimistic outlook.

"Whether these effects are significant remains unproven."

So, by not praying over one's patients, no violation of the Hippocratic Oath need be involved.

 

[colpepper1]

Sounds like a bit of over enthusiastic bedside manner to me. Personally I'd ban 'did you go anywhere nice on your holiday?', 'how are the grandchildren doing?' and 'that colour looks good on you?' before prayer offers.

The image of a rather beautiful Hindu nurse promising to put a word in with Ganesha while bandaging my gammy leg is not entirely unattractive. Besides, anything that gets the milatheists roaring into the endless void is always amusing.

Suspending the nurse is way, way OTT. There'll be none left if small talk is banished entirely.

 

[colpepper1]

If faith has no role to play in our medical professions, why do we have chaplaincy services at hospitals?

That was my first thought, especially seeing as how religious organisations got in early on the hospital game and many are named after saints of the christian canon.

Having had rather too many visits to our local infirmary in the last few years the chapel is one place you can get a bit of peace and quiet. Do we really want to ban those too as offering a partial or unrealistic take on this vale of tears?
Given a choice between hanging round the shop looking at Puzzle magazines or watching junkies trying to relieve the drinks machine of its Lucozade, religiously dedicated rooms - especially non-demoninational ones are an absolute boon to the NHS.

 

[Timble2]

The point you're missing is that it's the chaplin's job to look after the spiritual requirements of the patients, if they want them.

It's not the nurse's job...suspending her rather that reminding her of her duties seems harsh, unless of course she's done this before and been told not too.

 

[colpepper1]

It depends surely on whether one spends one's life waiting to take offence or adopts a live and let live approach.

The current thing to wear, for a while, is humanist secularism, often described as political correctness. It's taken the place previously occupied by good manners.
The nurse may well have been in breach of manners, one can't know what was said or precisely how. The appropriate response would be a quiet word from her boss. These PC times will probably see her sent on an customer realignment course where she'll have to pay penance by canoeing in the Brecon Beacons with other unreconstructed sensibilities. The boss wouldn't dare risk a quiet word, alone, on a controversial issue, unminuted and possibly with a member of the opposite sex.

The need for The Mail to seek a cause celebre out of it and the accompanying milatheist hand wringing are equally loathsome.

 

[river_styx]

Speaking as an atheist, if somebody wants to pray for me I really couldn't care less and I'm not going to demand that person be suspended or sacked. Now if she was trying to force me into joining in it would be a different matter all together.

Although I'm with Colpepper1. A beautiful Hindu nurse would be much more preferable and she could force me into anything probably

 

[colpepper1]

Speaking as an atheist, if somebody wants to pray for me I really couldn't care less and I'm not going to demand that person be suspended or sacked. Now if she was trying to force me into joining in it would be a different matter all together.

Quite right, which is why it's important not to tar all atheists with the same brush. Some of my best friends, etc.

I'm warming to humilatheist for the knee jerk and smelling salts brigade.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Who are the 'milatheists' in question here? As far as I can make out there's been no real call for action by anyone fitting that description. They seem, dare I say it, to be something of a fictional entity in this instance. And there's still as much reason to believe that this has come about through a desire not to offend the religious sensibilities of others as there is those with none.

As an atheist, and presumably a militant one, I had no objection to receiving clergy of my parents' cloth when I was in hospital a year ago or receiving flowers from parishioners of my brother's church. It was probably reassuring to my family if nothing else although to me as an atheist it meant nothing - an altogether less harmful effect than had I been a follower of some contrary religion. Of course, they're not in the paid employ of the state or duty bound to give me any other form of care but I suspect that had prayer been offered by a nurse I'd have politely declined and left it at that. Coming from the west coast of Scotland I can think of several situations whereby the introduction of religion into such care would be likely to provoke ire and it wouldn't be from the milatheists, whoever they may be.

 

[Dingo667]

I think the biggest difference here is that the nurse "asked" if they would like her to pray for them. This gives others the opportunity to say no. I am an atheist and I've had x-tians at work telling me that they "would" pray for me, even though they knew very well that I didn't want them to. Now that send me up the wall. However if someone asked me, I would just say no thanks and that would be the end of it. Like everyone else here, I think a quiet word with the nurse would suffice.

 

[colpepper1]

Who are the 'milatheists' in question here?

I'd say humanist militant atheists (all the bits are significant) define a tendency that sees any mention of religion, faith or spirituality no matter how culturally embedded, as a pernicious affront. It finds its principal focus against christianity as host doctrine of the western scientific hegemony that fosters it, but is happy to have a pop at any unprovable creed or notion along with their adherents.

It believes religion is the meme by which control is maintained and hatred and misunderstanding would largely disappear if religious faith/superstition was abandoned. In its place an enlightenment doctrine based on the teachings of an elevated class of scientific rationalists would take hold and war become a thing of the past.

Humilatheism has become media savvy and missionary in seeking out counter texts and the devious glamours contained within them. It is at pains to deny zealotry associated with unprovable religious doctrines and insists it's assumptions and methods are those of deductive logic and are in no way aggressive, unless to address greater aggression.

There's more to say but that's roughly how I see the movement.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... Coming from the west coast of Scotland I can think of several situations whereby the introduction of religion into such care would be likely to provoke ire and it wouldn't be from the milatheists, whoever they may be.

Quite. A potential religious minefield.

And, in Northern Ireland, one that can even be triggered by how someone pronounces a word like, 'hospital.'

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Who are the 'milatheists' in question here?

I'd say humanist militant atheists (all the bits are significant) define a tendency that sees any mention of religion, faith or spirituality no matter how culturally embedded, as a pernicious affront. It finds its principal focus against christianity as host doctrine of the western scientific hegemony that fosters it, but is happy to have a pop at any unprovable creed or notion along with their adherents.

It believes religion is the meme by which control is maintained and hatred and misunderstanding would largely disappear if religious faith/superstition was abandoned. In its place an enlightenment doctrine based on the teachings of an elevated class of scientific rationalists would take hold and war become a thing of the past.

Humilatheism has become media savvy and missionary in seeking out counter texts and the devious glamours contained within them. It is at pains to deny zealotry associated with unprovable religious doctrines and insists it's assumptions and methods are those of deductive logic and are in no way aggressive, unless to address greater aggression.

There's more to say but that's roughly how I see the movement.

I was enquiring as to whereabouts we might find them in this particular story. Is there any evidence that they are behind the actions taken against the nurse or are the ones promoting or justifying them? I mean specific cases. It rather seems that people have jumped to conclusions that satisfy themselves in this instance.

 

[Quake42]

I'd say humanist militant atheists (all the bits are significant) define a tendency that sees any mention of religion, faith or spirituality no matter how culturally embedded, as a pernicious affront.

I think this is nonsense. As Ted_bloody_maul says, concerns around religion in the workplace tends to be the preserve of those who are worried that followers of other faiths may be offended. Militant atheists are unlikely to be bothered by this.

There is no evidence of any sort of fascistic atheistic movement. The only intolerance I have seen in recent years has come from militants of various religious faiths - primarily Muslim but Chrisian and even Sikh also. I haven't noticed militant atheists demanding that plays or books be banned because they criticise atheism or humanism.

 

[colpepper1]

No, no idea whether the nurses's sister was a humilatheist turning on a spotlight to show that even enlightenment institutions are dens of superstition and running to the papers with the story, or a woman genuinely concerned that her sick sister was being taken advantage of.

As I said, manners are your best friend in this situation and a dose of worldly wise-ness.

Edit: I should say I offer humilatheists as a problematising term in the same spirit (sic) as X-tians. The latter infers unquestioning adherence to dogma with evangelical overtones. Likewise my term encompasses the political wing of non-belief.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

I'd say humanist militant atheists (all the bits are significant) define a tendency that sees any mention of religion, faith or spirituality no matter how culturally embedded, as a pernicious affront. ...

Humilatheism has become media savvy and missionary in seeking out counter texts and the devious glamours contained within them. ...

There's more to say but that's roughly how I see the movement.

I think I'm going to come up with an appropriate new label for a movement I've identified.

What about, "Antiatheistnobheads"?

They tend to be anti-atheist and knob-heads, out to promote wilful ignorance, under the guise of Forteanism. That about sums it up, for the moment.

Do you think it will catch on?

 

[colpepper1]

...

I'd say humanist militant atheists (all the bits are significant) define a tendency that sees any mention of religion, faith or spirituality no matter how culturally embedded, as a pernicious affront. ...

Humilatheism has become media savvy and missionary in seeking out counter texts and the devious glamours contained within them. ...

There's more to say but that's roughly how I see the movement.

I think I'm going to come up with an appropriate new label for a movement I've identified.

What about, "Antiatheistnobheads"?

They tend to be anti-atheist and knob-heads, out to promote wilful ignorance, under the guise of Forteanism. That about sums it up, for the moment.

Do you think it will catch on?

Hard to say. It seems to carry an assumption that atheism is a neutral, or certainly a culturally unloaded term whereas religionism carries a priori intellectual constraints which make it counter intuitive.
The use of the vernacular also implies homespun wisdom condemning bourgeois rhetorical devices. As Forteanism insists everything is a convenient fashion it trumps both our nomenclature as webbollox.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

...suspending her rather that reminding her of her duties seems harsh, unless of course she's done this before and been told not too.

Which she has. Suspension still seems a bit like overkill though.

 

[Stormkhan]

That was my first thought, especially seeing as how religious organisations got in early on the hospital game and many are named after saints of the christian canon.

As far as I know, many hospitals are named after Christian saints because of tradition rather than agressive sales pitch.

Hospitals in Western Europe were started, and maintained, by The Church, their clerics usually being the most educated, well-supplied and - this must be stressed - most willing to aid sufferers.
This doesn't detract from other public healing institutions not connected to organised religion at the time and it must be remembered that during the Middle Ages, the Church was far more powerful and important in the public's mind than today.
Thus, secular hospitals name themselves after saints purely by tradition and not because there is a hidden agenda by God-botherer's to brainwash the sick while they are in a vulnerable mental state.

 

[stu neville]

She's been de-suspended now..

No action over prayer-row nurse

A Christian nurse who was suspended for offering to pray for a patient's recovery has been told she can return to work.

Community nurse Caroline Petrie, 45, from Weston-super-Mare asked an elderly woman patient during a home visit if she wanted her to say a prayer for her.

The patient complained to the health trust about Mrs Petrie's actions.

On Thursday, North Somerset NHS Trust said it had contacted Ms Petrie with a view to her returning to her work.

......

In a statement, the trust said: "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."

(my italics)

"..and next week, we'll be sending a hospital porter to Guantanamo for some water-boarding for being found in possession of a copy of Viz on his day off."

 

[colpepper1]

Thus, secular hospitals name themselves after saints purely by tradition and not because there is a hidden agenda by God-botherer's to brainwash the sick while they are in a vulnerable mental state.

Is that really what happened - she was involved in brainwashing? Or is that a disproportionate militant reading of the situation to stir up hatred? I think the nurse completely misread the situation unless there were cues in the house that the woman was a Christian. Did she have sinister designs on making a sick woman's life more unpleasant? Very doubtful. If she was white or black and elderly there was about a 4 in 5 chance the woman would have said 'how kind dear.' So we're back to political correctness.

On the naming of hospitals, of course it's traditional. If I were taken ill in an Isamic country would I whine because my carers worked for an institution named after the prophet? Would I heck.

 

[Stormkhan]

Personally, I don't think it was Christian brainwashing at all. Perhaps some who do also get furious if they sneeze and someone says "bless you". The intention is the same.
Where's the harm?

 

[Rushfan62]

Too many organisations these days ready to take offence when none is intended while excusing genuinely offensive behaviour by allowing those involved to be absolved of guilt by blaming circumstance.

 

[Twin_Star]

My immediate question to this would be: why didn't she just pray for the patient in question on the sly? Surely the efficaciousness of the act - if her God really can work his mojo - doesnt require patient compliance. If you ask me she's a school hall evangelist, masquerading as a nurse.

 

[segovius]

My immediate question to this would be: why didn't she just pray for the patient in question on the sly? Surely the efficaciousness of the act - if her God really can work his mojo - doesnt require patient compliance. If you ask me she's a school hall evangelist, masquerading as a nurse.

Exactly - good works done by stealth and all that.

Reminds me of a philosophical paradox I read about where in a refutation of Pascal's wager it seems that if God exists then atheists are more likely to go to heaven than believers...

Basically it goes like this:

Religion enjoins one to do good without seeking reward and those who do 'good works' in expectation of one might be out of luck.

It follows that no believer can really avoid this as they all want to 'go to heaven'.

Therefore an atheist who does 'good works' and avoids 'sinning' must be doing so with no expectation of eternal reward and therefore far more likely to get one if such exists!

 

[Stormkhan]

Nice theory but a majority of "good behaviour" and "anti-sinning" is tied up with national laws etc.
Thus, murder is discouraged by law ... and is also on the "Keep The Commandments" tick-list.

A good rule to live by ... Be Excellent To Each Other.

 

[joeygirl]

Some years ago, when I had been in hospital for several weeks, a minister came up to me and asked if he could give me a blessing. Now I can see that it was totally inappropriate (apart from anything - the implication that I needed a minister! on my deathbed!)

When you are young, insecure, lonely, frightened, confused and in pain it is very hard to say no to an 'authority' figure. And believe me, in a hospital anyone except the patient is in authority. (You're lying on your back with a catheter sticking up you - you've never felt more vulnerable)

The nurse's offer was wrong (although I agree the suspension was an over-reaction)

 

[powelly67]

I'm a nurse. We are expected to provide care that takes account of a patient' spiritual beliefs e.g certain aspects of patient care tailored in respect of their beliefs. An example of this would be reminding medical staff not to prescibe certain types of insulin to a diabetic Orthodox Jew as some insulins are pig derived. Part of the nursing assessment where I work involves asking the if they would like to see a minister whilst in hospital.These would be viewed as catering for a patient's spiritual beliefs.
This nurse was wrong to offer to pray for this woman. If the patient had asked- different story. I am an atheist and would politely but firmly refuse any offer of a prayer being said on my behalf it is not a nurses's job to do that.

 

[Dingo667]

Nice theory but a majority of "good behaviour" and "anti-sinning" is tied up with national laws etc.
Thus, murder is discouraged by law ... and is also on the "Keep The Commandments" tick-list.

A good rule to live by ... Be Excellent To Each Other.

So are you saying that I only "behave" because there are laws?
Thing is religion or laws, I couldn't care less, that is why I "break" certain laws [especially when it comes to waccy baccy] but I still [believe it or not], don't go around killing people or beating them up or steal or even kick children's butts [as much as I'd love to]. It is not the laws that stop me, its sometimes compassion, sometimes me understanding the feelings of others, other times the knowledge that it is not worth it.
No gods or laws involved. Just my silly little belief in right and wrong.
Properly right and wrong, not man made greed induced right and wrong.
I am sure there are others like me.
So now what are you saying?

 

[Spookdaddy]

Yeah, have to say it's a bit of a surprise to me that the reason I don't murder my downstairs neighbour, who I hate with gusto, or steal my mates vinyl collection, or, for that matter, abduct the Brazilian woman who's just moved in down the road, is only because I'm frit of the peelers.