The Cultural Importance of Jersey Shore »« Obama Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again

Hospital Appeases Father’s Racism

Here’s an appalling story out of my home state of Michigan. The father of a hospitalized baby in Flint demanded that no black nurses or doctors care for his child — and the hospital complied with that request and made sure only white nurses and doctors cared for the kid.

Tonya Battle is a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) nurse at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan. Last year on Halloween, she was caring for a baby in the NICU unit. The baby’s father, approached her, and asked to see her supervisor. What happened next is right out of the early part of the 20th Century racist south.

The man demanded that no African American nurses care for his baby. Not only that, the hospital complied. They are now being sued by Tonya Battle.

According to the complaint, which you can read HERE (pdf), the man rolled up his sleeve when he spoke to Battle’s supervisor, showing a tattoo that is believed to be a swastika. Battle, who is African American, and all other African American nurses where then prohibited from treating this racist’s sick baby. The assignment clipboard, according to the complaint, had a note prominently displayed reading, “NO AFRICAN AMERICAN NURSE TO TAKE CARE OF BABY”.

I wonder what the religious right would say about this case. Or about a case where a patient demanded that no gay nurses or doctors cared for them. Would it be a violation of their religious freedom not to comply with such demands, in their view?

Comments

  1. zippythepinhead says

    How could they implement such a demand without consulting their lawyers? They could have gotten child protective services involved … there’s so many alternatives but they chose THAT?!

  2. jamessweet says

    I can kinda see an argument in favor of the hospital’s actions here… if they thought there was a risk the father might flee with the baby or something, in the interests of the the child it could arguably make sense to comply with his ridiculous demands. It’s certainly a fine line.

    To be clear: An adult making such a demand about his own treatment should be booted out on his ass, except possibly in the case that he was diagnosed mentally ill or something. Where I think the gray area is when an adult is making such a demand in regards to the care of a minor in his or her custody. In that case, an argument could be made for appeasement in the interest of ensuring proper care for the child.

  3. left0ver1under says

    What would the religious right would say?

    They’d probably insinuate that the non-white hospital staff might try to murder the baby – or did, if the baby happened to die of a birth defect while in their care.

  4. jamessweet says

    And in re my comment #3, zippythepinhead makes a good point at #2 that involving CPS may have been the better alternative in that situation. I still think it’s potentially a gray area, but yeah, that sort of solution might be preferably. At the very least, temporary appeasement while they sorted out a better solution would probably be the most they could do.

  5. F [nucular nyandrothol] says

    And they lost an opportunity for the trolling that guy was just begging for. Namely to have every non-black, non-white medical professional on staff treat the child .

    Really, they should have told him he was off his rocker, then called the hospital lawyers. (Or simply listened to the lawyer who told them they were off their rockers.)

    Now, I could see, in the event of an emergency, staff “complying” simply to treat the child if the racist git threatened to do something which would have delayed critical treatment. But to have a notice posted for a month? Holy crap, Batman.

  6. Childermass says

    If I was in charge, I would say fine and we will comply with your request when your personal check for $10,000 clears to pay for our bigotry fee whose proceeds will be split among the nurses as bonus for having to deal with creeps like you.

  7. rabbitscribe says

    What an egregiously bigoted statement. As history clearly shows, the religious right has been in the vanguard of the struggle for the equal treatment of both African-American and gay people.

  8. rabbitscribe says

    My apology. I’m a conservative time traveler, and that post was intended as a reply to a thread created fifty years from now. Allow me to replace it with a reply appropriate to 2013:
    What an egregiously bigoted statement. As history clearly shows, the religious right has been in the vanguard of the struggle for the equal treatment of African-American people. But homosexuality is different- that’s a choice.

  9. lofgren says

    I think when it comes to medical care the priority is on getting proper treatment to the patient. If the patient makes insane demands and it is easier and faster to simply accede to the demand than to address it through proper channels, then I could certainly see the argument. Once the man made his demand, the nurses would be faced with two options: involve lawyers and deal with all the legal BS and red tape for who knows how long, or slightly tweak rounds and responsibilities so that the infant can receive decent care and then get on with their lives.

    This is not a defense of the hospitals continued actions. They had a month to sort this out to the satisfaction of their staff and they ignored the advice of lawyers. Once the lawyers are involved, you have to conduct business according the law. In addition if you want to try to circumvent the law in order to make everybody’s life a little easier, you obviously need to make sure that everybody is on board with that. Otherwise, as in this case, you’re just going to make everybody’s life more complicated when somebody sues. I’m just saying I see where the supervisor was coming from in the earliest days of this fiasco. Although if true, this claim might point to less pragmatic motivations:

    Battle [the nurse] claims that she was subject to intimidation, ridicule and insult when she filed complaints with her employer.

    However I am very confused as to how anybody could think that this is any of CPS’s business. You can’t take away somebody’s kids because they are a racist.

  10. cptdoom says

    @7 –

    And they lost an opportunity for the trolling that guy was just begging for. Namely to have every non-black, non-white medical professional on staff treat the child .

    The other alternative that would have been fabulous is for every staff member to declare themselves to be African-American. Given the evolutionary beginning of our species, it would not have been totally incorrect, and would have forced the father to back down.

    I get that this is a gray legal area for hospitals. Patients do have the right to demand changes in the personnel that care for them (and in the case of minors, their parents have that right), and it is not clear whether hospitals can refuse those requests for reasons that seem ridiculous. However, the hospital was also setting itself up for major liability – what if there had been an emergency and ONLY minority personnel could respond? Do they let the kid die?

    Aside: About 50 years ago, the college I went to (although I didn’t attend for another 25 years) got rid of its fraternities, partially in response to the overtly racist process of fraternity affiliations. All but one fraternity eventually sold their house back to the school (which owned the land the houses were built upon anyway). One fraternity that did sell is rumored to have included in its agreement that the school would never allow non-white undergrads to live in the house. That building is now the home of a graduate program specifically aimed at third-world government officials; which I think was a kick-a** response by my school.

  11. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    I wish there had been a nurse of African descent who had emigrated from Europe or Africa who was not an American citizen working in the hospital. They could have fairly had her taking care of the baby without disobeying the written directive.

  12. Kengi says

    @12:

    However I am very confused as to how anybody could think that this is any of CPS’s business. You can’t take away somebody’s kids because they are a racist.

    If there was a concern that the father would refuse needed care for the child after telling the father that his request would not be followed in the coming days and weeks, then CPS would need to be involved and should have a heads-up to be prepared.

  13. David C Brayton says

    This one is interesting. A hospital will treat anyone that walks through the door, racist or not. But should a patient have a right to be treated by a person of their choice?

    Say a male patient wants his hemmerhoids (sp?) treated by a male physician. Does it matter that the reason is because the patient is nervous in the nude in front of a woman or because he thinks that women make bad doctors. What if the patient is nervous in front of male physicians because he is gay so he wants to be seen only by female physicians?

    What damages did the plaintiff in the case suffer? I don’t see any economic damages. And what are her emotional damages? Is her argument that she is suffering because she really wanted to care for a racist asshole?

  14. dean says

    A brief news item today reported that administrators are claiming they did this because they were concerned about the safety of their staff if they did not agree to this ass-clown’s demands.

    I am surprised it has taken them this long to attempt to cover themselves.

  15. justsomeguy says

    If I were inclined to troll this guy, I’d make sure to get plenty of photos of the baby being held and cared for by various nurses of color. Then I’d gather them in an envelope to give to the guy upon checkout, with the note “go ahead and try to sue us for this” on top.

  16. machintelligence says

    jamessweet @ 3

    An adult making such a demand about his own treatment should be booted out on his ass, except possibly in the case that he was diagnosed mentally ill or something.

    Something like Alzheimer’s perhaps. In the skilled nursing facility where my mom spent her last months, there were a number of residents who objected to being helped by African American nurses aids. She never had that problem, but when she complained about one of the staff, her description of the individual involved was that they were Japanese or German, she wasn’t sure which.

  17. lofgren says

    I think David C. Brayton has the right of it. Part of the nurse’s job is to make the patient comfortable. Where the obligation begins and ends is very murky. That’s why I proposed that for the sake of simplicity it might be worthwhile to simply agree to offensive demands for the sake of keeping the hospital running smoothly. But again, everybody needs to be on board with that decision or else the “smoothest” option is to do everything above-board the first time around.

  18. lancifer says

    I agree with David C.Brayton and lofgren here. My wife is coincidentally an African American certified nursing assistant in a large hospital. The mission of a hospital is not to correct the unpopular or even unethical attitudes of its patients, but to treat them in a way that makes them the most comfortable and facilitates their healing.

    So long as this can be done in a legal way that is what should be done. Like David C. Brayton, I see no damages to the African American nurse unless there were no other patients available and she was sent home or something.

    Is the guy a douchebag? Absolutely, but as I said the mission of a hospital isn’t to punish douchebags or make some grand social statement.

  19. freemage says

    David C. Brayton: Selectively reassigning a nurse based on her race could be seen as creating a hostile work environment. It wouldn’t surprise me if the nurses had to juggle shifts in order to accommodate this P.O.S.–after all, you have to make certain that there are non-black nurses on every shift in that ward. If the hospital uses a night differential (common in 24/7 industries) to compensate overnight desk nurses (who may be the only person at the station) this could even lead to financial impact, especially over the course of a month.

    As others noted, a one-time adjustment for emergency care is understandable, if also understandably irritating and disgusting. But once they were settling into a routine, daddy should’ve been told, ‘Accept the patient care we have available, or take your kid elsewhere. You are not a super-special snowflake.”

    I wonder if this fuckhead would’ve had the same issues if his kid needed a transfusion–would he demand “no darkie blood”? (That’s a quote from an old episode of M*A*S*H.)

  20. eric says

    I think when it comes to medical care the priority is on getting proper treatment to the patient.

    There is an interesting parallel here between this neo-nazi and Jehovas’ Witnesses. IMO hospitals regularly prioritize informed consent over proper treatment. If someone does not consent to the treatment proposed by a facility, then a perfectly legimitate argument can be made for showing them the door. The kid may die, yes, but if so, that was because you, the parent, witheld consent for the treatment proposed. The way they treat JW’s would indicate this hospital was wrong to accede. They should do what they do for the JW’s: you can take our treatment or leave it. If you leave it, the consequences are on you.

    OTOH patients do generally have a right to decide who treats them. This guy was overtly racist about it, true, but patients subtly doing the exact same thing – choosing doctors based on arbitrary and irrelevant characteristics such as race, age, sex, religion, etc. – has to be a pretty common practice. It probably happens every day. You can’ deny this guy’s right to pick his caregivers just because he’s a racist. That’s essentially trying to police thought. “Bob here can pick the white doctor, but you can’t, because we think Bob doesn’t care much about his whiteness while you do.” That can’t work. If Bob gets to pick who treats his kid, so does Neo-Nazi.

    So, interesting case. Like Ed, I think the best argument clearly lies on the side of rejecting arbitrary patient demands when it conflicts with care. But I am interested to hear what the argument on the hospital’s side is like. I supect they may have some decent points (but still probably deserve to lose).

  21. Who Knows? says

    This is a bit tough from the hospital’s perspective. It is certain the hospital doesn’t have any kind of discriminatory policy but was being asked to act in a discriminatory manner by the legal guardian of an infant patient. My guess is the same as others here have suggested. In order to protect the innocent, the infant patient, the hospital choose to follow the father’s wishes.

    I’m not aware of any law that says an individual cannot hold racist views, and live their life in accordance to those views? So, I don’t know what calling CPS would do. Anyone have an idea what could have been done by any state agency?

  22. slc1 says

    I think that Mr. freemage @ #22 has it right. We don’t know the full story of exactly what happened here but the fact that the little girl was in the hospital for a month indicates that eventually the problem was not immediately life threatening. At that point, the man should have been given the option of either accepting hospital personnel regardless of race or taking his child elsewhere.

  23. lancifer says

    I just talked to my wife about this incident. Sadly, she said this isn’t all that unusual. Patients often have issues with some aspect of their caregivers, whether it be foreign accents, appearance or other attributes.

    My wife said the thing that would have set her off was the sign on the door. She finds that to be not only racist but unprofessional on the part of the hospital. The charge nurse and other administrators could have met with individual staff members to ensure that the patient was attended by staff that would not cause discomfort to the patient or the staff.

    She said the one limiting factor would be if there were no available qualified staff that met the patients request. Then the hospital would inform the patient that they would have to be attended by the qualified personel that they found objectionable or leave the hospital.

  24. Draken says

    I agree with David C.Brayton and lofgren here. My wife is coincidentally an African American certified nursing assistant in a large hospital. The mission of a hospital is not to correct the unpopular or even unethical attitudes of its patients, but to treat them in a way that makes them the most comfortable and facilitates their healing.

    But the personnel of the hospital has a right to be treated reasonably, and not to have (medical) procedures interfered with.

    Like David C. Brayton, I see no damages to the African American nurse

    I do. Roughly the same damage as Rosa Parks being denied her place in the bus.

  25. lancifer says

    Draken,

    But the personnel of the hospital has a right to be treated reasonably, and not to have (medical) procedures interfered with.

    You seem to have the priorities of a hospital reversed. The staff is there to serve the patients, not the other way round. Being re-assigned to a patient that prefers your care is not unreasonable.

    As to damages,

    Roughly the same damage as Rosa Parks being denied her place in the bus.

    Oh , please. Being asked to treat a non-douchebag is hardly the same as being told you have to sit in the back of the bus. Or do you suppose that nurses have the “right” to treat whomever they please?

  26. lofgren says

    I do. Roughly the same damage as Rosa Parks being denied her place in the bus.

    This analogy seems a bit over the top, but it is very “roughly” accurate. The nurse has a right to be treated fairly by her employer.

    In the abstract, this is a question of what happens when the rights of an employee conflict with the demands of a customer.

    The customer is not hemmed by the same laws as the employer, and can fairly make whatever demands he or she wants. The question in this case is whether or not the customer can make demands that require the employer to violate the law.

    In almost all cases, I think the people on this board would say no, the customer does not have a right to demand that the employer violate the law. However in this case the service in question is healthcare, which is also regarded as a basic right by those on the Left.

    Somewhat related, I am always skeptical of laws or policies that basically require a person to lie. If the father had said that he didn’t want this nurse treating his child because of a personality clash, or because he heard bad things about her from another patient, or because he just didn’t like the cut of her jib, then this would be a non-story. Every patient advocate I have talked to, including nurses, has outright recommended that patients make such requests. I am uncomfortable with a law that says you can say “I don’t want that nurse to treat my child,” and everything is cool, but if you say “I don’t want that nurse to treat my child because she is black,” suddenly you are violating the law.

    And frankly, I would like to retain my right to say “I don’t want that nurse treating my child because she is a Christian Identity believer.”

  27. starskeptic says

    We had an Indian man bring his wife into our E. D. three times over several weeks – always in the middle of the night – always requesting only female personnel have contact with her. We accommodated them those three times but told them that next time, they had a choice: come during the day when it’s easier to meet this request or they would have to use who was available on that late shift.

  28. lancifer says

    lofgren,

    The nurse has a right to be treated fairly by her employer.

    And that’s why my wife objected to the sign on the door. That was out of line and could be construed as racial harassment to African American employees as well as other patients.

    Is it grounds for a law suit? Well, only if the hospital refused to take it down.

  29. lancifer says

    Oops, I mistakenly said sign on the door, when it was only a note on the patients clipboard.

    I doubt that meets the standard of workplace harassment.

  30. says

    There is an interesting parallel here between this neo-nazi and Jehovas’ Witnesses. IMO hospitals regularly prioritize informed consent over proper treatment. If someone does not consent to the treatment proposed by a facility, then a perfectly legimitate argument can be made for showing them the door. The kid may die, yes, but if so, that was because you, the parent, witheld consent for the treatment proposed. The way they treat JW’s would indicate this hospital was wrong to accede. They should do what they do for the JW’s: you can take our treatment or leave it. If you leave it, the consequences are on you.

    No.
    At least around here CPS is alerted and parents lose the medical-decision custody. Because the life of a child is more important than the delusions of the parent.

    As for the damages: Of course there are damages. If hospitals bow down to the demands of racist shitheads, POC have less opportunities than white people, i.e. they’re being discriminated against on the basis of race.

    You seem to have the priorities of a hospital reversed. The staff is there to serve the patients, not the other way round. Being re-assigned to a patient that prefers your care is not unreasonable.

    Here’s some news: Staff is people. They are not servants, they are health care providers, meaning that YOU want something from THEM. Their profession carries a special responsibility and that’s why they can’t choose clients like a restaurant, but it doesn’t mean they have to take any shit people throw at them.

  31. lofgren says

    And that’s why my wife objected to the sign on the door.

    Where are you getting this about a sign at the door? According to the linked article, the note was on the patient’s chart. It was removed after a month of complaints and the repeated requests of the hospital’s lawyers.

    But again, I am uncomfortable with the notion that you can say “No African Americans can treat this patient,” but if you write it down suddenly it becomes harassment. It’s either harassment or it isn’t. I don’t see the distinction between verbal communication and written in this context.

  32. lofgren says

    Oops, I mistakenly said sign on the door, when it was only a note on the patients clipboard.

    I was writing while you were posting this. Belay my previous comment.

  33. lancifer says

    lofgren,

    I corrected my “note on the door” mistake in post #33. Perhaps your post was made before it posted.

    And I agree with your remarks.

  34. lancifer says

    Giliell,

    Golly you’re a great and noble anti-racist! So noted.

    Now why don’t you (re) read logren’s and eric’s remarks about the subtleties of this situation and make a non knee jerk exclamation of your shining moral character and respond to the nuances of the actual case.

  35. says

    Now why don’t you (re) read logren’s and eric’s remarks about the subtleties of this situation and make a non knee jerk exclamation of your shining moral character and respond to the nuances of the actual case.

    You know, if you came from a family of health care providers where the people you love have been run to the ground and plunged into severe mental health issues because they had shit like that flung at them all the time you maybe, just maybe could see them as people, too.
    The only complication of the case is that the patient was a minor who should not suffer from parents being assholes. So I would think that an approach similar to children of Jehova’sWitnesses and other assorted idiots would be in order. Which means that the child gets the care, the father loses the say and hospital staff does not have to work under conditions that constantly remind them that some people don’t see them as fully human.

  36. Draken says

    You seem to have the priorities of a hospital reversed. The staff is there to serve the patients

    No, they are there to repair you. If you want service, go to a hotel. The hotel is free to kick you out if you don’t treat its personnel with due respect; the hospital cannot necessarily do so at the peril of threatening your life and health.

    In this case, it’s a bit more complicated because the culprit is actually the representative of an under-age patient. You’d want to deny him access to the hospital until the infant is dismissed. i somehow suppose that’s not possible.

  37. frog says

    A person has a right to go about their day without constant indications that they are Other and Not Good Enough. It’s particularly objectionable in the workplace, which a person can’t just walk away from.

    Some people spend their time and money developing a skill, becoming good and respected at their job, and then are told that they’re not good enough for this particular situation because they’re brown? And this is made explicit to their coworkers, who will read this chart and note? I’m white and I would be upset and pissed off to see that note. I wouldn’t want to think my employer was a racist organization, but what other conclusion could I draw?

    Yes, the hospital may not agree with the father, but they complied with his wishes to the degree that they posted the fucking note and made this an ongoing situation.

    The hospital let their staff down. The correct response to the father, once any emergency was over, would be “We don’t treat our staff like that. We assign the best people. Like it or lump it.” And if dad says, “Fuck you, I’m taking my sick child home,” you call CPS.

    Failure to support your staff against racism is shitty. I don’t envy the hospital administration being put in this position, but they handled it just about the worst possible way.

  38. lofgren says

    You know, if you came from a family of health care providers where the people you love have been run to the ground and plunged into severe mental health issues because they had shit like that flung at them all the time you maybe, just maybe could see them as people, too.

    The trouble is that the patients are ALSO people, and their level of comfort is very important. In this case, the man is the patient’s guardian so he basically gets to be treated as the patient up until his decisions threaten the child’s welfare. The hospital can’t take away his rights as the patient’s father unless they can show that his request puts the child at undue risk. If there are enough to white nurses to take proper care of the child then you can’t really make the argument that he is putting the child at undue risk, which means the child’s caregivers are going to have to engage with him.

    You can’t take somebody’s rights away just because they make you feel bad.

    Which is exactly the argument being made on both sides of this lawsuit. That’s what makes it complicated.

  39. lancifer says

    giliell,

    You know, if you came from a family of health care providers where the people you love have been run to the ground and plunged into severe mental health issues because they had shit like that flung at them all the time you maybe, just maybe could see them as people, too.

    God you’re a self-righteous prick. Can you read?

    I said my wife is an African American healthcare provider working in a hospital and has faced this very situation. Her commitment is to providing the best care and most hospitable healing environment for her patients, not making the hospital a forum for advancing a social or political agenda.

    Luckily this isn’t the antebellum south and this doesn’t come up that often so it’s not like it makes the hospital some segregated and racially hostile working environment. Making one racist patient comfortable isn’t going to bring apartheid down of the whole system.

  40. says

    What damages did the plaintiff in the case suffer?

    Immediate damages? None that I can perceive — except perhaps the threat of violence strongly implied by the father’s display of his swastika tatoo. Longer-term damages? Setting a precedent that could re-establish apartheid, at least in white-majority regions where racism is still rampant. And jeapordize the jobs of nonwhite medical personnel in such areas, thus cutting off what could be the ONLY way such personnel have out of poverty.

    Seriously, once this hospital caved to racist threats once, that makes it a lot harder to resist such nonsensical demands in the future.

  41. Draken says

    …not making the hospital a forum for advancing a social or political agenda.

    Demanding decent treatment without discrimination is ‘advancing a social or political agenda’. Point taken.

  42. lancifer says

    Draken,

    Confronting a patient’s attitudes instead of just providing them with caregivers that make them comfortable is advancing a political agenda over providing care.

  43. tomh says

    @ #34

    At least around here CPS is alerted and parents lose the medical-decision custody. Because the life of a child is more important than the delusions of the parent.

    This is not true in a majority of states in the US. Parents can refuse medical treatment for their children due to sincerely held religious beliefs. Depending on the state, this includes conditions up to and including life threatening situations.

  44. says

    I said my wife is an African American healthcare provider…

    Yeah, you say that a lot, every time you need her to prove you’re not really as racist or clueless as you sound. I have an African-American girlfriend too — so what?

    And no, this is not about “making the hospital a forum;” it’s about making the hospital a place where people can do theri jobs and get credit for it without being encumbered by bigotry.

    Luckily this isn’t the antebellum south and this doesn’t come up that often so it’s not like it makes the hospital some segregated and racially hostile working environment.

    Yeah, glad you made that distinction, ’cause it’s only wrong if it’s happening in the antebellum South.

    So tell us…how many more times does this sort of thing have to happen before you’d be willing to consider it an injustice worth mentioning?

  45. lancifer says

    democommie,

    I think that I would have been unable to accomodate the asshole.

    That’s so surprising because you usually come off as such a compassionate, moderate and reasonable person.

  46. says

    You can’t take somebody’s rights away just because they make you feel bad.

    How much right does a non-responsible non-expert have to dictate a hospital’s personnel or scheduling policies? A hospital’s management are responsible for setting employees’ schedules so that manpower is most effectively deployed to get the job done and be ready for emergencies; and hospital management are responsible if their decisions degrade the quality of care. Employees are likewise responsible for adhering to said schedules, and they are held responsible if their failure to do so degrades the quality of care.

    So if a non-expert outsider, like this racist dad, just walks in and starts dictating changes in such scheduling policies, is he held responsible if anything goes wrong? Probably not — which is why people who don’t have responsibilities should not have power in such matters.

  47. says

    The hospital can’t take away his rights as the patient’s father unless they can show that his request puts the child at undue risk.

    The hospital can inform CPS.
    Clearly a custodian who puts his political agenda over the wellbeing of the child, whose interest is to get the best care they can get and since that does not depend on the skin-colour of the caregiver, is unfit to make medical decisions for that child.
    Should that child ever need emergency care by an ambulance there is clearly a risk, either for the child who might not be treated quick enough because the father denies access or for the paramedic who might be in danger if they should try to help the child nevertheless.
    This isn’t about approving somebody’s views or not, but about the interest of the child as well.
    Parental rights are those of a steward, not of an owner.

    lancifer

    I said my wife is an African American healthcare provider working in a hospital and has faced this very situation.

    Yes, and I have decided a long time ago to simply ignore “my wife is … and agrees with me” arguments. Even if your claims are correct it doesn’t mean your wife is right. I’ve had enough of people who belong to marginalized groups who go and tell other members of that group that they just have to put up with that shit. Nothing ever became better by “putting up with shit”. If she doesn’t care for being treated as not exactly human, and you don’t care either it doesn’t mean that other people are wrong for caring.

  48. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    A hospital isn’t a hotel. You don’t get to whine and complain about who’s available to treat and/or take care of you because there aren’t enough of them to accommodate every shitbag bigot’s whims. If the worthless father objects and removes the kid from their care, what happens to that kid is (or should be) on him. Just like uber religious parents who refuse medical treatment for their children based on what they think their imaginary friend says are held responsible for what happens to their child because of their assholery, so to should this father be held responsible for what his bigotry does to the kid.

    I’d like to think that, if faced with the decision between leaving the hospital and just sucking it up like a big boy and helping his own child, the worthless dad would chose the later. However, as this thread shows, certain people’s families are apparently convenient fodder for their own ends rather than, you know, human beings.

  49. says

    Roughly the same damage as Rosa Parks being denied her place in the bus.

    Yes, this analogy is sound: ONE person being denied fair treatment doesn’t look like that big a deal — but if a precedent is set, then ONE becomes TWO, then FOUR, then EIGHT…so where do you draw the line between “isolated incident, no big deal” and “an expanding pattern of isolated incidents?”

    I suppose the hospital could accomodate a racist idiot’s demands during visiting hours when said idiot is likely to show up — but not 24/7, and certainly not during an emergency situation where everyone’s schedules are suddenly scrambled and whoever is available is who you get.

    Medicine is a PROFESSION — this means that medical professinals are required to provide services according to their expertise, experience, and rules of ethics, all of which informs judgement. They’re not wage-slaves who have to do exactly what the customer says, the way the customer says. At some point, a hospital has to explain that their staff are professionals, doing their duties according to their training and rules of conduct, and the patient’s family have to take it or leave it.

  50. says

    I said my wife is an African American healthcare provider…

    Yeah, you say that a lot, every time you need her to prove you’re not really as racist or clueless as you sound. I have an African-American girlfriend too — so what?

    lancifer was responding to giliell saying he couldn’t see health care providers as people because he doesn’t have any as family members whom he loves but who have this kind of shit flung at them all of the time. In fact, lancifer does have that (albeit not with “severe mental health issues,” granted), and just got saying so.

    So, that.

    It doesn’t make lancifer not-racist, but I’m pretty sure it makes him not-clueless.

  51. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    o tell us…how many more times does this sort of thing have to happen before you’d be willing to consider it an injustice worth mentioning?

    But, it’s not happening to white dudes, RB. What injustice are you talking about?

  52. Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle says

    t doesn’t make lancifer not-racist, but I’m pretty sure it makes him not-clueless.

    . . . is this a joke?

  53. lofgren says

    is he held responsible if anything goes wrong? Probably not — which is why people who don’t have responsibilities should not have power in such matters.

    Typical Bee. If you don’t like the facts of the case before you, just make some up. The father was not given power over anything. He made a request, as is his right as a patient (or a patient’s guardian). The hospital honored that request. No one is asserting that the child’s care nor the hospital’s other functions were hindered in any way by compliance with this request, not even the plaintiff, which is probably why the hospital chose to grant it in the first place.

    The hospital can inform CPS.

    They can inform CPS of whatever the fuck they please. Since it would have come to nothing, it’s not really relevant. There is NO INDICATION that the father’s request IN ANY WAY affected the quality of the child’s care. NONE. The fact that both you and Bee are arguing based on highly specific hypotheticals shows just how useless your arguments are in this situation. You can’t just make up imaginary situations, pretend to know how a person would react to them, and then use that fictional scenario to take away a person’s children.

  54. lancifer says

    Giliell,

    Either your family members are overly sensitive idiots or very bad healthcare professionals if they feel that letting one patients choose his caregivers somehow dehumanizes them.

    As was mentioned earlier, patients should be allowed to make the choice of caregivers based on a variety of reasons and hospitals reassign caregivers all the time to accommodate these requests.

    Now I know that race is an idiotic reason to choose one caregiver over another but if the hospital can accommodate this request, without causing degradation of the care of the patients on the floor, then it should do so. If your family really is made up of caregivers then you should know that hospitals reassign caregivers for idiotic reasons all the time.

  55. lancifer says

    lofgren,

    Why do you waste your time responding to Bee? I stopped responding to his irrational and overly emotional remarks months ago.

    It has freed up enough time to have an extra cup of coffee in the morning, a much more satisfying use of that time.

  56. says

    As was mentioned earlier, patients should be allowed to make the choice of caregivers based on a variety of reasons and hospitals reassign caregivers all the time to accommodate these requests.

    There’s a real difference between individual medical practices and hospitals: you can choose which practice you visit, and which doctor or surgeon you want to perform a procedure, in cases when you’re conscious and have the leeway to shop the competition. Hospitals are a different kettle of fish: they’re more collective enterprises, and it’s not always reasonable to expect to be able to choose which of a pool of nurses gets to care for a patient. It’s nice to be able to choose who you deal with when you can — but there are limits to how far that can go.

  57. says

    lancifer

    Either your family members are overly sensitive idiots or very bad healthcare professionals if they feel that letting one patients choose his caregivers somehow dehumanizes them.

    You’re not only racist, you’re also a shitty victim-blaming asshole.
    And yes, if a patient (although we’re not talking about “the patient”. That’s bullshit. We’re talking about the patient’s father) demands that people of a certain colour (or sexual orientation) must not touch them because those people are actually not really human, that dehumanizes them. And a hospital that treats such a request as if it were a legitimate demand dehumanizes them, too.
    Gosh, I really, really hope that your wonderful strong wife never comes to the point where she suddenly can’t take it anymore because she would be really fucked to be stuck with an asshole like you for her support who would blame her and shame her and deny her her qualification.
    Here you’re only shitting on people who will never know.
    But people like you are the reason for bad healthcare. Because if you demand that good professionals put up with all kinds of shit, they’ll leave and you’ll be left with those who don’t care anyway.

    Gretchen
    I think now you can see how much lancifer thinks of the humanity of health care workers

  58. lofgren says

    But people like you are the reason for bad healthcare. Because if you demand that good professionals put up with all kinds of shit, they’ll leave and you’ll be left with those who don’t care anyway.

    Yeah, that’s exactly the situation that we observe today. A healthcare system that functions perfectly except for those lazy, good-for-nothing nurses. God, Lancifer, why are you so mean to your wife? Don’t you see that if you were nicer then she could be replaced by somebody who wasn’t an incompetent piece of shit?

  59. lofgren says

    But people like you are the reason for bad healthcare. Because if you demand that good professionals put up with all kinds of shit, they’ll leave and you’ll be left with those who don’t care anyway.

    Also, can you believe Lancifer’s nerve, expecting healthcare professionals to deal with patients who are actual people rather than meatsacks for them to slice and dice as they please? Fucking patients with their fucking feelings. They are almost as bad as those crappy nurses who are the main problem with our healthcare system.

  60. says

    Yeah, that’s exactly the situation that we observe today. A healthcare system that functions perfectly except for those lazy, good-for-nothing nurses. God, Lancifer, why are you so mean to your wife? Don’t you see that if you were nicer then she could be replaced by somebody who wasn’t an incompetent piece of shit?

    Tss, can I keep the straw?
    Because unlike lancifer who called my family members shitty health care workers I never attacked his wife.

    Fucking patients with their fucking feelings.

    We’re not talking about “fucking patients with their fucking feelings”
    We’re talking about a racist shithead who demanded that the world acts like it’s still the 1950’s where he could reasonably expect that he would not have to deal with black people.
    I mean, fucking black people with their fucking feelings, want to be treated like the full 5/5th of a person.

  61. elpayaso says

    we had a case here involving a white supremacist charged with making pipe bombs for the [FBI agent} who was egging him on and talking about taking em across state lines to kill Jews
    our management assigned the only Jewish guy in the office, the most indio-lookin Mexican-ancestry guy, and the resident old hippie to his case. he learned a lot when he saw us fighting just as hard for him as we do for anyone else and getting him a good result, and he told us later that it had made him rethink some of his views.

  62. slc1 says

    Re Giliell @ #66

    What else can one expect from a putz like Sir Lancelot who, despite not knowing his ass from a hole in the ground, professes his disbelief in global climate change, despite the testimony of climate scientists who do know their ass form a hole in the ground.

  63. lancifer says

    Giliell,

    You clueless dimwit, you started this flame war with this remark,

    If she doesn’t care for being treated as not exactly human, and you don’t care either it doesn’t mean that other people are wrong for caring.

    Fuck you, your family and any other cretins unfortunate enough to be related to you.

  64. lancifer says

    So this racist dipshit asks that no African Americans provide care to his infant daughter and the correct response is,

    a.) Tell him to fuck himself and that he’ll get just the caregivers the hospitals decides to give him, and since he asked we’re going to make sure they are all black .

    or

    b.) Honor his request if it doesn’t cause any disruption of services to his daughter or other patients.

    Yeah, “a” is clearly the best choice here.

  65. slc1 says

    Re Sir Lancelot @ #70

    Or

    c) If his child is not in immediate danger, tell him to accept the nurses assigned or take it to another institution.

  66. lancifer says

    And then there is SLC1’s non-sequitur answer,

    c) Ask a climate scientist to administer her care.

  67. lancifer says

    If this had happened where my wife worked I would prefer that they not send her into a room where a guy that hates black people is waiting and angry that the hospital didn’t honor his request. She isn’t there to make a statement about racial equality at the risk or her safety nor should the hospital put her in that position.

    But according to some idiots here I don’t care about my wife.

  68. says

    lancifer

    Fuck you, your family and any other cretins unfortunate enough to be related to you.

    Well, tell your wife, should she exist, I’m sorry.
    And thank you for showing all the world what a low character you are.
    I hope you will proudly show this to everybody who knows you so they can see what a brave hero you are for attacking and insulting people who didn’t do you any wrong, who didn’t cause you any harm and who’s only crime is, as you put it being “unfortunate enough to be related to me”. But since accirding to your never-ending wisdom they are “cretins” anyway, so I guess whatever harm befalls them is their own fault. Would you like to send them to prison for my crimes or is public flogging enough?
    Spoken like a true bigot with severe anger-management issues who would happily kick a puppy because he dislikes the owner.

  69. slc1 says

    Re Giliell @ #74

    The problem with Sir Lancelot is that he breathes in but he doesn’t breathe out.

  70. Michael Heath says

    frog @ 42:

    The hospital let their staff down. The correct response to the father, once any emergency was over, would be “We don’t treat our staff like that. We assign the best people. Like it or lump it.” And if dad says, “Fuck you, I’m taking my sick child home,” you call CPS.

    Failure to support your staff against racism is shitty. I don’t envy the hospital administration being put in this position, but they handled it just about the worst possible way.

    Giliell, professional cynic writes @ 53:

    The hospital can inform CPS.
    Clearly a custodian who puts his political agenda over the wellbeing of the child, whose interest is to get the best care they can get and since that does not depend on the skin-colour of the caregiver, is unfit to make medical decisions for that child.
    Should that child ever need emergency care by an ambulance there is clearly a risk, either for the child who might not be treated quick enough because the father denies access or for the paramedic who might be in danger if they should try to help the child nevertheless.
    This isn’t about approving somebody’s views or not, but about the interest of the child as well.
    Parental rights are those of a steward, not of an owner.

    QFT; this is a no-brainer. The child’s rights to optimal healthcare far outweigh his/her piece of shit father’s rights. In addition the employees’ right to do their job when others attempt to stifle that simply because they’re racist fucks is also a no-brainer.

  71. Michael Heath says

    lofgren writes:

    The father was not given power over anything. He made a request, as is his right as a patient (or a patient’s guardian). The hospital honored that request.

    This is simply not true on both counts. The father was given power to change the process the hospital uses to treat its patients, and compromising their process at that. In addition the right the hospital was protecting was not the patient’s but instead his/her guardian’s.

  72. lofgren says

    We’re not talking about “fucking patients with their fucking feelings”

    Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about. A father who feels that, for whatever reason, some nurses are preferable to others.

    Look, here’s the deal: Currently, at least as far as I have been informed by healthcare professionals (both those who have tended to my loved ones and those who ARE loved ones, the ones Giliell says “don’t give a shit” about doing their job and “don’t mind being treated as less than fully human”), it’s the policy of most hospitals that the patient may make whatever request with regards to their nurses and doctors that they please for any reason, and those requests will be honored so long as they do not interfere with the quality of care that the patient or other patients receive.

    If that policy is going to change so that the request will not be granted if it is made for certain reasons, that puts the patient in the uncomfortable position of having to justify their request, and some authority at the hospital must be put in charge of evaluating their reasons to determine if they are worthy of receiving care from the professionals of their choice rather than from whomever the hospital assigns to them.

    And yeah, there are some pretty clear lines that we could draw here. In this case, requesting that the hospital violate the law by treating employees differently based on their race seems like a pretty obvious one. But it’s not as though the hospital staff can psychically know who is making what request for what reason. In order to catch the few racist assholes out there we are going to have to add a whole new layer to the process of requesting a preferred nurse or doctor. The process will need to be vetted by lawyers and it will need to be documented and filed for the protection of all involved to ensure that each patient’s request is treated fairly.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either patients can request the personnel of their choice for their own personal reasons, or every patient’s request must be assessed and evaluated for worth according to whatever criteria the hospital sets.

    Since we have already gone ahead and turned this thread personal, here’s my story:

    A few years ago my wife had brain surgery. After the surgery, her eyes were bugged out like golfballs and her face was so swollen it looked like a blueberry. Most of the nurses who tended us during our three day stay in the hospital were fantastic. But there was one guy who was the complete opposite. He was the overnight nurse on our first night. My wife could not sleep because she was in agony. She could barely talk. It fell to me to call him back to our room over and over again and request more pain medication. Despite her pain, the nurse told us repeatedly that he had given us everything her doctor had prescribed. Then he pulled the “pain is part of the healing process” line, which was pretty much the opposite of what everybody else had told us. That confused me, until he followed it up with “God never gives us more than we can handle.” I would be lying if I said that it wasn’t in part this Christian platitude that sent me into a rage.

    The next morning I told the nurse that I never wanted to see that guy anywhere near my wife again.

    She said, “OK.” She asked me if I wanted to file any kind of complaint. I said no at that time (the extent of his ineptitude was not yet known to me and would not be discovered until later). Then she left it alone. She didn’t press me for any justification or make me defend my choice. I didn’t want him caring for my wife and that was sufficient.

    Now, it so happens that in this case my problem with the guy happened to be his performance. However, the guy was also 1) the only man who nursed my wife, 2) the only Arab who nursed my wife, and 3) had revealed his religious belief to us through quoting that bullshit platitude.

    If it is determined that a patient cannot request medical personnel according to their own preferences and for their own reasons, then it is almost certain that I would have been required to fill out some kind of form swearing that I was not requesting a different nurse due to that man’s race, religion, or gender. But what reason could I give? At that time, I didn’t really have any reason for my request other than I thought the guy was an asshole. Is that a good enough reason? I sure as hell thought it was. From my perspective, he was displaying a callous disregard for my wife’s pain that made our situation feel even worse than it already was. But as a “medical professional” (rather than a “wage slave,” as Bee puts it, who you can be racist towards all you want apparently), giving a shit about my wife’s agony is not part of “provid[ing] services according to their expertise, experience, and rules of ethics.” So maybe my request would have been granted and maybe it wouldn’t have. But I am glad I didn’t have to find out.

    In one month my wife will be giving birth, if all goes according to plan. For the duration of her labor, we will have one nurse assigned to our room who is responsible for ensuring that she is properly cared for. If I want to retain my right to be selective about that person for whatever reason, then I need to acknowledge that other people also deserve that right even if their reasons are sometimes bullshit in my opinion.

  73. lofgren says

    The father was given power to change the process the hospital uses to treat its patients,

    False. The father made a request. It was the hospital that chose to honor his request. Unless you imagine that they just handed him the shift board and told him to schedule whoever he pleased however he pleased? Are you honestly suggesting that making a request from an institution is the same as being given power over that institution? You must feel like a god when you order a cheeseburger.

    and compromising their process at that.

    False. All of you need to stop falling back on this assertion that the quality of care was compromised in some way. Not even the plaintive is asserting that, and you can bet she would if she could as it would only strengthen her argument. The hospital, Battle, and the father all seem to be in agreement that the patient received appropriate care. How the fuck do you think you know more than they do about it? You’re not a doctor, you don’t know the details of her case, and you have no idea to what extent the father’s request even affected her care. I highly doubt switching out a nurse due to a patient request is all that rare an occurrence. There is no indication that this was in anything other than routine except for the father’s stated reasons.

    In addition the right the hospital was protecting was not the patient’s but instead his/her guardian’s.

    Which the hospital are equally bound to honor. Again, unless the girl’s care was compromised in some way the distinction is irrelevant.

  74. Michael Heath says

    logren writes:

    The father was not given power over anything. He made a request, as is his right as a patient (or a patient’s guardian). The hospital honored that request.

    I respond:

    This is simply not true on both counts. The father was given power to change the process the hospital uses to treat its patients, and compromising their process at that. In addition the right the hospital was protecting was not the patient’s but instead his/her guardian’s.

    Lofgren responds to my pointing out the falsity of his claiming the father wasn’t given power over anything:

    False. The father made a request. It was the hospital that chose to honor his request. Unless you imagine that they just handed him the shift board and told him to schedule whoever he pleased however he pleased? Are you honestly suggesting that making a request from an institution is the same as being given power over that institution? You must feel like a god when you order a cheeseburger.

    Are we idiots? This is disingenuous to the point of absurdity. So I’ll pedantically re-phrase what I wrote previously, “The father was given effective power to change the process the hospital uses to treat its patients.”

    I point out that that the father did change their process to which lofgren responds:

    False. All of you need to stop falling back on this assertion that the quality of care was compromised in some way.

    Of course it’s not false, you’re wildly wrong here. I understand most people do not understand and appreciate systems and processes and the negative implications of reactive deviations to either which are not related to the integrity of those systems and processes. I do and got paid well managing such for many years. Whenever you change a process on a whim, without employing a change process to insure that the change is equal or better to what you were doing, you’ve not only compromised your process, you’ve significantly increased the odds of unintended bad consequences.

    I wrote earlier:

    In addition the right the hospital was protecting was not the patient’s but instead his/her guardian’s.

    lofgren writes:

    Which the hospital are equally bound to honor. Again, unless the girl’s care was compromised in some way the distinction is irrelevant.

    lofgren, I know you’re smarter than this. Take a deep breath and think this through. I think you let your ego get in front our your position since you’re far better than the defense of your argument.

    Do you really want to argue that the hospital is “equally bound to honor” the rights of patients equal to that of their guardians? And again, demanding a deviation to one’s process without a process to insure the change is equal or better than the previous process does compromise the process. So your premise is false. And even if it wasn’t, I’d hate to be the guy still having to defend the idea a guardian’s rights are equal to a patients’ that’s at best, moronic – and therefore beneath you. A hospital’s core function to optimally treat patients, cater to the whims of guardians unrelated to the treatment of said patients.

  75. lofgren says

    Are we idiots? This is disingenuous to the point of absurdity. So I’ll pedantically re-phrase what I wrote previously, “The father was given effective power to change the process the hospital uses to treat its patients.”

    Adding the “effective” doesn’t change anything.

    I’m sorry, I do not see the making of a request of the people who have power over something as synonymous with possessing power over something. If I request coffee instead of tea, does that give me “effective” power over which beverage is served? No, absolutely not. My host can still choose to say “no,” or she can say “yes” and then make tea anyway. Or she can say “I only have decaf.” Your concept of power is absolutely ridiculous.

    Look at my story above. How much power did I have? I assure you, I didn’t not feel powerful. It seems to me that I was at the whim of the nurse in charge of the floor at every turn. From whence derived this incredible power I wielded? I had no legal authority. I never made physical threats. It’s not like we were in a position to get up and walk out or refuse to pay our bill.

    Whenever you change a process on a whim, without employing a change process to insure that the change is equal or better to what you were doing

    Take a deep breath. You’re smarter than this.

    You really think the hospital has no process whatsoever for reassigning nurses? Has this hospital been in existence for less than a week? Is it staffed by morons with no experience? Have those healthcare professionals who have told me that this kind of request is perfectly acceptable, who have urged me to speak up regarding caretaker preferences, and that such requests are perfectly normal lied to me? Is that what is going on here?

    Do you really believe this was done “on a whim?” That swapping out a neonatal care nurse is something the hospital has no precedent and no process for? Do you have any evidence for that assertion? Are you intimately familiar with the neonatal nursing procedures at Hurley Medical Center? Because if not you are just making up details that you do not have, just like Raging Bee. If everybody who is actually involved with the case is satisfied with the quality of care, you really have no basis on which to assert that it was compromised.

    Do you really want to argue that the hospital is “equally bound to honor” the rights of patients equal to that of their guardians?

    Having been in this guy’s position, albeit for a spouse and not a baby, my answer to this is fuck yeah. However, if you would like to present a situation that shows how am I wrong, I am open to that. But based on my own experience I am damn glad that the hospital saw it my way and not yours.

  76. says

    Where were all the other nurses during this? My response, as a pale white nurse with 30 years experience, would have been, “my great grandmother was black so I can’t care for him either!” She may have been, for all I know..

  77. David C Brayton says

    Lofgren has the better the argument. Michael Heath is focused on racism and he needs to consider the bigger picture.

    And the bigger picture encompasses all protected classes: race, religion, national origin, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation.

    Would it be acceptable for a Muslim women to refuse treatment from a male physician based on her religious beliefs? What if the justification were simply that she felt more comfortable with a female physician?

    I know a lot of guys that would have a hard time talking frankly about genitourinary problems with a woman physician.

    Would it be acceptable for a atheist to ask for an atheist physician to provide end-of-life counseling?

    Would it be acceptable to request a different doctor because the physician just isn’t good at treating pain? What if the the physician is motivated by the religious belief that God wants us to suffer in order to understand the beauty of heaven (a la CS Lewis)?

    Would it be acceptable for a gay man to seek a male physician to discuss his sex life?

    My sense if that Michael Heath would say no depending on the motivation of the patient.

    When it comes to intimate, stressful medical procedures, trust between patient and physician is important to the outcome. People are irrational and strange and their irrationality should be accommodated if possible in medical care.

    BTW, Micheal Heath almost always leaves insightful comments. But this time, the arguments he presents are hardly convincing. Did someone hijack his account?

  78. lancifer says

    Giliell,

    Well, tell your wife, should she exist, I’m sorry.

    She isn’t reading this thread but I’ll pass it along. You also insulted me. Perhaps you should apologize to me as well for saying I don’t care that she was being treated as less than human.

    And then there’s this,

    I think the problem is simply that he’s an asshole, and a mighty one at that, too.

    But to be fair that was after I told you and your entire extended family to fuck off so perhaps you are to be forgiven an abusive reply.

    Now if you’d like to respond to the actual facts of this incident, instead of insulting me and my wife, I’d be glad to respond to any relevant comments you may have.

  79. lancifer says

    David C. Brayton,

    BTW, Micheal Heath almost always leaves insightful comments. But this time, the arguments he presents are hardly convincing. Did someone hijack his account?

    Sometimes he’s just wrong and he is loathe to admit it. Then he resorts to insults instead of valid arguments.

    He is human after all.

  80. lofgren says

    c) If his child is not in immediate danger, tell him to accept the nurses assigned or take it to another institution.

    In a thread full of idiocy, this may well be the champion.

    If a baby is born and sent immediately to the intensive care unit, and then spends a month in the hospital, moving her is not a simply matter of throwing her into your messenger bag and biking across town. Aside from the fact that transporting the infant may well have killed her, there’s the fact that it is unlikely this guy’s insurance would pay thousands of dollars to risk his child’s life to move her to another hospital unless it was critical to her care. The hospital and the father were stuck with one another.

    Look at my situation above. Should I have packed my groggy, agonized wife into a cab with bits of brain leaking out of her nose and tubes dangling from her arms if the hospital did not agree to assign a different nurse to us?

  81. says

    “That’s so surprising because you usually come off as such a compassionate, moderate and reasonable person.”

    This is an ironic statement; from a guy who says to someone else:

    “Giliell,

    You clueless dimwit, you started this flame war with this remark,

    If she doesn’t care for being treated as not exactly human, and you don’t care either it doesn’t mean that other people are wrong for caring.

    Fuck you, your family and any other cretins unfortunate enough to be related to you.”

    Wow. All because you want to prove your anti-racist cred.

    BTW, I thought that your wife was from Ethiopia, has that changed?

    I mean you are a truly odious fuck, lancey-poo*, but I understand that the pseudosmartenoughtonoteatshitoutofajar folks like you have every right to be ugly to anybody that upsets you.

    Oh, that, strange meatsmackin’ sound? That was my ass, I just laughed it off.

    “If a baby is born and sent immediately to the intensive care unit, and then spends a month in the hospital, moving her is not a simply matter of throwing her into your messenger bag and biking across town. Aside from the fact that transporting the infant may well have killed her, there’s the fact that it is unlikely this guy’s insurance would pay thousands of dollars to risk his child’s life to move her to another hospital unless it was critical to her care. The hospital and the father were stuck with one another.”

    As of today, the hospital’s position is that they did NOT accomodate the asshole’s request. The lawyers will be sorting this one out. But, since you bring it up. The kid’s too sick to be moved? Tell dad to go shit in his fucking hat and if HE presents a problem, bar him from the hospital unless he has a cop or hospital security with him. His baby’s sick, he’s a fucking moron.

    I didn’t know the hospital was in Flint, which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay black these days. So what are the odds that they have a surplus of white nurses on staff?

    David Brayton:

    All of your examples are hypothetical?

    “When it comes to intimate, stressful medical procedures, trust between patient and physician is important to the outcome. People are irrational and strange and their irrationality should be accommodated if possible in medical care.”

    The NAZIRACISTFUCK DAD is NOT the one having anything done. The medical care is being delivered to his infant (SHE HAS NO FUCKING CLUE WHO’S TAKING CARE OF HER) daughter. Do you see any difference between that and an informed adult who IS having something done to them by a doctor? If not, rethink it.

    * And I’m not talkin’ shampoo, doood.

  82. lofgren says

    Do you see any difference between that and an informed adult who IS having something done to them by a doctor?

    The only difference is that we entrust the responsibility to make medical decisions to her guardian instead of to the minor child. That includes choosing her caregivers, based on whatever criteria seem reasonable to the patient. The only time that ceases to be true is if somebody can show that his choices are putting his daughter at undue risk. That does not seem to be the case here, because, once again, nobody is asserting that the daughter’s care was compromised in any way.

    And I think you policy of “tell people who are at their most vulnerable and frightened to shit in their hat and then bar them from viewing their loved ones if they don’t like it” is pretty damn fucked up. The father is a racist. He’s also a father, a father who is only trying to do what he thinks is best for his child. You disagree with him. I get that. That nurse disagreed with me that my wife should not be made to suffer for his religious convictions.

    If we are going to put the father in this situation under an increased level of scrutiny, then that level of scrutiny must apply to every single patient and guardian who requests alternate caregivers. That is what so many of you do not seem to understand. There is no way to magically know why a person is requesting a new nurse. Every request will need to be evaluated and scrutinized for racial, religious, or gender bias from now until forever. None of you seem to want to consider this.

    I am curious to hear from anybody else who has had similar experiences. Have you ever requested a new nurse or doctor during a stay at the hospital? Do you believe you should have had to fill out a form in triplicate giving a detailed explanation for your request? How would you have felt if some bureaucrat whom you never met denied that request, and you were forced to deal with a nurse or doctor who made you uncomfortable?

  83. says

    She isn’t reading this thread but I’ll pass it along. You also insulted me. Perhaps you should apologize to me as well for saying I don’t care that she was being treated as less than human.

    Buah-ha-ha-ha
    And this comes from the guy who attacked my family and called them cretins and wished that they were fucked.
    You know, when I called you an asshole, that wasn’t an insult, it was a statement of fact.

  84. lofgren says

    Honestly, Giliell, I think you should apologize for your family for brandishing their misfortune in order to shame people who disagree with you into silence. Maybe if you came from a family of decent human beings who weren’t self-righteous pricks, you would understand why that’s so pathetic and cruel. And maybe when you clutch your pearls and get all offended that I said that, you’ll understand the irony. And maybe you won’t.

  85. says

    Well, maybe you should tell that to lancifer, lofgren, don’t you think, who started bringing up his wife.
    But you honestly think that it’s MY fault that the shithead insulted them because I brought them up?
    I never insulted his wife, I didn’t attack her, but apparently that makes my family fair game and shitty assholes can throw at them whatever they want and then it’s my fault.
    You’re just as much as an asshole as he is.
    As far as I am concerned, this conversation is over.
    The two of you are a despicable bunch of utter assholes who defend racism and bigotry, who blame victims and who think it is totally OK to hurt people who have done absolutely nothing wrong in order to hit somebody you have a fight with.

  86. chrisdevries says

    I agree with the comments stating that CPS should have been involved. Someone said up-thread that you cannot take someone’s kids away because they’re flaming racists, but I think there are definitely cases where this is the best course of action. I am unsure about the impact of the First Amendment on these types of situations in the USA, but here in Canada (Manitoba, specifically), CPS was involved and two children were removed from their household after the 7-year old daughter repeatedly came to school with a swastika (and other hate-related drawings) on her body. The teacher scrubbed the swastika off once and the mother re-drew it (the daughter apparently was the initiator, drawing a swastika all on her own the first time). Also, the step-father was a proud “white nationalist”, and admits to teaching the girl about the superiority of the white race, and living a lifestyle at home that was defined by these beliefs. I have tried to find the conclusion to the case online but all I located was a blurb in Sept. 2009 saying the case was drawing to a close. Even if the kids were returned to their parents, they had been wards of the province for well over a year (the province was seeking to assume permanent custody). An article about the case is posted here:

    http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2008/06/children-taken-from-ne-nazi-parents.html

    The First Amendment is unrelentingly supportive of a racist’s right to express him/herself, and that’s all well and good, but its protection must end when an individual’s free speech is directly harming others, especially children. Parents do not own their children (although most states in the USA seem to believe that they do); a child growing up in a household like the one I mentioned, or even in a cult or an organisation of religious extremists (and yes, Westboro Baptist Church counts in my mind) is certainly harmed if that organisation includes young, impressionable children (certainly all pre-teens, and maybe young teenagers as well) in its teachings and activities. I think there is cause to act in the best interests of the children and start an investigation into the extent of the damage when someone notifies the state that the parent’s views seem to be espoused by their kids. Parents should have to offer evidence that their children are not being actively involved and deliberately indoctrinated. It is okay for the parents to say and do what they want but kids should be kept out of it. I would start with a warning from the court to cut it out as a consequence when CPS does prove that children are actively involved in these extremist belief systems, but there should be, in egregious cases, or when warnings are ignored, the option to remove the kids from the toxic situation.

    And yes, there is the slippery slope argument against this sort of action, but I think that the state should at least be aware of these goings on, and even where the line isn’t crossed, have social workers check in randomly to ensure the passive influence of extreme, hateful beliefs doesn’t become active indoctrination (which I consider to be abuse).

  87. Michael Heath says

    David C. Brayton writes:

    Lofgren has the better the argument. Michael Heath is focused on racism and he needs to consider the bigger picture.

    Wildly wrong on both counts. I was not focused on racism but instead on an optimal process to treat patients. And lofgren’s argument was based on factually incorrect premises, i.e., creating a false equivalency that healthcare providers have an equal obligation to both patients and their guardians – wrong. And denying the fact that the father was able to compromise the hospital’s process for treating patients for reasons having nothing to do with optimizing treatment of that patient. Which again, goes back to optimal treatment, not racism.

    Racism is a symptom here, it’s not a root cause. The root cause problem should be looked at from the perspective of the patient, where the problem lies with the hospital compromising its process for no valid reason.

  88. jameshanley says

    For the record, I know Lance and his wife. She not only exists, and not only is from Africa, but she’s really cool. The idea of Lance being a racist is pretty damned funny. Kinda like people calling Obama a Kenyan socialist.

  89. says

    Well, if we’re going to argue about who’s looking at the “bigger picture,” let’s consider the implied threat in the father’s revealing his swastika tattoo while making his demand — am I the only one who thinks that’s significant? This isn’t just an unreasonable demand, it’s an unreasonable demand backed by an implied, and very credible, threat of retaliation by people who share his identity-badge. I know we can’t prove that showing a tattoo is a threat — gangsters are good at court-proofing their messages — but this is something that should at least be quietly investigated. Is there a campaign in certain parts of the US to drive nonwhites out of the healthcare business or keep them from coming in contact with white clients? The kind of people who get swastika tattoos are certainly capable of such concerted action. Maybe we need to have more cops hanging around hospitals to deter a new wave of hate-crimes?

    Another factor to consider, even though it’s kinda unfashionable to think of such things in Weimar America: many businesses have rules in place to protect their employees from unfair treatment and hostility — even from paying customers! Shocking, innit, that the customer is NOT always right? But yes, there are laws against discrimination, and many establishments have little probelm losing customers who make unreasonable demands or try to mistreat employees who are trying to serve them. My own current employer has anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies in place. I’m not sure how they’d respond if a big potential client said “We’ll give you this huge contract, if you promise to only hire white people to deal with us,” but their written policies at least imply they’d withdraw their bid, or end up looking hypocritical for letting a client tell them to ignore their own clearly-written rules.

    I totally agree that a medical establishment needs to accomodate clients who have personal preferences that are vitally important to them in a stressful time — but sooner or later, such establishments have to draw a line (and, in fact, do draw lines at times) and say “We’re a professional establishment, with the best personnel (who aren’t here to be pissed on by all and sundry), delivering necessary services according to high standards of skill, conduct, and performance, using our best professional judgment at all times — it’s up to you to decide whether you trust us or not.” (And then maybe call the cops to report any behavior that looks like a threat.)

  90. says

    The idea of Lance being a racist is pretty damned funny.

    Yeah, he supports policies that burden minorities, supports a movement that consistently opposes nearly all government attempts to fight racism, pretends racism isn’t a real problem, and repeatedly demands that government IGNORE people’s race and ethnicity when dealing with incidents of possible racism, but thinking he might be a racist? Why that’s just crazy-talk!

  91. says

    Should I have packed my groggy, agonized wife into a cab with bits of brain leaking out of her nose and tubes dangling from her arms if the hospital did not agree to assign a different nurse to us?

    Of course not — who the fuck is saying you should have?

  92. says

    Oh, and…

    c) Ask a climate scientist to administer her care.

    And we can always trust Lance to inject his own stupid (and in this case, totally unrelated) pet peeve into a conversation — and falsely pretend it was said by someone else to boot! — thus finishing off whatever scraps of credibility he had left after his previous comments. I guess we can’t say Lance doesn’t clean his plate…

  93. says

    “Racism is a symptom here, it’s not a root cause. The root cause problem should be looked at from the perspective of the patient, where the problem lies with the hospital compromising its process for no valid reason.”

    Precisely.

    The dad is an asshole. The hospital is either craven in caving to the dickhead’s demands or, if their press release is true–and I’m not leaning towards believing that–they should have been diligent in informing staff at the time of the incident. It is more than apparent that they were not diligent and given my slightly cynical worldview I’m guessing that they’re lying about the situation.

  94. says

    “She not only exists, and not only is from Africa, but she’s really cool.”

    So she’s NOT african-american, she’s an african who lives in america–a not subtle distinction. I will take your word for her being cool. I wouldn’t take Lanced’s word for the earth being spherical. Raging Bee and slc1 have him farly well pegged.

  95. neuroguy says

    This discussion is generating more heat than light at the moment. IMO the fault clearly lies with the hospital for not having a set of policies in place to follow in cases like this. I hope even the biggest flamethrowers here can agree on the following points:

    1) The hospital’s primary obligation is to ensure the best medical treatment for its patients, and it does not matter if the patients (or their guardians) are racist assholes. This is the prime directive of a hospital.
    2) But the hospital also has an obligation to ensure a workplace free from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.

    Unlike a restaurant, where a racist patron who refused to be served by a black waiter should simply be asked to leave, the hospital does not have the option of refusing service. Let’s review the options, bearing in mind that heeding the racist’s request might result in danger of adverse outcomes to other patients (due to staffing difficulties), while denying his request might result in adverse outcome to his daughter.

    1. The racist’s request should be heeded regardless. Unacceptable, we can’t put other patients at risk because of one guardian’s unreasonable demand.
    2. The racist’s request should be denied regardless. Unacceptable, we still can’t turn a blind eye to patient outcome just because the guardian is an asshole.
    3. The racist’s request should be heeded as long as there is no danger of adverse outcome to any other patients. Fine as far as that goes, but this still contributes to the marginalization of certain classes of health care professionals and the lack of a discrimination-free workplace, especially if allowed to continue on a systematic basis. (Imagine a “whites-only” ward with patients refusing to be treated by non-whites.)

    Clearly the only acceptable answer is this:

    4. The racist’s request should be denied and any danger of adverse outcome to his daughter must be eliminated.

    If the newborn can be transferred to another hospital without medical risk, then he is free to do that at his own expense (insurance won’t pay of course, nor should it). If this would involve significant risk, and he insists on doing so even despite the risk, then CPS should be called and emergency custody granted due to an immediate risk (AFAIK ALL states have such language in place).

  96. lancifer says

    Giliell,

    I never insulted his wife, I didn’t attack her

    Really?

    How ’bout this gem,

    If she doesn’t care for being treated as not exactly human, and you don’t care either it doesn’t mean that other people are wrong for caring.

    We both don’t care that my wife is being treated “not exactly human”? Yeah, no insult there huh?

    You have engaged in sloppy emotional arguments and have resorted to insults when confronted with rational challenges to these weak arguments.

    I flung insults back when it was clear you had no interest in a cogent exchange.

    I even tried to re-engage you but you continue to fling poo.

  97. lancifer says

    democommie,

    So she’s NOT african-american, she’s an african(sic) who lives in america(sic)–a not subtle distinction.

    Are you kidding? Who the fuck are you to tell a woman who is an American citizen born in Africa that she is not African American?

    You are pathetic. This is low even for you.

  98. lancifer says

    James Hanley,

    For the record, I know Lance and his wife. She not only exists, and not only is from Africa, but she’s really cool. The idea of Lance being a racist is pretty damned funny. Kinda like people calling Obama a Kenyan socialist.

    But how do we know that you really exist?

    Yeah, it’s hysterical that dipwads on this forum call me a racist because I don’t comport with their political beliefs. It is actually a pretty common ploy in any discussion that involves race. I insist that people be treated as people regardless of the color of their skin or their ancestry. I don’t support government programs that define people by these scientifically meaningless and corrosive metrics.

    I’m such a racist that I share my life with a “black” African woman and spend months at a time with my in-laws in Africa.

    Actually I’m secretly planning to recolonize Africa after I gain the trust of these “lesser” people. If it takes spending my whole life living with black folks and raising mixed race kids and becoming part of their culture it will be worth it when the day comes that I become the Grand Imperial Wizard of Africa.

  99. says

    “Are you kidding? Who the fuck are you to tell a woman who is an American citizen born in Africa that she is not African American? \”

    Fuck you, you piece of shit. You like to pull your wife to prove what a swell, nonracist you are. It doesn’t fool anyone who knows how you REALLY feel about folks who AREN’T your wife.

    Save your whining for somebody who’s stupid enough to believe a lying sack of shit like you.

    She’s not african-american, fuckface and no amount of wishful thinking on your part will make it so. She’s african, which is fine. She’s an american citizen? good for her, that’s fine too. So she’s a naturalized american of african extraction. She’s not an african-american as defined by african-americans that I know, and I know a shitload of them, including several in my own family.

    You’re an thin-skinned asshole who likes to dish out insults to others–but tends to get on the pity pot when you’re insulted in turn. You make ridiculous argumentss to excuse your racism and your absolute fucking dishonesty about AGW; arguments which engender the derision you so richly deserve.

    I’m sure your wife thinks your a swell guy, lots of people think that those they love are beyond reproach. They are, invariably, wrong.

  100. says

    “Yeah, it’s hysterical that dipwads on this forum call me a racist because I don’t comport with their political beliefs. It is actually a pretty common ploy in any discussion that involves race.”

    Wrong, fuckface. We call you a racist because you’re a fucking racits. Your comments on other threads have made that pretty clear. It’s wonderful for your wife that you’re so fucking tolerant but your casual dismissal of the plight of the racially marginalized is horseshit and you know it. Actually, the “I’m married to…”, “some of my best friends are…” is pretty worn out at this point. Strom Thurmond loved afrtican americans, too, not enough to acknowledge his own daughter, but still…

  101. lancifer says

    democommie,

    “… and I know a shitload of them, including several in my own family.”

    Some of your best friend no doubt.

  102. lancifer says

    democommie,

    As usual you make idiotic noise with no substance. Name an instance of my “racism”.

    Also how about we get back to the topic of this thread. I brought my wife into the discussion of an African America health worker in a hospital because she is an African American health care worker in a hospital.

    I’m sure that the racist guy would look at her and say “Oh, your a black American born in Africa? Well that’s completely different. Go right in there and take my daughter in your arms. It’s those damn black people that were born in America that I hate.”

  103. daniellavine says

    lancifer@106:

    That’s a hell of a stretch. Having read through the thread you are the one who started attacking family first. Sorry, man, try taking a step back, a few deep breaths, maybe reread your comments and figure out where you’re at. I suspect your temper is getting the better of you.

  104. daniellavine says

    And my fellow libs: maybe tone down on the accusations of racism? It really does undercut your arguments.

    Here’s the skinny. Lancifer and lofgren, you guys are going out of your way to find excuses for the hospital’s behavior. It looks a lot like confirmation bias. Big example here: “Oh, a sign on her door would have sucked but a note in the chart is no big deal.”

    Bullshit. The chart is the only deal. The chart is the official disposition of the patient and there is not supposed to be any frivolous mucking around with the chart. The fact that the note was put on the chart indicates that the hospital was officially reassigning nurses on the basis of race — and I believe that really is illegal.

    Now you may have a point that it would have been a really nice thing to do to accommodate this guy’s bigotry while his infant daughter is in the NICU. A really nice thing to do — the hospital is not obligated to (as Michael Heath notes) compromise their policies and process to do so. If the man has a problem with it he always has the right to refuse treatment on behalf of his daughter. Had they had a little off-the-record staff meeting about this it probably wouldn’t have been a big deal.

    But they put a note in the chart which makes this instance of discrimination official hospital policy. That’s a problem.

    Let’s also bear in mind that this is in Flint. African Americans probably make up a pretty good-sized proportion of the nursing staff at that hospital just extrapolating from what I know about Flint’s demographics. And there isn’t exactly a glut of nurses in the first place. Don’t fool yourselves, this sort of “request” does compromise the hospital’s process.

    Racist shitbag is free to make requests. Hospital is free to accommodate or not based on their disposition. Hospital is not free to unilaterally decide to reassign nurses on the basis of race.

    As for you guys who want to discriminate on the basis of religion, I think you should also be free to make your requests. You’re also free to refuse treatment if the hospital chooses not to comply with your requests.

  105. says

    ““… and I know a shitload of them, including several in my own family.”

    Some of your best friend no doubt.”

    Actually, no, dickwad, I’m not fortunate enough to have a best friend that’s black, that space has been filled for quite some time by people I’ve known for 35 or 40 years. If they were african-americans or some other sort of non-white person that would in no way mitigate my racism if I was, like you, a racist.

    “Also how about we get back to the topic of this thread. I brought my wife into the discussion of an African America health worker in a hospital because she is an African American health care worker in a hospital.”

    When it suited your narrative in a global warming thread a while back, your wife was an Ethiopian, IIRC. Nice try, asshole. She is a U.S. citizen? She was born in Africa? She’s not african-american, moron, I don’t give a fuck what some racist nazi piece of shit calls her. You say she’s not following this thread (which was also the case, if memory serves, in that other thread about racism a while back). Did you ever stop to think that maybe she’s just humoring you? I know that such a thing could never happen to you, although it happens to a lot of us in this life.

    I’m sure that there are plenty of people who think you’re the bestest guy around; that a number of people think you’re a complete douchebag is absolutely the case. Be happy to have friends who love you in spite of your being a douchebag.

  106. lancifer says

    daniellevine,

    OK, maybe I did go off too strong after Gilliel’s remarks about my wife. His self-righteousness also sparked my angry remarks. I do have a temper and a short supply of patience. To be fair I tried to extend an olive branch which he promptly smacked me with.

    Back to the subject of this thread.

    Racist shitbag is free to make requests. Hospital is free to accommodate or not based on their disposition. Hospital is not free to unilaterally decide to reassign nurses on the basis of race.

    As I said earlier hospitals reassign staff based on the personal feelings of patients all the time. My wife said she would be pissed about the note but not at the hospital but at the father. She would rather not have to go into a room where a “racist shitbag” was waiting.

    Assigning her to another patient would be doing her a favor.

    I can see how the way the hospital handled the situation could be a problem for the nurse in question, but accommodating the wishes of patients, and in this case their guardians, is also an issue for the hospital.

  107. lancifer says

    democommie,

    Be happy to have friends who love you in spite of your being a douchebag.

    Why that’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me. Right back at ya.

  108. daniellavine says

    It also seems like another bit of confirmation bias that lancifer and lofgren are ignoring the fact that the hospital violated the advice of their lawyers. You guys think you have a better grasp on the hospital’s legal obligations here than do the hospital’s lawyers? I’d like to know on what basis.

  109. daniellavine says

    As I said earlier hospitals reassign staff based on the personal feelings of patients all the time. My wife said she would be pissed about the note but not at the hospital but at the father. She would rather not have to go into a room where a “racist shitbag” was waiting.

    I’m not denying that they do. I even set it would have been very nice of them to make such accommodations. What I denied is that the hospital was obligated to do so.

    Assigning her to another patient would be doing her a favor.

    That’s certainly arguable; I think it’s kind of shitty to tell people how they’re supposed to feel about things (fellow libs take note). You have a bit of a point, but on the other hand the nurse doesn’t seem to have had any input in this process. She had any agency denied her in a matter of racial discrimination. In some sense you’re right but in another sense the hospital did her a terrible disservice — it treated her as less than a human being. If you think that’s a “favor” then don’t ever do me any favors, OK?

    I can see how the way the hospital handled the situation could be a problem for the nurse in question, but accommodating the wishes of patients, and in this case their guardians, is also an issue for the hospital.

    Yes, it’s an issue for the hospital but not an obligation. On the other hand, avoiding racial discrimination in their official policies is, I’m fairly sure, a legal obligation of the hospital.

    Again, I completely agree that it might have been very, very nice for the hospital to accommodate the racist shitbag, but treating its employees as subhuman to do so is pretty clearly overstepping the line from my perspective.

  110. lancifer says

    daniellevine,

    I didn’t say that the hospital was “obligated” to accommodate the man’s request. I just said that hospitals honor irrational requests all the time.

    I didn’t read anything in the original posting stating that the hospital ignored it’s own lawyers’ legal advice. I’ll have to go back, perhaps it was in the link?

    Again, I completely agree that it might have been very, very nice for the hospital to accommodate the racist shitbag, but treating its employees as subhuman to do so is pretty clearly overstepping the line from my perspective.

    Don’t you think that saying the hospital was “treating its employees as subhuman” is overstating things just a wee bit?

  111. daniellavine says

    For reasons I’ve already explained, no. I don’t want to do Monty Python’s argument clinic like you’ve been doing with everyone else. Make a real argument or just stop already.

    The fact that you’re too lazy to click the link to see WTF you’re talking about is not impressing me.

    Although Hurley Medical Center’s lawyer told them they couldn’t do that, they continued to do so anyway for the month the baby was in their care.

  112. daniellavine says

    I didn’t say that the hospital was “obligated” to accommodate the man’s request. I just said that hospitals honor irrational requests all the time.

    And since I had already acknowledged this I don’t know why you bothered to mention this in your reply in the first place. This is exactly what I was talking about with the “argument clinic” thing.

  113. lancifer says

    After reading the linked CNN article it says that the hospital removed the note after their lawyers told them to. It says the nurse was “reassigned”.

    Well, unless that new assignment caused her some financial or other hardship I still don’t see how she has any damages that can be litigated in a law suit. Nurses don’t have a right to choose their patients.

    Can the hospital be sued for punitive damages for breaking some law against racial discrimination? Maybe, but IANAL so I’m not sure what the legal reasons would be.

  114. daniellavine says

    Well, unless that new assignment caused her some financial or other hardship I still don’t see how she has any damages that can be litigated in a law suit. Nurses don’t have a right to choose their patients.

    Employers don’t have the right to make work assignments on the basis of race. Plus, as I’ve already noted, you don’t get to dictate to people how they should feel about things. I would be pretty fucking pissed off to be treated as this nurse has — luckily I don’t have to worry about that because I’m a white dude. You’re in a similar spot, right?

    As I already said, I bet if the hospital had a little staff meeting and explained the situation to the woman before-hand she probably would have agreed with you that the hospital was doing her a favor assigning her elsewhere. But that’s not what happened. Instead of coming to an off-the-record agreement that made everyone happy the hospital instituted a policy of racial discrimination and went behind this woman’s back to implement it.

    If you can’t understand what there is to be upset about there then you either lack imagination or empathy. In reality, I think you’re still motivated by confirmation bias and just not letting yourself see the issue here.

    The two links apparently contradict each other as to when the note was removed.

    Great. Since the placement of the note is the issue and not the removal that’s a nice little non sequitir. Again, I don’t want to do the argument clinic. Real arguments please?

  115. lancifer says

    And since I had already acknowledged this I don’t know why you bothered to mention this in your reply in the first place.

    Hey Mr. “argument clinic”. You were the one that brought up the idea of “obligated” not me. I was just saying that I didn’t say any such thing.

    Look, I don’t think we are that far apart on this. We both agree that the way the hospital handled it was inappropriate. Was it illegal? I dunno I guess the courts will decide that.

    I just don’t see any reason not to attempt to see that the patient was attended by nurses with whom the father was comfortable, rather than antagonizing him and possibly placing nurses in a position that would certainly be uncomfortable as well as even dangerous to them.

    If such arrangements were not practical or placed undue burdens on the hospital or staff then the hospital, at that point, could tell the man that and not honor his request.

  116. daniellavine says

    Hey Mr. “argument clinic”. You were the one that brought up the idea of “obligated” not me. I was just saying that I didn’t say any such thing.

    And I never denied that hospitals accommodate patient requests. Yet you responded in such a way that implied that I did. I mentioned the word “obligated” to clarify what I was actually arguing — which I wouldn’t have had to do if you could just, you know, read like most of us learned in elementary school.

    Look, I don’t think we are that far apart on this. We both agree that the way the hospital handled it was inappropriate. Was it illegal? I dunno I guess the courts will decide that.

    Once again, on what basis are you second-guessing the hospital’s legal counsel? Also, you’ve studiously avoided putting any blame on the hospital preferring to argue that the nurse is being completely unreasonable.

    I just don’t see any reason not to attempt to see that the patient was attended by nurses with whom the father was comfortable, rather than antagonizing him and possibly placing nurses in a position that would certainly be uncomfortable as well as even dangerous to them.

    If there’s any sign that he’s a danger to the staff then he should be removed by security, not have his fucking racist preferences catered to.

    If such arrangements were not practical or placed undue burdens on the hospital or staff then the hospital, at that point, could tell the man that and not honor his request.

    Finally, a tiny little bit of sense.

  117. tomh says

    @ #127

    Was it illegal? I dunno I guess the courts will decide that.

    This is not the first time this kind of case has gone to court. Abington Memorial Hospital, a Pennsylvania hospital, had to settle a similar case, as the hospital’s actions are a clear violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This hospital will also have to pay off this nurse, and another one who has also filed suit. These are low-level administrators making stupid decisions contrary to legal advice.

    Even if the arguments about best interest of the patient, or safety of the nurses, or any others, are true, (I don’t think they are), this is still illegal. And, as usual, when employees make dumb decisions, it costs the company money.

  118. lancifer says

    tomh,

    Your link is to an article that mentions the 2003 filing but not the outcome of the case. I searched for the outcome and didn’t find anything.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that it didn’t go to court or that the hospital didn’t reach an out of court settlement, but it doesn’t prove that the hospital in this case did anything illegal either. People sue people all the time, often losing and often frivolously.

  119. lancifer says

    tomh,

    And, as usual, when employees make dumb decisions, it costs the company money.

    Well that’s certainly true.

  120. tomh says

    The case was settled confidentially before going to trial, and the hospital admitted no liability. They settled because they were going to lose, the actions being a violation of their own policies and the Civil Rights Act (per the EEOC decision to allow the suit). The hospital president had already sent a letter apologizing for the incident and noted that “appropriate disciplinary action has been taken with the staff involved,” and that several initiatives had been launched to ensure better enforcement of the anti-discrimination policy. This hospital will have to settle the current two suits also.

    There is also a 2010 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the federal Civil Rights Act prohibits nursing homes from making staffing decisions for nursing assistants based on residents’ racial preferences. This hospital has no chance legally, the quicker they settle, the cheaper it will be for them.

  121. Michael Heath says

    neuroguy writes:

    This discussion is generating more heat than light at the moment.

    [...]

    Clearly the only acceptable answer is this:

    4. The racist’s request should be denied and any danger of adverse outcome to his daughter must be eliminated.

    A number of people made this very argument. It’s bad form to disparage an entire group for behavior you deem unworthy that’s exhibited by only some. Far better to blockquote those you reference critically. I.e., name names and then confront and dispute what they actually wrote; or just make a standalone argument of your own. Yours stands just fine all on its own.

  122. lancifer says

    There is also a 2010 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the federal Civil Rights Act prohibits nursing homes from making staffing decisions for nursing assistants based on residents’ racial preferences. This hospital has no chance legally, the quicker they settle, the cheaper it will be for them.

    OK, it’s illegal. I already said it was inappropriately handled.

    So what if my wife didn’t want to treat the racists kid due to her concerns about harassment from the father? would the hospital have to force her to or face legal sanction ?

  123. tomh says

    @ #134

    Harassment by the father is illegal. It should be dealt with by the proper authorities, first by escorting him from the building.

  124. lancifer says

    As I said, I thought the hospital mismanaged the situation. After consulting the hospitals legal department, I would meet with the staff involved and ask the individuals involved if they wanted to give care to the infant in light of the father’s issues.

    I would ask them if they would care if they were reassigned to other patients voluntarily, letting them know that it would only be done to make them more comfortable and not in any way a comment on their abilities or worth to the hospital.

    If they said they preferred to continue to give care to the infant I would inform the father that arrangements could not be made and that it would be illegal to reassign staff for racial reasons.

    Of course all of this would be contingent on the opinion of the legal department of the hospital.

  125. says

    “As I said, I thought the hospital mismanaged the situation.”

    Oh? That’s not what you said back @21:

    “Like David C. Brayton, I see no damages to the African American nurse unless there were no other patients available and she was sent home or something.

    Is the guy a douchebag? Absolutely, but as I said the mission of a hospital isn’t to punish douchebags or make some grand social statement.”

    when you decided that the nurse had no “damages”. If she had no “damages” wtf difference does it make what the hosptial does?

    You, as is your custom, decided to show yourself to be smarter than other commenters and more, I don’t know, “urbane” about the situation. You’re not.

    The guy with the ‘tat is a fucking asshole, the hospital should have told him, politely–or not–to go shit in his hat. They “mis-handeled” the situation? Yeah, like a guy with a gun robbing a liquor store “mishandles” the situation. It appears that they’re idiots and cowards who would rather throw their staff (at least the non-whites) under the fucking bus than do what’s righjt and legal.

    The hospital administrators who did this are douchebags. Are they related to you?

    Daniellavine:

    Insults work at least as well with Lancifurious as a reasonable argument. He can’t tell the difference with his fingers in his ears and his head up his ass.

    They

  126. lancifer says

    dementedcommie,

    You look to be an older gentleman. Perhaps you need to get more fiber in your diet. This problem typically results in the irritability you are displaying.

    The dementia may be harder to address.

  127. says

    Oh, dear, Lancifer seems to have the same sort of problem that he often accuses other of, namely relying on insults to compensate for a lack of an actual argument.

    “There are no inconsistencies in what I said in my recent and my earlier posts.”

    A lie. You’re not only full of shit, you’re a fucking liar.

  128. says

    “Why don’t you show the inconsistencies in my statements instead of just calling me names?”

    1.) Why the fuck would anyone bother? You obviously argue in bad faith, lie about what you’ve said in the past and never accept anyone else’s word for anything. Fuck you.

    2.) You know I’m not really “calling you names”. If you weren’t a lying, racist fuckbag and I called you a lying racist fuckbag, that would be “calling you names”. Pointing out to others that you are a lying, racist fuckbag is more in the realm of public service. Fuck you, you lying racist fuckbag.

    FWIW, I’ll bookmark this and check to see if you’re still wasting your time here, later.

Leave a Reply