|
TinkerHell -> RE: For Those Who Claim The U.S. Is Now A "Color-blind" Society (2/20/2013 3:23:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yes, the first concern should be the patient, not the family. Unless you believe that skin color makes a determination in the quality of care.... which should be the ONLY consideration when giving patient care.
This case isnt about the father, its about the hospital and policy and staffing needs and availability. Sorry, I cannot agree with you. A patient should not be able to determine staffing needs based upon his or her racial preference.
I've read your responses on this thread and on others and you appear to have difficulty filtering and processing information that doesn't mesh with your limited world view. Obviously I do not believe nor did I espouse the belief that skin color is determinant of quality of care and that leap of logic should have come with the Jackass Logo stamped on it. I very specifically wrote that there are times when we draw our line in the sand, plant our flag and refuse to retreat. You are welcome to disagree - however I stand by my assertion that you cannot litigate, or legislate away ignorance.
In a perfect world there are no bad parents, no ignorance and no one is judged on anything but their abilitieis. In the real world, there is ignorance and a premature infant in a NICU is not in a position to advocate for their needs. Those advocates unless Social Services becomes involved are the parents.
In your universe perhaps the family is not an issue but in my universe the concerns of the family are always an issue because with patients who can advocate for themselves, their families are a factor offering advice, opinions, prayers or whatever other nuttery they feel inclined to offer and the family dynamic affect patients. A neonate cannot self advocate, and if the nurse who found herself offended to the point of litigation had concerns she should have started by calling in Child Protective Services to begin an investigation into whether or not being a racist pig was reason enough to deny that father his right to advocate on behalf of his child as he saw fit. That would be putting the patient first.
As for the Hospital and Staffing needs, if there was no one else on staff this would be a non-issue - becasuse the choice would be: We are only staffed with African American RN's so we will see about moving your child to 1940's Germany or you must accept that your ignorance is putting your child in danger. The fact that there was a note on the chart says to me that the Unit was staffed with a diverse group of qualified caregivers and that it was in the best interest of the patient via the child's advocate to simply comply with the wishes of the father. Not every confrontation is going to be a Stonewall Moment. Also, given the litigious culture we live in, I would like to get the whole story - without the sensationalism... to see what all the facts were that dictated the hospital making the decision they did.
I am not a fan of anecdotes in debates but I think this is relevant: I live in a town outside of Atlanta where there are 31 churches and no bookstores - In the last couple of years as I dealt with a serious medical condition I have walked away from caregivers and others who have espoused ridiculous views about the evils of homosexuality, the power of prayer, the plague of Mexicans, our Muslim/Socialist/Atheist/Kenyan President, and the plot by Blacks to steal elections. In a sane reflection of the father in this case, I demanded that another nurse be assigned to me in the ICU after listening to the ignorant Xtian piece of garbage who was to take care of me spend the morning ranting about gay marriage and then allowed her pastor into my room to minister to me because I just seemed "too nice" to be an Atheist. Would you have suggested that I consider her qualifications as the only thing that mattered when it came to advocating for my own care?
|
|
|
|
