Expose/don't expose? That is the question.

[firecoins]

Knew a medic that cut all the clothes and even an expensive coat off a lady when all she had done was step in a hole and break her ankle. Even the hospital threw a fit about that one.

I would throw a fit also. Got to have good judgement. If the patient can tell you whats wrong, listen to them.

 

[medic417]

and the rest of the body business.

I usually don't let other parts of my body touch patients.

 

[firecoins]

I usually don't let other parts of my body touch patients.

we do have to lift.

 

[daedalus]

Sure they do, they have the right to practice their religion as they choose. Of course employers then have the right not to hire them because they can't do the job. There was a thread a while back about an orthodox jewish ambulance service.

I believe that anyone can choose what they like as their religious practice. Where I draw the line is when that practice is supposed to dictate the policies of a workplace. Aside of course from reasonable accomodations like allowing the jewish worker to shift trade with the catholic in order to have Yom Kippur off.

I see a lot of examples of people making mountains out of molehills. We assume that those who disagree with us do so with evil intentions. We also assume often that our 'rightness' automatically makes the other guy 'wrong' instead of just holding a different opinion.

A workplace has certain requirements... some physical, some on appearance, others on ability. I couldn't say that my religious practice forbids attending institutes of higher learning because the only true text is the bible (I actually heard that one from a patient) and then insist that the local hospital hire me as a neurosurgeon. We have to be able to do the job we are hired to do. If we can't we are free to seek employment elsewhere.

Sometimes those moral choices come with a price tag. Sometimes those moral choices make us such a PITA that no one wants to work with us. Then there are those who go quietly among the noise and haste, living their lives, doing their jobs and still, somehow following their spiritual path as well.

This doesn't infringe on anyone's right to practice their religion. It simply means that in the real world, we sometimes have to adjust. As I said in another thread.. I can't think of a single religion that stated that following a strict moral code should be easy and pain free.

So if an employer did not catch that a devote Mormon was working for them as an RN, and after the MD ordered an emergent transfusion, the RN secretly disregarded the order and the patient died, the RN should just be fired and no charges be pressed? Your saying its the employer's responsibility to fire those who won't uphold the standard of care?

No.

(by the way, I have a Mormon friend who is absolutely amazing and one of the most caring people I know, and her mother is a professor of nursing at a local school who happens to have been my mother's professor. I am just picking on them because they say no to blood transfusions.)

 

[Ridryder911]

So if an employer did not catch that a devote Mormon was working for them as an RN, and after the MD ordered an emergent transfusion, the RN secretly disregarded the order and the patient died, the RN should just be fired and no charges be pressed? Your saying its the employer's responsibility to fire those who won't uphold the standard of care?

No.

(by the way, I have a Mormon friend who is absolutely amazing and one of the most caring people I know, and her mother is a professor of nursing at a local school who happens to have been my mother's professor. I am just picking on them because they say no to blood transfusions.)

They would be fired not because of their religous bias but because they did not follow physicians order that caused detriminal care.

False statement or information. The Mormon or Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, do NOT have a formal ruling of blood transfusion. It is a personal decision. The Jehovah Witness is more known of their objection of it.

Everyone want to acclaim religion as not being open minded and being purists. I have known very strict Jehovah Witness that was an excellent flight Paramedic. I seen no problems of him other than he refused to wear a U.S. flag on his flight suit. I even knew of a Jehovah witness that was a lab director, kinda ironic.. huh?

I have of yet found "religion" to prohibit care but once and usually never involved disrobing a patient. I have found customs (not based upon religion) that interfered. Now, I have seen ignorant and stupid medics that was careless and remove and expose patients when it was unnecessary and medics that did not expose the patient because well; basically.. they were lazy and stupid. It was not because they were agnostic, atheist or Christian, that was not point or problem.

I believe the main point that should be emphasized is to use common sense. No, not all patients need to be exposed, even 99.99% of the ER physicians I have seen do not request patients in gowns any longer. Focused assessments have become the norm within the care in emergency medicine. Yes, you will be responsible, but that is in regards you failed to recognize the potential and obtain an accurate history.

Yes, major trauma patients need to be examined fully. Patients that are in medical compromise that need and deserve a better and more detailed assessment, should be disrobed where a better physical and exam can be performed. Again, common sense and yes it should be a mandated part of the job.

R/r 911

 

[daedalus]

They would be fired not because of their religous bias but because they did not follow physicians order that caused detriminal care.

I agree. It would be discrimination to fire based on religion.

 

[firecoins]

So if an employer did not catch that a devote Mormon was working for them as an RN, and after the MD ordered an emergent transfusion, the RN secretly disregarded the order and the patient died, the RN should just be fired and no charges be pressed?

We don't hire RN's here. They are dispicable people! Always helping people. We don't want their kind here!h34r:

 

[AJ Hidell]

(by the way, I have a Mormon friend who is absolutely amazing and one of the most caring people I know, and her mother is a professor of nursing at a local school who happens to have been my mother's professor. I am just picking on them because they say no to blood transfusions.)

Either you or your friend is confused.

 

[Aidey]

Mormons (as a whole) don't have a "rule" against blood transfusions. The religion known for that are the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[daedalus]

Mormons (as a whole) don't have a "rule" against blood transfusions. The religion known for that are the Jehovah's Witnesses.

My bad. Read: Jehovah's Witnesses.
My point still stands.

 

[medic417]

I have of yet found "religion" to prohibit care but once and usually never involved disrobing a patient. I have found customs (not based upon religion) that interfered. Now, I have seen ignorant and stupid medics that was careless and remove and expose patients when it was unnecessary and medics that did not expose the patient because well; basically.. they were lazy and stupid. It was not because they were agnostic, atheist or Christian, that was not point or problem.

I believe the main point that should be emphasized is to use common sense. No, not all patients need to be exposed, even 99.99% of the ER physicians I have seen do not request patients in gowns any longer. Focused assessments have become the norm within the care in emergency medicine. Yes, you will be responsible, but that is in regards you failed to recognize the potential and obtain an accurate history.

Yes, major trauma patients need to be examined fully. Patients that are in medical compromise that need and deserve a better and more detailed assessment, should be disrobed where a better physical and exam can be performed. Again, common sense and yes it should be a mandated part of the job.

R/r 911

While many doctors do not disrobe a patient they do raise shirts while doing lung/heart sounds. So they do expose during exam. They also touch. I agree with you the ones not touching and looking are the lazy ones they are the ones that also do not check lung sounds or heart sounds.

If only we could teach common sense. Now that is the unattainable dream.

 

[BossyCow]

So if an employer did not catch that a devote Mormon was working for them as an RN, and after the MD ordered an emergent transfusion, the RN secretly disregarded the order and the patient died, the RN should just be fired and no charges be pressed? Your saying its the employer's responsibility to fire those who won't uphold the standard of care?

No, I did not say that. I agree with Rid. The employee would be fired for first disregarding a physician's order and imo secondly for doing it secretely without making their objections known so others could perform the treatment. My issue with this employee would be more about the dishonesty than the moral question. The employee has a responsibility to the employer to inform. The liability of an employer doesn't extend into mind reading their employees. Case in point is the sexual harassment rulings. The liability of the employer begins when the harassed employee makes a complaint or someone else informs the employer of the harassment.

The employer does set a standard. And yes an employer has a right and responsibility to fire those employees who violate those standards. If you will not do the job for which you were hired, the employer has the right to fire you. But, as I stated earlier, decent employers will make reasonable accomodations for their employees.