Nurse offering a prayer = suspension [Archive]

Indiana_Jones

3rd February 2009, 11:33

Mully

3rd February 2009, 11:35

Mmm, is the PC world we live in.

God forbid someone should be offended by a prayer.

Indiana_Jones

3rd February 2009, 11:36

Bet you if it had been any other faith they wouldn't of done a thing.

-Indy

Big Dave

3rd February 2009, 11:48

Tank

3rd February 2009, 12:07

"Nurse Caroline Petrie is facing disciplinary action for offering to pray for May Phippen, 79, even though the pensioner did not make a formal complaint."

:oi-grr:

-Indy

In fairness she is a devil worshiper and had cut the throat of 8 stoats as a sacrifice. Apparently the issue was that OSH found the blood on the floor a slip hazard.

MisterD

3rd February 2009, 12:11

...and in other "barmy Britain" news: professional whingers force cricket team to change it name (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133863/Cricket-team-told-Crusaders--case-offends-Muslims-Jews.html)

What response would Canterbury RFU give to a similar complaint? Hopefully an invitation to sex and travel.

MSTRS

3rd February 2009, 12:14

In fairness she is a devil worshiper and had cut the throat of 8 stoats as a sacrifice. Apparently the issue was that OSH found the blood on the floor a slip hazard.

Not to mention the RMA....through which Nurse Naive failed to get approval for the stoat cage. And the RSPCA weren't too happy either, as none of them stoat had been micro-chipped in accordance with the law.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 12:16

much as I love the Luce, it took me a while to get this. but the song title is "say a little prayer", right?

I was hoping for nipple slippage from Luce but no dice.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 12:22

Found this arcticle here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1134463/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Christians-havent-got-prayer-diversity-Britain-.html), it's an opinion piece, but the start has the story.

"Nurse Caroline Petrie is facing disciplinary action for offering to pray for May Phippen, 79, even though the pensioner did not make a formal complaint."

:oi-grr:

-Indy

I am not being contrarian, but who the fuck does nursie think she is, pushing her deluded beliefs on people when they are vulnerable> OK the old bird was probably about to shuffle off her mortal coil, but so what. She might have been a committed atheist (or Satanist) and found praying to jeebl offensive.

I think I would. Having siad that, what if the loony fuckers are right.? best hedge my bets and get forgiven and baptised and whatever the fuck it is else they do on your death bed. Spread the bets as it were, AFTER having lived a wicked life of debauchery. And die owing American Express a million dollars. Shot in the back by a jealous husband aged 97.

meh.

PrincessBandit

3rd February 2009, 12:24

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 12:27

I heard someone say the other day that one of our MPs blamed all the violence etc in our homes on "the missionaries", and that Christians only want the antismacking law changed because they're all sexual perverts.

If this is true (and I haven't actually looked to find if the statements were genuinely made, or if so were taken out of context etc.) then it's not only barmy Britain! God Defend New Zealand!!!!

sounds like crap to me. Even the most retarded of MPs (and Satan knows there are a lot of them) would have received sufficient media training to not say shit like that out loud, no matter how true.

"God" indeed. I am a secular humanist and find your reference to your invisible friends offensive.

Mully

3rd February 2009, 12:27

I am not being contrarian, but who the fuck does nursie think she is, pushing her deluded beliefs on people when they are vulnerable> OK the old bird was probably about to shuffle off her mortal coil, but so what. She might have been a committed atheist (or Satanist) and found praying to jeebl offensive.

She offered to pray. Praying with a terminal patient is often a comfort for them.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 12:35

She offered to pray. Praying with a terminal patient is often a comfort for them.

still pushing her deluded beliefs on a vulnerable person.

Badjelly

3rd February 2009, 12:41

"Nurse Caroline Petrie is facing disciplinary action for offering to pray for May Phippen, 79, even though the pensioner did not make a formal complaint."

So she made an informal complaint?

I tend not to believe what I read in the papers, especially in opinion pieces.

If she came creeping around my hospital bed offering to pray for me, I'd send her packing straight away.

Mully

3rd February 2009, 12:44

still pushing her deluded beliefs on a vulnerable person.

Yeah, that's true. Although I don't see any harm in offering to pray with her - if she forced it on her, then sure. And if refused, she left it, I think that's OK.

So she made an informal complaint?

Nah, casual complaint.

It was in jeans and a t-shirt.

MisterD

3rd February 2009, 12:44

still pushing her deluded beliefs on a vulnerable person.

Not even ow. The nurse made a (in her eyes) kind and generous offer and the "vulnerable person" was perfectly able to say "no, thankyou". That should have been the end of the matter...but some people can't resist throwing their weight around.

Pity you can't discipline these PC types for pushing their unwanted agenda...

MSTRS

3rd February 2009, 12:51

still pushing her deluded beliefs on a vulnerable person.
And who are you to say that she is deluded?
Every one of us has some sort of belief. About something. I guess it's possible some are even right. I mean, Elvis is working as a trolley boy at the Pakuranga Mall. Isn't he?

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 13:08

And who are you to say that she is deluded?
Every one of us has some sort of belief. About something. I guess it's possible some are even right. I mean, Elvis is working as a trolley boy at the Pakuranga Mall. Isn't he?

When I rule you all (and I will) it will be ME saying what you can and can't believe in.

MSTRS

3rd February 2009, 13:14

Pah! Back to your cave, young troll....

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 13:21

Pah! Back to your cave, young troll....

I'm 37 (http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA&NR=1)

Badjelly

3rd February 2009, 13:30

Not even ow. The nurse made a (in her eyes) kind and generous offer and the "vulnerable person" was perfectly able to say "no, thankyou". That should have been the end of the matter...but some people can't resist throwing their weight around.

You were there, were you?

MSTRS

3rd February 2009, 13:54

WTF are you all on about, anyway? Where is the harm in someone attempting to give some comfort to a dying woman? It's not like the nurse turned up the morphine pump to speed her death, is it?

slofox

3rd February 2009, 14:04

I'm 37

Is THAT all...? Young whippersnapper.......

slofox

3rd February 2009, 14:06

Obviously, "diversity" doesn't include Christianity........:whistle:

Indiana_Jones

3rd February 2009, 14:16

'Mrs. Petrie made the prayer offer to May Phippen, 79, in December, at the end of a home visit. and the pensioner mentioned it to another nurse the following day. The mother-of-two, of Weston-Super-Mare, was suspended 48 hours later.

Great grandmother Mrs Phippen told The Daily Mail: "It didn't worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do. She finished dressing my legs and before she left the last thing she asked was would you like me to say a prayer for you? I said "no thank you" and then she went.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4427912/Prayer-nurse-should-keep-job-says-patient.html

Sounds like she really pushed her faith on her, even bashed her up with the Bible for good measure

-Indy

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 14:24

Sounds like she really pushed her faith on her, even bashed her up with the Bible for good measure

-Indy

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! (http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY)

MisterD

3rd February 2009, 14:27

You were there, were you?

No, but then I'd already read this quote that Indy has helpfully linked.

Great grandmother Mrs Phippen told The Daily Mail: "It didn't worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do. She finished dressing my legs and before she left the last thing she asked was would you like me to say a prayer for you? I said "no thank you" and then she went.'

Sounds like the "vulnerable person" was really upset and traumatised eh?

Badjelly

3rd February 2009, 14:42

Sounds like the "vulnerable person" was really upset and traumatised eh?

Fair comment. I didn't read the article as carefully as I should have and I've deleted my previous post.

I agree with Ms Phippen that for a nurse to offer to pray for someone after she's dressed her leg is a strange thing to do.

PrincessBandit

3rd February 2009, 15:04

Fair comment. I didn't read the article as carefully as I should have and I've deleted my previous post.

I agree with Ms Phippen that for a nurse to offer to pray for someone after she's dressed her leg is a strange thing to do.

"Strange" depends on your perspective. Trust me, I can think of waaaaaay more stranger things that happen than an apparently brief and politely concluded conversation between a nurse and a patient. And no, I wasn't present as said conversation, and yes I did read Indy's link.

ps HDC you might be 37 but I'm still older than you and will also call you a young whippersnapper!!! :laugh:

Badjelly

3rd February 2009, 15:14

"Strange" depends on your perspective. Trust me, I can think of waaaaaay more stranger things that happen than an apparently brief and politely concluded conversation between a nurse and a patient.

No argument there.

Maybe "inappropriate" is the term I might have used (though Ms Phippen used "strange"). Unfortunately, "inappropriate" (like "unsafe") has been devalued recently by ... inappropriate use.

MSTRS

3rd February 2009, 15:32

Badjelly

3rd February 2009, 15:35

Still don't see how 'inappropriate' comes into it.
Perhaps if the nurse, who knows that fresh urine is a very good anti-bacterial, offered to piss on the old lady's leg before bandaging it...now that might be inappropriate
Do you want me to pray for you?

That sort of inappropriate.

HenryDorsetCase

3rd February 2009, 15:38

Still don't see how 'inappropriate' comes into it.
Perhaps if the nurse, who knows that fresh urine is a very good anti-bacterial, offered to piss on the old lady's leg before bandaging it...now that might be inappropriate

usually I have to pay extra for that service from a woman in a nurses uniform.

worth every penny though.

jrandom

3rd February 2009, 17:49

I am a secular humanist and find your reference to your invisible friends offensive.

I am an atheist and find your candy-arsed self-labelling somewhat philosophically unsatisfying.

:msn-wink:

Seriously, though, I do support the idea of disciplinary measures against people in professional care positions who attempt to impose their delusions of the supernatural upon patients.

If anyone ever offered to 'pray for me', they'd get a verbal kicking that they'd remember for months. It is good to fight against the evil that results from the abandonment of reason.

Ixion

3rd February 2009, 18:32

In fairness she is a devil worshiper and had cut the throat of 8 stoats as a sacrifice. Apparently the issue was that OSH found the blood on the floor a slip hazard.

No weasels? A weasel is a much more satisfactory sacrifice. I wouldn't have much faith in someone who only sacrificed stoats. I wonder WHO she was going to pray to.

Of course , a Christian should know that it is unnecessary to SAY that you are going to pray for someone. Just do it. I pray for many people, but I have seldom bothered to tell them so.

Badjelly

4th February 2009, 09:50

Of course , a Christian should know that it is unnecessary to SAY that you are going to pray for someone.

But, what if God doesn't exist? Then praying for someone will have no effect unless you tell that person.

MSTRS

4th February 2009, 09:53

I've been told that even if I/you don't believe in God, He/She/It believes in me/you.
Where's the harm, anyway?

MisterD

4th February 2009, 09:56

No argument there.

Maybe "inappropriate" is the term I might have used (though Ms Phippen used "strange"). Unfortunately, "inappropriate" (like "unsafe") has been devalued recently by ... inappropriate use.

I don't think I'd go much further than "quaint" or "old-fashioned" myself.

Badjelly

4th February 2009, 10:04

I've been told that even if I/you don't believe in God, He/She/It believes in me/you.

I see your point, but I think there is a potential flaw in the argument.

Where's the harm, anyway?

In someone praying for me without telling me? None at all in my opinion. Ditto for someone cursing me or making a tiny effigy of me and sticking pins in it.

In someone offering to pray for me? It would depend on the context, but I would generally find it a little inappropriate/strange/quaint. It's not something I would expect or appreciate from a nurse, or a hairdresser, or an accountant.

MSTRS

4th February 2009, 10:20

But why? If it's all hogwash, what effect will a prayer have on you? Or if it's not, are you worried that you will have to change your opinion of an 'existence'?

zadok

4th February 2009, 10:26

Huge overreaction. She offered to pray for the old chook in the privacy of her own home. It was politely declined. She didn't push her beliefs on her. No complaint was made. Then dobbed in by a third party! End of story.
Just another story of bureaucracy gone mad, yet again.

Badjelly

4th February 2009, 10:55

But why? If it's all hogwash, what effect will a prayer have on you? Or if it's not, are you worried that you will have to change your opinion of an 'existence'?

I'm not at all worried about being exposed to information that will change my opinions. It's a little hard for me to envisage how someone claiming to pray for me would lead to this, but anyone who wants to try, go ahead, knock yourselves out.

What is wrong with someone asking me if I want them to pray for me? (And bear in mind I have described it only as mildly inappropriate, odd or strange, not as offensive or a gross violation of my rights, etc.) Good question. I guess because in this situation politeness requires me to answer, which I don't like. You'd think a simple "No thank you" would be OK, but it does seem a bit ungrateful. As they say in the shops, "please do not ask for credit as a polite refusal often offends". It's a bit like when strangers phone me at 7 pm wanting to sell me something and ask "How are you?". I feel strangely reluctant to say "Fine". What I want to say (and sometimes do) is "That's no business of yours." But that's kind of rude. So I just pause for a few seconds and ask them what they want.

What is wrong with a stranger asking me if I want them to pray for me? Tt's presumptuous.

None of this applies to people I know well. I do have friends and family who are religious, but I don't recall any offering to pray for me. If any did, I would explain that I don't really mind, but I don't believe in the power of prayer. Or something.

Badjelly

4th February 2009, 10:59

Seriously, though, I do support the idea of disciplinary measures against people in professional care positions who attempt to impose their delusions of the supernatural upon patients.

Huge overreaction. She offered to pray for the old chook in the privacy of her own home. It was politely declined. She didn't push her beliefs on her. No complaint was made. Then dobbed in by a third party! End of story. Just another story of bureaucracy gone mad, yet again.

Your turn I think, Mr jrandom. I've retreated to the sidelines on this one.

jrandom

4th February 2009, 19:11

Huge overreaction. She offered to pray for the old chook in the privacy of her own home. It was politely declined.

If I, in that nurses position, offered to perform oral sex on the old chook and it was 'politely declined', do you think this would have been a 'huge overreaction'?

Absolutely not. You would be horrified.

Ah, but you say, offering sexual services and offering to perform a religious ritual are two different things.

But are they?

It's not about whether it was 'pushed' on someone or not; it's about the potential offensiveness of the offer itself.

Religion has done great harm throughout history, and the arrogant assumption of many 'believers' that their fantasies are automatically relevant to others is the usual underlying reason for the harm.

Any healthcare professional displaying that particular arrogant assumption toward patients in their care deserves strong censure, as does any healthcare professional who arrogantly assumes that their patients want sexual services from them. Both attitudes are highly unprofessional and highly offensive to many people.

Slyer

5th February 2009, 06:54

She shouldn't have gotten in trouble but she shouldn't have offered either.

You'd think though that the nurse would learn that prayer doesn't work after seeing so many people die in her care. (assumption)

Badjelly

5th February 2009, 08:25

Ah, but you say, offering sexual services and offering to perform a religious ritual are two different things.

But are they?

Er, yes. :confused:

A better analogy would be asking someone if they minded you fantasising about them while masturbating.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 08:34

A better analogy would be asking someone if they minded you fantasising about them while masturbating.

Not quite. If I understand correctly, the nurse was offering to pray with the patient, not just offering to pray 'for' her at a later stage in private.

Although, of course, asking someone if they minded you fantasising about them while masturbating would be fairly offensive, too!

zadok

5th February 2009, 10:13

If I, in that nurses position, offered to perform oral sex on the old chook and it was 'politely declined', do you think this would have been a 'huge overreaction'?

Absolutely not. You would be horrified.

Ah, but you say, offering sexual services and offering to perform a religious ritual are two different things.

But are they?

It's not about whether it was 'pushed' on someone or not; it's about the potential offensiveness of the offer itself.

Religion has done great harm throughout history, and the arrogant assumption of many 'believers' that their fantasies are automatically relevant to others is the usual underlying reason for the harm.

Any healthcare professional displaying that particular arrogant assumption toward patients in their care deserves strong censure, as does any healthcare professional who arrogantly assumes that their patients want sexual services from them. Both attitudes are highly unprofessional and highly offensive to many people.

I repeat; 'huge overreaction'...... and not only on the part of the bureaucrats!
I agree with your comment about the 'harm' of Religion. It has given Christianity a bad name.

Disco Dan

5th February 2009, 10:24

That sounds just.

I am pleased that she has been suspended.

No nurse has "offer prayers" or anything religious in nature in their job description.

It is unprofessional to impose your own beliefs onto a client/patient in your care. Especially when they may not be in a fit state of judgement.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 10:26

It is unprofessional to impose your own beliefs onto a client/patient in your care. Especially when they may not be in a fit state of judgement.

The man speaks sense. This is what it all boils down to.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 10:28

I repeat; 'huge overreaction'...

You try to brush aside the fact that many people consider the nurse's actions unprofessional and offensive by saying 'overreaction'?

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Either an action is unprofessional and potentially offensive, or it is not.

In this case, it was (as is evidenced by the number of people who would be offended, and do consider that unprofessional conduct), and the nurse's censure was justified.

MSTRS

5th February 2009, 10:32

And I thought that PC was all about tolerance. You lot are all just as bad as the INtolerant camp.

zadok

5th February 2009, 10:37

Disco Dan

5th February 2009, 10:39

You try to brush aside the fact that many people consider the nurse's actions unprofessional and offensive by saying 'overreaction'?

Sorry, that doesn't wash. Either an action is unprofessional and potentially offensive, or it is not.

In this case, it was (as is evidenced by the number of people who would be offended, and do consider that unprofessional conduct), and the nurse's censure was justified.

A discussion on ethics is not normally very clear cut... especially when there is very distinct liberal and conservative differences of views.

May I add it is also considered unprofessional to encourage a client in your care to stop smoking only if you yourself used to smoke.

...and on another tack, discrimination towards people who smoked was always out of bounds for employers until very recently. Employers in the US can now DENY you a job just because you smoke. All because of money rather than ethics, you simply cost more in health insurance. but an interesting point on how ethical lines can be moved when money is involved.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 10:44

No wonder this is in the "Pointless Drivel" section! :lol:

It's not. It's in the Rant or Rave section.

And I take it that that comment means you have no comeback beyond 'it was an overreaction!' to my argument that the nurse's censure was justified?

I'm stating that it's not an overreaction, because of the significant potential for offense. Do you have anything to offer against that statement beyond a repeat of your contradictory assertion, or do you not?

And I thought that PC was all about tolerance. You lot are all just as bad as the INtolerant camp.

If a nurse held white supremacist views and insisted on farewelling all her patients with a 'Sieg Heil!', would complaining about that constitute 'intolerance'?

Religion has killed more people than National Socialism, but social conditioning from childhood has normalised it in your mind to the extent that you fail to see it from that perspective.

Western monotheism is offensive to many because of the harm it has done and still does, in exactly the same way that Nazism is offensive.

It's inappropriate for any healthcare professional to express support for either philosophy to her patients.

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 10:50

So if I was a mechanic and offered you a fag to smoke while bob was fixing your engine, and you said no, should I be scaked because I might of offended you?

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 10:53

So if I was a mechanic and offered you a fag to smoke while bob was fixing your engine, and you said no, should I be scaked because I might of offended you?

If you were a mechanic, no. If you were a doctor, yes, of course.

Different levels of responsibility. Doctors and nurses have a particular responsibility toward their patients behave considerately.

And bear in mind that nobody's talking criminal charges here. The nurse was simply censured for unprofessional conduct by her supervising organisation.

And, to be honest, if you, as a mechanic, offered a cigarette to someone who had lost a loved one due to lung cancer, and they complained to your boss, it wouldn't be entirely out of the question for him to give you a warning and/or remove you from customer-facing duties.

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 11:02

But how would one know if they had lost a loved one to cancer.

So the point you're saying is that people must be censored and not allowed to say anything, just incase some cunt in the next room might have their feelings hurts.

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:06

But how would one know if they had lost a loved one to cancer.

These days, everyone knows that durries kill you. In fact, it's probably less socially acceptable in many circles to offer someone a cigarette than it is to offer them a joint.

In that social climate, frankly, any professional who offered a client they didn't know personally a smoke would just be being idiotic.

Fifty years ago, would've been fine. Now, situation's different.

... people must be censored and not allowed to say anything, just incase...

Don't try to strawman me. I'm simply saying that professionals, particularly healthcare professionals, should be aware of the social context they're working in, and not make offensive offers to their patients.

Ixion

5th February 2009, 11:08

You'd think though that the nurse would learn that prayer doesn't work after seeing so many people die in her care. (assumption)

Perhaps that is evidence that it DOES work. No Christian with an understanding of the nature of prayer would pray 'Please don't let anyone die'. That's not how it works.

That sounds just.

I am pleased that she has been suspended.

No nurse has "offer prayers" or anything religious in nature in their job description.

It is unprofessional to impose your own beliefs onto a client/patient in your care. Especially when they may not be in a fit state of judgement.

However, every Christian is commanded to do so. " Therefore, confess your sins one to another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" James 5:16

So, if she had not asked, just done it, would that also have been unprofessional (not a rhetorical question) . If Big Bubba decides to grant the prayer, is that imposing her beliefs?

Likewise, if I , for example, were to pray for Mr Random, who knows not whereof ?

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 11:11

Don't try to strawman me. I'm simply saying that professionals, particularly healthcare professionals, should be aware of the social context they're working in, and not make offensive offers to their patients.

The social context where people need to be patted on the head and told their special while having their nipples rubbed by a monkey and a turtle licking their special place.

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:17

However, every Christian is commanded to do so.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee..."

Words of advice that many 'Christians' would do well to follow.

if she had not asked, just done it, would that also have been unprofessional (not a rhetorical question)

In the presence of the patient? Yes. In private? Of course not.

Likewise, if I , for example, were to pray for Mr Random, who knows not whereof ?

Were you to insist upon prayer regarding me in my presence, I would ask you to desist.

If you wish to bring me to mind during your private rituals, though, that's as much your own business as regular masturbatory fantasies about me are the business of females (and perhaps some males) who frequent this forum.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:21

The social context where people need to be patted on the head and told their special while having their nipples rubbed by a monkey and a turtle licking their special place.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

If you rocked up and tried to pray for me, I'd tell you to shut up and fuck off.

And if you were my healthcare professional, I'd want your boss to give you a severe telling off for doing so.

Many, many people feel the same way on that subject. The fact that prayer and white supremacist notions don't offend you personally (yes, it's quite possible to read between a few lines here and there...) is immaterial.

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 11:24

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

If you rocked up and tried to pray for me, I'd tell you to shut up and fuck off.

And if you were my healthcare professional, I'd want your boss to give you a severe telling off for doing so.

Many, many people feel the same way on that subject. The fact that prayer and white supremacist notions don't offend you personally (yes, it's quite possible to read between a few lines here and there...) is immaterial.

If a raghead wanted to pray to Allah or whoever on my behalf I'll say thanks but no thanks, if he did it again after saying no, then I would take it up.

All I see is that she offered a prayer, offered, like if I were to offer someone a ride or a glass of wine. Offer declined, she sodded off.

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:28

If a raghead wanted to pray to Allah or whoever on my behalf I'll say thanks but no thanks, if he did it again after saying no, then I would take it up.

All I see is that she offered a prayer, offered, like if I were to offer someone a ride or a glass of wine. Offer declined, she sodded off.

Like I said. You're not particularly personally sensitive to the issue. That's great. Also, you're using examples in the context of private individuals communicating with each other, which is not what this thread is discussing.

If you were working as a healthcare professional, part of your job would be to understand that many of your patients would be personally sensitive to that issue, and that offering to pray for someone could lead to figurative and literal black eyes.

The arrogant assumption that that common sensitivity is invalid, nonexistent or simply ignorable is what the nurse was hauled over the coals for, and rightly so.

Disco Dan

5th February 2009, 11:29

Likewise, if I , for example, were to pray for Mr Random, who knows not whereof ?

Well perhaps some could even take this a step further by saying even a prayer said for a patient without their knowledge is deemed unprofessional.

Let us for a (very brief) moment say that prayer does effect the person in question - what right does the 'prayee' have to effect change on another person?

Very much like a witch putting a spell on another person without their permission!

Ixion

5th February 2009, 11:29

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee..."

Words of advice that many 'Christians' would do well to follow.

And many of course, do indeed follow that command.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:33

And many of course, do indeed follow that command.

I would suggest that this nurse was, in a sense, failing to do so.

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 11:36

Like I said. You're not particularly personally sensitive to the issue. That's great. Also, you're using examples in the context of private individuals communicating with each other, which is not what this thread is discussing.

If you were working as a healthcare professional, part of your job would be to understand that many of your patients would be personally sensitive to that issue, and that offering to pray for someone could lead to figurative and literal black eyes.

The arrogant assumption that that common sensitivity is invalid, nonexistent or simply ignorable is what the nurse was hauled over the coals for, and rightly so.

Well it was meant to be the same situation, but ok.

Soon it'll be illgeal to mention faith in any context and will be charged with it. But they can't do that right, oh wait...

If I goto Europe and say "those Jews didn't get gassed" I'll go to jail.

The Clash said it best,

"You have the right to free speech as long as youre not dumb enough to actually try it"

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:41

If I goto Europe and say "those Jews didn't get gassed" I'll go to jail... "You have the right to free speech as long as youre not dumb enough to actually try it"

You're presumably familiar with the "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre" example of invalid 'free' speech.

It shows that 'free' speech should not imply complete freedom to state whatever one wishes. The potential for harm needs to be acknowledged.

And, of course, one can argue back and forth all day over whether a particular statement causes enough harm, and immediate enough harm, to be put in the basket with shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.

Holocaust denial is on the edge of that debate, and rightly so. I note with interest your sympathy with the idea that such denial should be speakable and publishable without restraint; did you post that as an intentional corollary to my implication a few posts ago about your not-so-secret neo-Nazi sympathies, or was it just a fortuitously relevant slip?

Badjelly

5th February 2009, 11:45

Not quite. If I understand correctly, the nurse was offering to pray with the patient, not just offering to pray 'for' her at a later stage in private.

The Daily Mail article is unclear on the subject. The Telegraph article suggests "for" rather than "with". Here is the most relevant quote (which is from the Telegraph article though it mentions the Daily Mail):

Great grandmother Mrs Phippen told The Daily Mail: "It didn't worry me, it just struck me as a strange thing for a nurse to do. She finished dressing my legs and before she left the last thing she asked was would you like me to say a prayer for you? I said "no thank you" and then she went.

However one suspects the story may have changed a little in the telling and retelling.

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:46

However one suspects the story may have changed a little in the telling and retelling.

Mmyes.

That last item does give me the impression of an offer to pray there and then.

(By the way, a pre-emptive mea culpa for Godwin's Law-ing this thread. I just realised what I've done.)

Indiana_Jones

5th February 2009, 11:46

Holocaust denial is on the edge of that debate, and rightly so. I note with interest your sympathy with the idea that such denial should be speakable and publishable without restraint; did you post that as an intentional corollary to my implication a few posts ago about your not-so-secret neo-Nazi sympathies, or was it just a fortuitously relevant slip?

I don't like goose-stepping sasuage suckers.

But if I wanted to say the sky is pink and I live with Batman, why can't I.

The same if someone wanted to say "I don't think that many Jews died..." even to question it is not allowed

-Indy

jrandom

5th February 2009, 11:49

The same if someone wanted to say "I don't think that many Jews died..." even to question it is not allowed

To question it is allowed. To assert that it did not happen, in the face of the overwhelming weight of evidence, is what is not allowed in certain countries that were closely touched by those events.

Ixion

5th February 2009, 11:52

Well perhaps some could even take this a step further by saying even a prayer said for a patient without their knowledge is deemed unprofessional.

Let us for a (very brief) moment say that prayer does effect the person in question - what right does the 'prayee' have to effect change on another person?

Very much like a witch putting a spell on another person without their permission!

Well, of course, the dude who actually effects the change has the right to do whatever He wants. The actual prayer of a Christian never does anything - it is what He does in response to the prayer . "Thy will be done".

The analogy of the Wiccan spell is interesting. But I think there is a distinct difference. A spell actually effects some change, by its own power (or, the power channelled by the caster) . For instance, a healing spell , something like "Let Mrs Smith be cured of her cancer" (obviously, it would take a very powerful witch to cast such a spell). Whereas no Christian would pray "Please cure Mrs Smith's cancer" . And if they did, it would also certainly have no effect - not also the difference , one is a command, one a request.

It can be argued that the only thing a Christian can effectually pray for is God's Grace, for themselves or others. Of course, much may follow from that.

But, since most Christians follow the precept endorsed by Mr Random, you never know if someone is praying for you. Or not.

Ixion

5th February 2009, 11:55

I would suggest that this nurse was, in a sense, failing to do so.

Granted. And I suspect that the nurse in question had a somewhat defective idea of the nature and purpose of prayer.

zadok

5th February 2009, 12:14

I'm stating that it's not an overreaction, because of the significant potential for offense. Do you have anything to offer against that statement beyond a repeat of your contradictory assertion, or do you not?
It's not hard to supposedly offend someone by ones words and actions (even if they are well meaning), but as Indi alluded to in his reply; should she be liable to lose her career over something like this!? Rediculous!

MSTRS

5th February 2009, 12:28

Have a read of Blind Faith by Ben Elton. It postulates an extreme example of where the mindsets of both schools of thought (pray and be saved....pray and be sacked) could take us if allowed to run unchecked by the tolerant centre.
And if you think the scenario is ridiculous...have another think