Racism in the hospital
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/6919504.htm
Why a local hospital gave in to a racist demand
Supervisors said they sought only to avoid a confrontation.
By Oliver Prichard
Inquirer Staff Writer
For several days in early September, supervisors at Abington Memorial Hospital told African American employees to stay out of a patient's room after a man ordered that no blacks assist in the delivery of his child.
Despite a hospital policy stating that "care will be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis," maternity ward staffers accommodated the man's wishes.
The decision offended many employees and prompted hospital president Richard L. Jones Jr. to issue a statement calling the situation "morally reprehensible."
Hospital vice president Meg McGoldrick said the problems began when a pregnant woman's husband insisted that only white employees could enter his wife's room.
"The staff informed our African American employees that there was a volatile situation, and they suggested that they not interact with the family," she said. "In some cases, they actually told employees that they probably ought not to go into the room."
The supervisors had good intentions and sought only to avoid a confrontation between the man, who was white, and hospital staff, McGoldrick said. Doctors, nurses and service employees were among those affected by the decision.
"The whole incident has greatly upset many of our employees who... perceived that we were acquiescing to the family's wishes," McGoldrick said in an interview. "We were wrong. We should have followed our policy."
Citing patient privacy law, hospital officials said they could not release information about the man or his wife, or details of her medical treatment.
She was admitted the week of Sept. 7. McGoldrick would say only that the couple, accompanied by their young child, were at the hospital "several days."
The man did not threaten violence and police were not called, although hospital security monitored the situation closely, McGoldrick said.
NAACP is notified
The Philadelphia office of the NAACP received calls about the incident, but no one filed a formal complaint. J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia NAACP, was not available for comment.
Efforts to reach staffers from the hospital's maternity section were unsuccessful.
Abington is a 508-bed hospital that serves patients from Montgomery and Bucks Counties and Philadelphia. Following the breach of policy, hospital administrators have taken several steps, including:
Personally apologizing to staffers who were told not to enter the patient's room.
Sending a letter on Sept. 16 to all employees and volunteers, in which Jones promised to "better address unconscionable circumstances like this."
Holding staff meetings and forming a "diversity task force" of hospital employees to develop a plan for similar problems in the future.
Hiring consultants to help managers handle sensitive cultural issues.
Revising the hospital's antidiscrimination policy to immediately notify high-level administrators when such problems occur.
'Inexcusable' decision
Despite those efforts, the decision to restrict black employees from fully performing their work for several days was "inexcusable," said Barry Morrison, director of the Anti-Defamation League's regional office in Philadelphia.
"I don't see why and how a hospital could justify accommodating a request that the professionals attending to a patient be of a particular background," Morrison said. "Certainly, it's demoralizing for the people who work there."
Carol Bayley, a medical ethicist for Catholic Health Care West, a San Francisco-based network of 41 hospitals, said Abington Hospital had failed its responsibilities to employees and the community while accommodating someone's racial preference.
"This was a fundamental disrespect of these professionals' skills and their fundamental dignities," Bayley said. "Hospitals are public citizens, and like any other big institution, they have to stand for integrity. A hospital needs to stand against this undercurrent of racism in our society."
Why a local hospital gave in to a racist demand
Supervisors said they sought only to avoid a confrontation.
By Oliver Prichard
Inquirer Staff Writer
For several days in early September, supervisors at Abington Memorial Hospital told African American employees to stay out of a patient's room after a man ordered that no blacks assist in the delivery of his child.
Despite a hospital policy stating that "care will be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis," maternity ward staffers accommodated the man's wishes.
The decision offended many employees and prompted hospital president Richard L. Jones Jr. to issue a statement calling the situation "morally reprehensible."
Hospital vice president Meg McGoldrick said the problems began when a pregnant woman's husband insisted that only white employees could enter his wife's room.
"The staff informed our African American employees that there was a volatile situation, and they suggested that they not interact with the family," she said. "In some cases, they actually told employees that they probably ought not to go into the room."
The supervisors had good intentions and sought only to avoid a confrontation between the man, who was white, and hospital staff, McGoldrick said. Doctors, nurses and service employees were among those affected by the decision.
"The whole incident has greatly upset many of our employees who... perceived that we were acquiescing to the family's wishes," McGoldrick said in an interview. "We were wrong. We should have followed our policy."
Citing patient privacy law, hospital officials said they could not release information about the man or his wife, or details of her medical treatment.
She was admitted the week of Sept. 7. McGoldrick would say only that the couple, accompanied by their young child, were at the hospital "several days."
The man did not threaten violence and police were not called, although hospital security monitored the situation closely, McGoldrick said.
NAACP is notified
The Philadelphia office of the NAACP received calls about the incident, but no one filed a formal complaint. J. Whyatt Mondesire, president of the Philadelphia NAACP, was not available for comment.
Efforts to reach staffers from the hospital's maternity section were unsuccessful.
Abington is a 508-bed hospital that serves patients from Montgomery and Bucks Counties and Philadelphia. Following the breach of policy, hospital administrators have taken several steps, including:
Personally apologizing to staffers who were told not to enter the patient's room.
Sending a letter on Sept. 16 to all employees and volunteers, in which Jones promised to "better address unconscionable circumstances like this."
Holding staff meetings and forming a "diversity task force" of hospital employees to develop a plan for similar problems in the future.
Hiring consultants to help managers handle sensitive cultural issues.
Revising the hospital's antidiscrimination policy to immediately notify high-level administrators when such problems occur.
'Inexcusable' decision
Despite those efforts, the decision to restrict black employees from fully performing their work for several days was "inexcusable," said Barry Morrison, director of the Anti-Defamation League's regional office in Philadelphia.
"I don't see why and how a hospital could justify accommodating a request that the professionals attending to a patient be of a particular background," Morrison said. "Certainly, it's demoralizing for the people who work there."
Carol Bayley, a medical ethicist for Catholic Health Care West, a San Francisco-based network of 41 hospitals, said Abington Hospital had failed its responsibilities to employees and the community while accommodating someone's racial preference.
"This was a fundamental disrespect of these professionals' skills and their fundamental dignities," Bayley said. "Hospitals are public citizens, and like any other big institution, they have to stand for integrity. A hospital needs to stand against this undercurrent of racism in our society."
Comments
Clearly the issue wasn't quality of care ( imagine if this chick needed brain surgery she would refuse Ben Carson the "priviledge" of operating on her).
If your white "friends' won't stand up for you on simple shyt like this, why should they be trusted on anything else?
Morons.
I don't see what the hospital did wrong. They were there to have the wife's baby delivered, not to heal her husband's sick head.
What ever happened to ignoring idiots and just treating them like crap while complying with their idiotic demands?
Originally posted by Sondjata
question: why didn't the white employees, who would probably, on the drop of a penny, claim that they are friends with the black employees and "respect" their work, refuse to treat the clearly racist patient.
Clearly the issue wasn't quality of care ( imagine if this chick needed brain surgery she would refuse Ben Carson the "priviledge" of operating on her).
If your white "friends' won't stand up for you on simple shyt like this, why should they be trusted on anything else?
Refuse to treat a patient because he/she is racist? Don't think so. I'd treat a racist in need of medical care, if I worked at a hospital. Wouldn't you?
But I would have brought in a black baby just to see the look on their faces. "Sir, your wife had a bad case of jungle fever."
Originally posted by groverat
What ever happened to ignoring idiots and just treating them like crap while complying with their idiotic demands?
That's what they should have done, but they didn't. I think that's the problem. Whoever made the decision to 'avoid confrontation' made a bad decision.
That's what they should have done, but they didn't. I think that's the problem. Whoever made the decision to 'avoid confrontation' made a bad decision.
So you're saying they should have put black doctors/nurses in there intentionally?
Originally posted by groverat
Have a meeting with the black employees. Tell them that their first duty is to treat patients and if some racist shitbag says "no blacks" there is absolutely no reason at all to try and "teach him a lesson" and create unnecessary tension.
I don't see what the hospital did wrong. They were there to have the wife's baby delivered, not to heal her husband's sick head.
What ever happened to ignoring idiots and just treating them like crap while complying with their idiotic demands?
As a doctor, i fully share your opinion.
The first duty of medical employees, are to treat patients. The man is an (blattant) idiot, it's an evidence and i am happy to have never faced this situation (and this occurence must be extremely rare).
However imagine that the hospital refuse his dictat, what will have occur : the man who will have certainly leave the hospital with his women, with all the complications that should arrive during the transfer.
It will be bad for the women, and for the child who is not responsible for the stupidity of his father. Imagine all the legals implications of this.
It was more simple to have done like the hospital staff have said. Next time if the same thing occur, they can oblige people seeking to go to this hospital to sign a paper where they accept to be cured by every member of the hospital without any discrimination of any sort. Anyway i wish that this kind of paper do not exist, because it's lame to be obliged to create this sort of paper. This sort of problems should never araised.
Originally posted by bunge
That's what they should have done, but they didn't. I think that's the problem. Whoever made the decision to 'avoid confrontation' made a bad decision.
The fact that this issue arrived in a hospital is special. If it arrived in a restaurant, i will have just fired him : you are not happy go away. Here it's not quite so simple.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
So you're saying they should have put black doctors/nurses in there intentionally?
Well i have just an idear, i will have delivered the child and then put some black cirage on my face, and will have declared the first seen that your baby will have seen in his life is a black face
This is a nasty situation... people have been screaming for years (rightfully so, in my opinion) for hospitals to listen to their patients and accomodate their wishes when it comes to their care.
Then a patient requests something that goes against societal grain.
Who does the hospital listen to? Their patient? Or society?
I've been an advocate for dignified death for years. Most people aren't. Yet, I have personal experience with more than one doctor who, at the request of the patient and the family, performed an illegal euthanizing in defiance of hospital policy, law, and societal opinion.
The man was obviously a complete and utter moron, but what should be the hospital's main focus, their patients' health, or sociological re-education?
I can't help but pity the administrator in this case. No matter what his decision, he was going to be wrong to many people.
Note: I'm not saying that he made the *right* choice, just that going the other direction wouldn't be much better from the most generalized patient's rights point of view. The patient (or in this case, patient's family) made a request that did not affect their health care procedure. It was an ASININE request, and one that should never have been made, but many are.
So, what would I have done? Informed the *entire* staff of the patient's wishes, point out that it could be a volatile situation, but then let the *entire* staff make the choice of whether they wanted to opt out of this idiot's care or not. I suspect that the number of people willing to work that room would be so low that they'd *have* to have black staff working it just to cover the minimum care requirements. Then it becomes a 'staff scheduling issue' and 'sorry, it's out of our hands, we simply don't have the staff willing to work your room.' The hospital could claim 'reasonable attempt' at complying, avoiding litigation, but not cave in to an idiotic request.
Of course, if I did that, he'd probably whip out a handgun and start blowing people away without warning. :P
Now imagine this ass going to say, Harlem Hospital (b y some freak of coincidence that was the closest hospital). What would he have done? had his wife moved? if so, if he would be willing to "endanger" his wife by changing hospitals, then his ass should have been thrown out of this philadelphia hospital.
Point is: if he didn't think the request would fly. If he thought that the white people in the hospital would tell them to go -screw himself AND his wife, he wouldn't have said a damn thing.
No legal repercussions: The patient refused the service we were willing to provide.
You do not have to like it, but it is the wish of the family. As long as the request is reasonable why bother fighting it? For the social good? Who are we kidding? If some redneck hillbilly feels that strongly why bother. It is bad enough bring another cracker-spawn onto the planet, why bother arguing with them. Just play the Deliverance soundtrack constantly in the background,
I believe a Danish professor is advocating stupid should not propagate - and I think this goes a long way to proving his case.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Imagine for a minute a Chinese man doing the same thing. Imagine for a minute an Indian man doing he same thing. Hard to imagine because odds are there wouldn't be anyone to perform the required medical work needed. The only reason this man got away with it was because he felt comfortable enough to think that the other people in the hospital, no matter how liberal, would go along with his request.
Now imagine this ass going to say, Harlem Hospital (b y some freak of coincidence that was the closest hospital). What would he have done? had his wife moved? if so, if he would be willing to "endanger" his wife by changing hospitals, then his ass should have been thrown out of this philadelphia hospital.
Point is: if he didn't think the request would fly. If he thought that the white people in the hospital would tell them to go -screw himself AND his wife, he wouldn't have said a damn thing.
No legal repercussions: The patient refused the service we were willing to provide.
Unfortunately, I disagree in general principles on patient's rights, and the law does too.
Hospitals have a legal obligation to provide health care to the best of their ability. All this redneck yahoo would have to do was go find a lawyer willing (and there'd be plenty) to take on a case stating that the hospital, by ignoring his request, caused he and his wife anguish and suffering, thereby failing in their duty. The hospital is now stuck in a lawsuit, blowing funds that could be used to actually *help* people.
That same reasoning has been used for the opposite effect for years... hospitals pre-60's would have segregated wings, with the care in the non-white wing being of considerably worse quality, to the point where patients would avoid it outright. Should the hospitals have *not* been forced to provide equal care, since it was the patient's right to refuse the service they were willing to provide?
I still stand by my opinion on this one... that the administrator was in a bad, bad situation caused by one complete and utter waste of DNA. Full disclosure to the staff, and letting them choose whether or not to provide for this idiot and family, would likely have resulted in such a 'staffing crisis' that the wishes would been moot, but the hospital's legal ass would have been covered.
Should someone be refused treatment because of their racist views? Should a hospital stand by and let someone die on the principle that the patient?s racist view is wrong? No.
Originally posted by GreggWSmith
The dad was just pissed because his wife was probably screwing a black guy on the side and he was not sure what color the baby would be. Oops did I type that? Well he deserves that.
Ouch! LOL
I agree with Powerdoc and other. If the request is reasonable. ie the Hospital can sufficiently care for this Woman and Child using only the requested personnel then I support the Hospital. Where I wouldn't support it is if a request in anyway compromised the Hospitals ability to provide the appropriate care.
What we must learn in this country, and quickly, is that we cannot go overboard concerning racism. With the recent Limbaugh situation and this much to much energy is expended in trying to strike a retaliatory blow to the perceived racist. When I believe that we will have understanding only when speech is free for debate.
Just to add fuel to the fire here...
Let's take a (somewhat) analogous situation sparked by Scott's comment... gender based requests.
I know a couple of women who refuse to see male doctors - they are uncomfortable around them for various reasons, and just plain refuse to see them. One of them ended up in the ER for an auto accident, and was *incensed* that the hospital refused her request for a female doctor. Absolutely, utter pissed... and I agreed with her. There were female doctors on staff that night, but they just ignored her. Her particular history made this a rather traumatic experience, on *top* of the accident.
So, in that case, who would you side with? The patient, or the hospital? Was her request unreasonable, or justified? You could easily take either side.
Now flip it on its head - a man walks in, needing care, and requests to not be attended to by female doctors. Maybe he hates women, maybe he thinks they aren't as competent, maybe he was abused by his mother, maybe he has religious convictions... who knows?
The point is... *NOW* how do you feel about it?
I wonder - what if you reversed it, and a black couple came in and said we'd like our baby delivered by a black doctor/nurse...
[edit]Kickaha beat me to the ever-popular "what if it were reversed" ploy.
Despite a hospital policy stating that "care will be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis," maternity ward staffers accommodated the man's wishes.
...it means precisely nothing. That seems more like a policy for the hospital staff to be non-discriminatory, not the patients. So do you provide the best patient care from the patient's point of view or from the hospital's point a view. If it is at all possible to honor his demand, then the hospital should take the high road.