I will answer to this man : yes we can do what you want, this night most of our skilled employees are colored people, but we have a new nurse, and a gentle doctor who just recieved his diplomae. Don't be worry even if they are beginners, they are pretty efficient, otherwise we should not have employed them.
Of course they do not have the same level experience that any others members of our hospital, but if the delivery is normal, it should not cause any-problems. Afterall, baby are born since milleniums without any help
The only correct discrimanation will be the discrimination concerning the skill, but this is more difficult to check the professional level of somebody, than simply check the color of his skin.
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?
or maybe he just doesn't feel comfortable with a woman poking at his itty bits (or a woman maybe doesn't feel comfortable with a man groping or poking at her privates). maybe i'm a sexist, but i think i'd be more comfortable with a male doctor if (allah forbid) i ever needed work down below. then again, if she's hot, my opinion could be reversed. i'm inclined to think that i wouldn't be able to stop my blood flow in a certain area, were i to have a particularly fetching female doctor.
Of course the real way to handle this is the let hospital admin talk to these people. Find out if they can get the patient to soften their position and if not let them know the consequences of accommodating them. IE care may be delayed while the requested staff attends to other duties and other such things.
I simply can?t believe some of the responses on this thread. I disagree entirely with suggestions indicating that the hospital should have accommodated ? or should have even considered accommodating - the request of the husband.
What if the husband had requested that only staff wearing Halloween costumes should treat his wife? What if he had requested that only staff chewing a raw clove of garlic should treat his wife? Ridiculous, of course. But I start with the proposition that racist requests are even more ridiculous and unacceptable.
The hospital should simply have coolly and calmly responded that the woman would be treated by the hospital staff, regardless of their racial origin, according to the medical assignments made by administration. If the man started to make any fuss, the hospital should have simply requested him to leave ? if he refused, they should have called security. If the wife needed immediate medical treatment, but made a scene such as to prevent her from getting this treatment, then she should be dealt with according to the normal protocols with respect to patients who refuse the treatment that is offered.
And if the wife goes ahead with the treatment, but is traumatized by having been treated by those of African descent, so what? That is her problem. She is probably traumatized by seeing people of other colour on the streets. The hospital, and society in general, has absolutely no responsibility to provide her with an all-white environment.
A radiation therapy department treating breast cancer. Poor woman has to come in each day and remove her clothes from the waste down and get on a table with her arms up. Now some black women that are treated there don't feel comfortable with white men helping with the treatment. For whatever reason. But racist none the less. Now should the department risk that woman going home, untreated, just to stand firm on some racial hatred issue? I don't thinks so. We had enough black women there that could do the treatment to accommodate.
Flip it around. White man is in there for prostate treatment. Has to strip from the waste down and get on the table. So if that white guy does not feel comfortable with a black woman doing the treatment what should we do? Label him a racist and refuse to treat? Turns out we have enough white men there to accomidate.
And if the wife goes ahead with the treatment, but is traumatized by having been treated by those of African descent, so what? That is her problem.
So my acquaintance who had suffered *HORRIBLE* sexual abuse as a young child should have just accepted a male doctor without complaint, and if it traumatized her, that was 'her problem'?
Hospital staff are not there for social/political statements. They are there to treat people as best they can. If that means appeasing some asshole racist, so be it.
I'm sure if nobody else was qualified to deliver this woman's baby, the hospital would have told the husband he'll have to live with the doctor that comes in. But there were other people there who could do it and instead of creating a tense and hostile environment, they did the best thing possible for the sake of the mother and child.
A radiation therapy department treating breast cancer. Poor woman has to come in each day and remove her clothes from the waste down and get on a table with her arms up. Now some black women that are treated there don't feel comfortable with white men helping with the treatment. For whatever reason. But racist none the less. Now should the department risk that woman going home, untreated, just to stand firm on some racial hatred issue? I don't thinks so. We had enough black women there that could do the treatment to accommodate.
Flip it around. White man is in there for prostate treatment. Has to strip from the waste down and get on the table. So if that white guy does not feel comfortable with a black woman doing the treatment what should we do? Label him a racist and refuse to treat? Turns out we have enough white men there to accomidate.
What do you think? Not so black and white huh?
Actually, it is quite easy to respond to this. Let?s start with this principle: Hospitals have no responsibility to accommodate unreasonable treatment requests, and indeed routinely have to refuse them.
The first question ?Is the request reasonable?. Your own examples make the response quite easy, based on gender, not race. I think that, in general, we as a society do acknowledge reasonableness in treatment requests asking for someone of the same gender in intimate treatment situations. It is not a question of sexism; it is rather a question of sexual discomfort with situations. So such requests should be accommodated, if they can. Often however, even such requests cannot be easily accommodated in busy, mixed hospital environments and hospitals simply should, and do, say ?no?. Both your examples can be addressed on these simple principles.
On the other hand, we do not as a society find it acceptable to make treatment requests based simply on race, nor should we. The request by the man was unreasonable, so there was not even an issue of whether it should have been accommodated.
So my acquaintance who had suffered *HORRIBLE* sexual abuse as a young child should have just accepted a male doctor without complaint, and if it traumatized her, that was 'her problem'?
Seriously, answer this one.
Regarding your example, see my reply to Scott, above.
Do you care to answer my "Halloween" and "garlic" examples? I acknowledge that they are entirely ridiculous hyptotheticals, but, in reality, hospitals routinely get all sorts of ridiculous requests, which they routinely ignore. The request of the husband in this case was a ridiculous, unreasonable, request and should have been calmly, but firmly denied, without even much discussion or explanation. A simple "No, we can't do that." would have sufficed.
Your example is retarded and far fetched. Racism is real and must be dealt with on a daily basis.
It is racism that is retarded.
And as I said, hospitals get all sorts of bizarre and unreasonable requests for treatment. Should they accomodate them? What is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
You disagree with what they did. Nothing I say, no matter how compelling, will ever alter your point of view. You'll continue to hypothesize about other, ever more rediculous but "possible" scenarios until you feel you have won the argument.
On the other hand, we do not as a society find it acceptable to make treatment requests based simply on race, nor should we. The request by the man was unreasonable, so there was not even an issue of whether it should have been accommodated.
There are unknown consequences of not accommodating such a patient. There are fewer consequences being tolerant of the intolerant as long as he doesn't break the law. He isn't breaking the law by simply being racist.
Many people find the concept of gender based requests to be 'unreasonable'. You and I do not, but many do. Don't assume your values are shared by anyone else on the planet.
So... to *them*, a gender-based request should be denied, absolutely.
The *point* is patient comfort... if the request *can* be accomodated in a reasonable manner (staffing availability, etc), should it, or should it not?
You can't say "this request is reasonable but that one isn't" based on your own personal value system... you have to judge it based on the hospital's availability of accomodation, if patient's rights to comfort is to have *any* meaning whatsoever. What is trivial to you is of extreme important to someone else, and vice-versa. Besides, given your answers to the examples above, sexism (gender-based requests) is 'reasonable', but racism (race-based requests) isn't? Just *try* and defend that one.
But no, it's easier to just project one's own value system as truth, isn't it?
What is trivial to you is of extreme important to someone else, and vice-versa. Besides, given your answers to the examples above, sexism (gender-based requests) is 'reasonable', but racism (race-based requests) isn't? Just *try* and defend that one.
You make it so easy. A gender-based request for intimate treament is not the same thing at all as sexism. A sexist request is "I only want to be treated by a male doctor because women are stupid'. That is a different matter from not wanting to get undressed in front of someone of the opposite sex that you don't know (although sometimes the reality of hospitals is that you have to do this anyway). The last time I checked we still had men and women's washrooms, even in the most politically correct of institutions. Last time I checked, we did not have separate black and white washrooms.
And yes, to all of you, evaluating whether or not a given treatment request is reasonable is a value judgment. As I said, hospitals get all sorts of unreasonable requests for treatment for which they have to make decisions, and often do make decisions, to deny.
The question I pose is what is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
You make it so easy. A gender-based request for intimate treament is not the same thing at all as sexism. A sexist request is "I only want to be treated by a male doctor because women are stupid'.
Bzzzt.
At no point did I state what the reasons were *FOR* the request... hell, a blatantly sexist person could request a same-gendered physician and just outright *lie* to gain sympathy, right?
The reasons do not matter, period. If the patient is uncomfortable, then the patient is uncomfortable, and *that* is what you deal with. Trying to divine the reasons why, or whether or not that particular case is 'reasonable' is a job for psychologists, not attending physicians.
Quote:
And yes, to all of you, evaluating whether or not a given treatment request is reasonable is a value judgment. As I said, hospitals get all sorts of unreasonable requests for treatment for which they have to make decisions, and often do make decisions, to deny.
The question I pose is what is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
Absolutely nothing. At no point did I state that racism was more acceptable or reasonable than any other requests. What I said that *every* request should be treated *equally*... based solely on the hospital's ability to accomodate that request.
A patient may ask for only red Jell-O at lunch because they don't like green. Reasonable? Sure. It's harmless, it's inoffensive... but maybe the hospital doesn't *have* any red Jell-O... should they be required to go buy some? Naw.
A patient asks for only doctors of a certain gender, race, what have you... if the staffing schedule and system can handle it fairly easily, should the hospital *try* and comply? In my mind, yes. If the system simply can't, then the patient needs to be made aware of that, and if they don't like it *then* they can go elsewhere, by their choice... just as if they don't like green Jell-O.
The requests should be handled on an equal basis of ease of compliance, regardless of what they are, and *certainly* not denied because your, or anyone else's value system thinks that they are unreasonable.
Racism is offensive as hell to me, and I find that this patient was an utter moron... but I also find the idea that because you don't agree with their ideology, their comfort as a patient is 'unreasonable' equally so.
At no point did I state what the reasons were *FOR* the request... hell, a blatantly sexist person could request a same-gendered physician and just outright *lie* to gain sympathy, right?[
The reasons do not matter, period. If the patient is uncomfortable, then the patient is uncomfortable, and *that* is what you deal with. Trying to divine the reasons why, or whether or not that particular case is 'reasonable' is a job for psychologists, not attending physicians.
Absolutely nothing. At no point did I state that racism was more acceptable or reasonable than any other requests. What I said that *every* request should be treated *equally*... based solely on the hospital's ability to accomodate that request.
A patient may ask for only red Jell-O at lunch because they don't like green. Reasonable? Sure. It's harmless, it's inoffensive... but maybe the hospital doesn't *have* any red Jell-O... should they be required to go buy some? Naw.
A patient asks for only doctors of a certain gender, race, what have you... if the staffing schedule and system can handle it fairly easily, should the hospital *try* and comply? In my mind, yes. If the system simply can't, then the patient needs to be made aware of that, and if they don't like it *then* they can go elsewhere, by their choice... just as if they don't like green Jell-O.
The requests should be handled on an equal basis of ease of compliance, regardless of what they are, and *certainly* not denied because your, or anyone else's value system thinks that they are unreasonable.
Racism is offensive as hell to me, and I find that this patient was an utter moron... but I also find the idea that because you don't agree with their ideology, their comfort as a patient is 'unreasonable' equally so.
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it. Sorry, but that will not get you very far.
People are uncomfortable with all sorts of things. People have argued that the ?comfort? and the ?ability to learn? of their children in school is negatively affected by having blacks in the class. People have argued that their comfort in restaurants is affected by having blacks eat with them. People have argued that their comfort in using toilet facilities is affected if blacks use the same ones. Your Supreme Court has ruled, however, that they do not have the right to have this comfort request accommodated. These are all real cases - look them up.
People also don?t have the right to segregated hospitals or hospital stays, and the hospital had no obligation to provide that family with one. Indeed, the hospital may well have committed a civil rights violation against its black employees.
Yes, Kickaha, values matter?and societies, not just individuals, mutually agree on values. In the case of your country, some of these fundamental societal values are expressed in the Constitution and the laws of your country, which, do not permit segregation on the basis of race in such facilities.
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it. Sorry, but that will not get you very far.
It is completely obvious that is not what he was saying. But that's how far down the drain this topic has gone. I think it's fairly obvious where each of the participants of this thread stand on the topic at hand.
If ever a thread needed a padlock, this would be it.
Comments
I will answer to this man : yes we can do what you want, this night most of our skilled employees are colored people, but we have a new nurse, and a gentle doctor who just recieved his diplomae. Don't be worry even if they are beginners, they are pretty efficient, otherwise we should not have employed them.
Of course they do not have the same level experience that any others members of our hospital, but if the delivery is normal, it should not cause any-problems. Afterall, baby are born since milleniums without any help
The only correct discrimanation will be the discrimination concerning the skill, but this is more difficult to check the professional level of somebody, than simply check the color of his skin.
Originally posted by Kickaha
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?
or maybe he just doesn't feel comfortable with a woman poking at his itty bits (or a woman maybe doesn't feel comfortable with a man groping or poking at her privates). maybe i'm a sexist, but i think i'd be more comfortable with a male doctor if (allah forbid) i ever needed work down below. then again, if she's hot, my opinion could be reversed. i'm inclined to think that i wouldn't be able to stop my blood flow in a certain area, were i to have a particularly fetching female doctor.
What if the husband had requested that only staff wearing Halloween costumes should treat his wife? What if he had requested that only staff chewing a raw clove of garlic should treat his wife? Ridiculous, of course. But I start with the proposition that racist requests are even more ridiculous and unacceptable.
The hospital should simply have coolly and calmly responded that the woman would be treated by the hospital staff, regardless of their racial origin, according to the medical assignments made by administration. If the man started to make any fuss, the hospital should have simply requested him to leave ? if he refused, they should have called security. If the wife needed immediate medical treatment, but made a scene such as to prevent her from getting this treatment, then she should be dealt with according to the normal protocols with respect to patients who refuse the treatment that is offered.
And if the wife goes ahead with the treatment, but is traumatized by having been treated by those of African descent, so what? That is her problem. She is probably traumatized by seeing people of other colour on the streets. The hospital, and society in general, has absolutely no responsibility to provide her with an all-white environment.
A radiation therapy department treating breast cancer. Poor woman has to come in each day and remove her clothes from the waste down and get on a table with her arms up. Now some black women that are treated there don't feel comfortable with white men helping with the treatment. For whatever reason. But racist none the less. Now should the department risk that woman going home, untreated, just to stand firm on some racial hatred issue? I don't thinks so. We had enough black women there that could do the treatment to accommodate.
Flip it around. White man is in there for prostate treatment. Has to strip from the waste down and get on the table. So if that white guy does not feel comfortable with a black woman doing the treatment what should we do? Label him a racist and refuse to treat? Turns out we have enough white men there to accomidate.
What do you think? Not so black and white huh?
Originally posted by Chinney
And if the wife goes ahead with the treatment, but is traumatized by having been treated by those of African descent, so what? That is her problem.
So my acquaintance who had suffered *HORRIBLE* sexual abuse as a young child should have just accepted a male doctor without complaint, and if it traumatized her, that was 'her problem'?
Seriously, answer this one.
I'm sure if nobody else was qualified to deliver this woman's baby, the hospital would have told the husband he'll have to live with the doctor that comes in. But there were other people there who could do it and instead of creating a tense and hostile environment, they did the best thing possible for the sake of the mother and child.
This is a total non-issue.
Originally posted by Scott
Okay Chinney here's the situation I was in.
A radiation therapy department treating breast cancer. Poor woman has to come in each day and remove her clothes from the waste down and get on a table with her arms up. Now some black women that are treated there don't feel comfortable with white men helping with the treatment. For whatever reason. But racist none the less. Now should the department risk that woman going home, untreated, just to stand firm on some racial hatred issue? I don't thinks so. We had enough black women there that could do the treatment to accommodate.
Flip it around. White man is in there for prostate treatment. Has to strip from the waste down and get on the table. So if that white guy does not feel comfortable with a black woman doing the treatment what should we do? Label him a racist and refuse to treat? Turns out we have enough white men there to accomidate.
What do you think? Not so black and white huh?
Actually, it is quite easy to respond to this. Let?s start with this principle: Hospitals have no responsibility to accommodate unreasonable treatment requests, and indeed routinely have to refuse them.
The first question ?Is the request reasonable?. Your own examples make the response quite easy, based on gender, not race. I think that, in general, we as a society do acknowledge reasonableness in treatment requests asking for someone of the same gender in intimate treatment situations. It is not a question of sexism; it is rather a question of sexual discomfort with situations. So such requests should be accommodated, if they can. Often however, even such requests cannot be easily accommodated in busy, mixed hospital environments and hospitals simply should, and do, say ?no?. Both your examples can be addressed on these simple principles.
On the other hand, we do not as a society find it acceptable to make treatment requests based simply on race, nor should we. The request by the man was unreasonable, so there was not even an issue of whether it should have been accommodated.
Originally posted by Kickaha
So my acquaintance who had suffered *HORRIBLE* sexual abuse as a young child should have just accepted a male doctor without complaint, and if it traumatized her, that was 'her problem'?
Seriously, answer this one.
Regarding your example, see my reply to Scott, above.
Do you care to answer my "Halloween" and "garlic" examples? I acknowledge that they are entirely ridiculous hyptotheticals, but, in reality, hospitals routinely get all sorts of ridiculous requests, which they routinely ignore. The request of the husband in this case was a ridiculous, unreasonable, request and should have been calmly, but firmly denied, without even much discussion or explanation. A simple "No, we can't do that." would have sufficed.
Originally posted by Chinney
Do you care to answer my "Halloween" and "garlic" examples?
I'll answer it.
Your example is retarded and far fetched. Racism is real and must be dealt with on a daily basis.
Originally posted by rageous
I'll answer it.
Your example is retarded and far fetched. Racism is real and must be dealt with on a daily basis.
It is racism that is retarded.
And as I said, hospitals get all sorts of bizarre and unreasonable requests for treatment. Should they accomodate them? What is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
You disagree with what they did. Nothing I say, no matter how compelling, will ever alter your point of view. You'll continue to hypothesize about other, ever more rediculous but "possible" scenarios until you feel you have won the argument.
So I'll make it easy.
You win!
On the other hand, we do not as a society find it acceptable to make treatment requests based simply on race, nor should we. The request by the man was unreasonable, so there was not even an issue of whether it should have been accommodated.
There are unknown consequences of not accommodating such a patient. There are fewer consequences being tolerant of the intolerant as long as he doesn't break the law. He isn't breaking the law by simply being racist.
You win!
No he doesn't. That would be stupid.
Many people find the concept of gender based requests to be 'unreasonable'. You and I do not, but many do. Don't assume your values are shared by anyone else on the planet.
So... to *them*, a gender-based request should be denied, absolutely.
The *point* is patient comfort... if the request *can* be accomodated in a reasonable manner (staffing availability, etc), should it, or should it not?
You can't say "this request is reasonable but that one isn't" based on your own personal value system... you have to judge it based on the hospital's availability of accomodation, if patient's rights to comfort is to have *any* meaning whatsoever. What is trivial to you is of extreme important to someone else, and vice-versa. Besides, given your answers to the examples above, sexism (gender-based requests) is 'reasonable', but racism (race-based requests) isn't? Just *try* and defend that one.
But no, it's easier to just project one's own value system as truth, isn't it?
Eh, forget it. This isn't worth the time.
Originally posted by Kickaha
What is trivial to you is of extreme important to someone else, and vice-versa. Besides, given your answers to the examples above, sexism (gender-based requests) is 'reasonable', but racism (race-based requests) isn't? Just *try* and defend that one.
You make it so easy. A gender-based request for intimate treament is not the same thing at all as sexism. A sexist request is "I only want to be treated by a male doctor because women are stupid'. That is a different matter from not wanting to get undressed in front of someone of the opposite sex that you don't know (although sometimes the reality of hospitals is that you have to do this anyway). The last time I checked we still had men and women's washrooms, even in the most politically correct of institutions. Last time I checked, we did not have separate black and white washrooms.
And yes, to all of you, evaluating whether or not a given treatment request is reasonable is a value judgment. As I said, hospitals get all sorts of unreasonable requests for treatment for which they have to make decisions, and often do make decisions, to deny.
The question I pose is what is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
Originally posted by Chinney
You make it so easy. A gender-based request for intimate treament is not the same thing at all as sexism. A sexist request is "I only want to be treated by a male doctor because women are stupid'.
Bzzzt.
At no point did I state what the reasons were *FOR* the request... hell, a blatantly sexist person could request a same-gendered physician and just outright *lie* to gain sympathy, right?
The reasons do not matter, period. If the patient is uncomfortable, then the patient is uncomfortable, and *that* is what you deal with. Trying to divine the reasons why, or whether or not that particular case is 'reasonable' is a job for psychologists, not attending physicians.
And yes, to all of you, evaluating whether or not a given treatment request is reasonable is a value judgment. As I said, hospitals get all sorts of unreasonable requests for treatment for which they have to make decisions, and often do make decisions, to deny.
The question I pose is what is it about racist requests that you find more acceptable and reasonable than other bizarre requests?
Absolutely nothing. At no point did I state that racism was more acceptable or reasonable than any other requests. What I said that *every* request should be treated *equally*... based solely on the hospital's ability to accomodate that request.
A patient may ask for only red Jell-O at lunch because they don't like green. Reasonable? Sure. It's harmless, it's inoffensive... but maybe the hospital doesn't *have* any red Jell-O... should they be required to go buy some? Naw.
A patient asks for only doctors of a certain gender, race, what have you... if the staffing schedule and system can handle it fairly easily, should the hospital *try* and comply? In my mind, yes. If the system simply can't, then the patient needs to be made aware of that, and if they don't like it *then* they can go elsewhere, by their choice... just as if they don't like green Jell-O.
The requests should be handled on an equal basis of ease of compliance, regardless of what they are, and *certainly* not denied because your, or anyone else's value system thinks that they are unreasonable.
Racism is offensive as hell to me, and I find that this patient was an utter moron... but I also find the idea that because you don't agree with their ideology, their comfort as a patient is 'unreasonable' equally so.
Originally posted by Kickaha
At no point did I state what the reasons were *FOR* the request... hell, a blatantly sexist person could request a same-gendered physician and just outright *lie* to gain sympathy, right?[
The reasons do not matter, period. If the patient is uncomfortable, then the patient is uncomfortable, and *that* is what you deal with. Trying to divine the reasons why, or whether or not that particular case is 'reasonable' is a job for psychologists, not attending physicians.
Absolutely nothing. At no point did I state that racism was more acceptable or reasonable than any other requests. What I said that *every* request should be treated *equally*... based solely on the hospital's ability to accomodate that request.
A patient may ask for only red Jell-O at lunch because they don't like green. Reasonable? Sure. It's harmless, it's inoffensive... but maybe the hospital doesn't *have* any red Jell-O... should they be required to go buy some? Naw.
A patient asks for only doctors of a certain gender, race, what have you... if the staffing schedule and system can handle it fairly easily, should the hospital *try* and comply? In my mind, yes. If the system simply can't, then the patient needs to be made aware of that, and if they don't like it *then* they can go elsewhere, by their choice... just as if they don't like green Jell-O.
The requests should be handled on an equal basis of ease of compliance, regardless of what they are, and *certainly* not denied because your, or anyone else's value system thinks that they are unreasonable.
Racism is offensive as hell to me, and I find that this patient was an utter moron... but I also find the idea that because you don't agree with their ideology, their comfort as a patient is 'unreasonable' equally so.
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it. Sorry, but that will not get you very far.
People are uncomfortable with all sorts of things. People have argued that the ?comfort? and the ?ability to learn? of their children in school is negatively affected by having blacks in the class. People have argued that their comfort in restaurants is affected by having blacks eat with them. People have argued that their comfort in using toilet facilities is affected if blacks use the same ones. Your Supreme Court has ruled, however, that they do not have the right to have this comfort request accommodated. These are all real cases - look them up.
People also don?t have the right to segregated hospitals or hospital stays, and the hospital had no obligation to provide that family with one. Indeed, the hospital may well have committed a civil rights violation against its black employees.
Yes, Kickaha, values matter?and societies, not just individuals, mutually agree on values. In the case of your country, some of these fundamental societal values are expressed in the Constitution and the laws of your country, which, do not permit segregation on the basis of race in such facilities.
Originally posted by Chinney
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it. Sorry, but that will not get you very far.
It is completely obvious that is not what he was saying. But that's how far down the drain this topic has gone. I think it's fairly obvious where each of the participants of this thread stand on the topic at hand.
If ever a thread needed a padlock, this would be it.
Originally posted by rageous
If ever a thread needed a padlock, this would be it.
Yes, because stifling discussion is always the answer.