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.
You do not deny a patient care.
If having a black doctor provide the car is going to cause a disturbance, it is best to avoid confrontation.
As long as no other patients at the hospital were put in jeopardy by this little accomodation to avoid a confrontation, there is nothing wrong with appeasing them here.
No one is defending these pricks. We are defending the right of the hospital to AVOID CONFRONTATION.
It is completely obvious that is not what he was saying.
Thank you, it's nice to know that reading comprehension still exists in these forums.
Chinney... What can I say? I'm not going to bother to take the time and energy it would take to explain to you a position that seems to be fairly obvious to most other folks on here... not because they agree with it, but because they can read what is actually written instead of (again) injecting their own beliefs into a situation. You've got your position nailed firmly to the floor, and it's pretty obvious it is resistant to any amount of reason, discourse, or rational thought. That's your choice.
Wow some of you people are touchy and can't handle honest respectful disagreement without getting insulting and calling for the thread to be locked. You need to stay away from Apple Outsider.
Both Chinney's and Kickaha's positions are well reasoned, but I tend to see the merits of Chinney's argument more than Kickaha's. I think if a request like that is abhorrent to society's values, it should be denied, otherwise the hospital is complicit in promoting those values, at least indirectly. Then after being denied the request, if the patient refuses to be treated, that's their choice.
The patient could always find a private doctor who could comply with his request. But if they come into a public hospital, they have to play by the rules. Patients in hospitals don't get to determine every aspect of their treatment.
It's funny how crummy many people's experiences are in hospitals, and could be corrected with some extra effort by hospitals, but no one really cares about that. But people are willing to say we should do what it takes to accommodate racist requests.
:waits for Kickaha to say I don't have "reading comprehension" and claim to be leaving the thread for the third time:
Wow some of you people are touchy and can't handle honest respectful disagreement without getting insulting and calling for the thread to be locked. You need to stay away from Apple Outsider.
Both Chinney's and Kickaha's positions are well reasoned, but I tend to see the merits of Chinney's argument more than Kickaha's. I think if a request like that is abhorrent to society's values, it should be denied, otherwise the hospital is complicit in promoting those values, at least indirectly. Then after being denied the request, if the patient refuses to be treated, that's their choice.
The patient could always find a private doctor who could comply with his request. But if they come into a public hospital, they have to play by the rules. Patients in hospitals don't get to determine every aspect of their treatment.
It's funny how crummy many people's experiences are in hospitals, and could be corrected with some extra effort by hospitals, but no one really cares about that. But people are willing to say we should do what it takes to accommodate racist requests.
:waits for Kickaha to say I don't have "reading comprehension" and claim to be leaving the thread for the third time:
If it isn't hurting anyone else directly, what the hell is wrong with avoiding a confrontation?
I'm not sure it isn't hurting anyone. It's different if the guy is a racist in his own home. But when he goes to a public institution and asks them to conform to his racist beliefs, I think it is hurting people if you give in.
To put it using your logic: Why piss off tons of people in order to not piss off one person?
It is not the job of the hospital to make social and polictical stands. They are there to provide care. If they can provide equal care to a racist by following his pathetic wishes, they they should do that.
The only time to do otherwise would be if you couldn't provide the exact same quality of care by following his wishes. That's the time to step up and tell the man it can't be done.
It is not the job of the hospital to make social and polictical stands. They are there to provide care.
OK, but arguably, giving in to a racist demand is a form of social and political stand as well. But I respect your view on it, and I think it's a tough call.
To me, it's really only a problem because the Hospital has a policy against this sort of thing. Giving in to the racist against their own policy means the one that made the decision made a bad decision. Reprimand 'em.
The hospital has no policy regarding this. Their policy is that they are not to discriminate. However, they have no policy stating a patient can not discriminate.
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.
You missed the whole race aspect of my real world situation. Please address that. Try not to fall into the trap that black on white racism is justified and condoned.
The hospital has no policy regarding this. Their policy is that they are not to discriminate. However, they have no policy stating a patient can not discriminate.
The hospital decided who would give care, not the patient. The patient is (apparently) racist regardless of who the hospital sent to give care. The hospital broke its own rule by deciding to give care based on teh race of the employee.
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.
What I said:
Quote:
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it.
I actually wrote that as what I honestly understood his argument to be. If that it is not it, I sincerely apologize.
Such an argument - incidentally - is an argument that some people make - and it is not an argument in favour or racism. It is, however, an argument in favour of 'libertarianism': an argument that rejects the ability of individuals, institutions, or the government to restrict liberties by imposing their values on others. It is an argument that its advocates use to argue for an absolute minimum of government and rules. It does not mean that a libertarian sympathizes with how others exercise their freedom ? i.e., it does not mean that he or she sympathizes with racism. It means, rather, that they do not think that they, or anyone else, has the right to interfere with the freedom of a racist to be a racist, however much they might personally abhor it. This is the view that I thought Kickaha was advancing.
Incidentally, libertarianism is an attractive philosophy at first glance, but it is, in my view, totally unrealistic where people live together in close social interaction. One person?s exercise of their rights can interfere with another person?s rights. Society can and does impose rules to address these situations, and these are expressions of society's values.
As long as no other patients at the hospital were put in jeopardy by this little accomodation to avoid a confrontation, there is nothing wrong with appeasing them here.
Even if it is illegal?
I am amazed that the argument in this thread is proceeding without the slightest acknowledgement of the whole history and law with respect to desegregation and civil rights. The patient has absolutely no right to care segregated by race, and it was arguably illegal for the hospital to offer it.
I am amazed that the argument in this thread is proceeding without the slightest acknowledgement of the whole history and law with respect to desegregation and civil rights. The patient has absolutely no right to care segregated by race, and it was arguably illegal for the hospital to offer it.
He has every right to believe black doctors are inferior. It isn't true but it is his right. It should also be a non-issue if the idiot requests a white doctor and it doesn't put anyone else's care in jeopardy.
If the law mandates that one must create a confrontation and contribute to a hostile environment, the law is dumb.
If I was this racist dipstick I'd be worried that if fate had it and he was lying, bleeding from a gunshot wound or by an automobile accident...would he demand the same thing if two black EMTs came to his aid...? I can imagine...
"Sorry boys...kaff, kaff...ACK...you'll have to go back and get two white guys to save my life...urgh...ACK!"
If I was this racist dipstick I'd be worried that if fate had it and he was lying, bleeding from a gunshot wound or by an automobile accident...would he demand the same thing if two black EMTs came to his aid...? I can imagine...
"Sorry boys...kaff, kaff...ACK...you'll have to go back and get two white guys to save my life...urgh...ACK!"
Comments
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.
You do not deny a patient care.
If having a black doctor provide the car is going to cause a disturbance, it is best to avoid confrontation.
As long as no other patients at the hospital were put in jeopardy by this little accomodation to avoid a confrontation, there is nothing wrong with appeasing them here.
No one is defending these pricks. We are defending the right of the hospital to AVOID CONFRONTATION.
Originally posted by BR
Yes, because stifling discussion is always the answer.
Had you read the thread, you'd have recognized it stifled long before I suggested putting it out of it's misery.
Originally posted by groverat
So you're saying they should have put black doctors/nurses in there intentionally?
I didn't say anything remotely close to that.
Originally posted by rageous
Had you read the thread, you'd have recognized it stifled long before I suggested putting it out of it's misery.
Do not accuse me of not reading this garbage thread. Even the most pitiful discussions should not be locked. That is my opinion. I'm sticking to it.
Originally posted by rageous
It is completely obvious that is not what he was saying.
Thank you, it's nice to know that reading comprehension still exists in these forums.
Chinney... What can I say? I'm not going to bother to take the time and energy it would take to explain to you a position that seems to be fairly obvious to most other folks on here... not because they agree with it, but because they can read what is actually written instead of (again) injecting their own beliefs into a situation. You've got your position nailed firmly to the floor, and it's pretty obvious it is resistant to any amount of reason, discourse, or rational thought. That's your choice.
And mine is to walk away. Ta.
Both Chinney's and Kickaha's positions are well reasoned, but I tend to see the merits of Chinney's argument more than Kickaha's. I think if a request like that is abhorrent to society's values, it should be denied, otherwise the hospital is complicit in promoting those values, at least indirectly. Then after being denied the request, if the patient refuses to be treated, that's their choice.
The patient could always find a private doctor who could comply with his request. But if they come into a public hospital, they have to play by the rules. Patients in hospitals don't get to determine every aspect of their treatment.
It's funny how crummy many people's experiences are in hospitals, and could be corrected with some extra effort by hospitals, but no one really cares about that. But people are willing to say we should do what it takes to accommodate racist requests.
:waits for Kickaha to say I don't have "reading comprehension" and claim to be leaving the thread for the third time:
Originally posted by BRussell
Wow some of you people are touchy and can't handle honest respectful disagreement without getting insulting and calling for the thread to be locked. You need to stay away from Apple Outsider.
Both Chinney's and Kickaha's positions are well reasoned, but I tend to see the merits of Chinney's argument more than Kickaha's. I think if a request like that is abhorrent to society's values, it should be denied, otherwise the hospital is complicit in promoting those values, at least indirectly. Then after being denied the request, if the patient refuses to be treated, that's their choice.
The patient could always find a private doctor who could comply with his request. But if they come into a public hospital, they have to play by the rules. Patients in hospitals don't get to determine every aspect of their treatment.
It's funny how crummy many people's experiences are in hospitals, and could be corrected with some extra effort by hospitals, but no one really cares about that. But people are willing to say we should do what it takes to accommodate racist requests.
:waits for Kickaha to say I don't have "reading comprehension" and claim to be leaving the thread for the third time:
If it isn't hurting anyone else directly, what the hell is wrong with avoiding a confrontation?
To put it using your logic: Why piss off tons of people in order to not piss off one person?
The only time to do otherwise would be if you couldn't provide the exact same quality of care by following his wishes. That's the time to step up and tell the man it can't be done.
Originally posted by rageous
It is not the job of the hospital to make social and polictical stands. They are there to provide care.
OK, but arguably, giving in to a racist demand is a form of social and political stand as well. But I respect your view on it, and I think it's a tough call.
Originally posted by Chinney
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.
You missed the whole race aspect of my real world situation. Please address that. Try not to fall into the trap that black on white racism is justified and condoned.
Originally posted by rageous
The hospital has no policy regarding this. Their policy is that they are not to discriminate. However, they have no policy stating a patient can not discriminate.
The hospital decided who would give care, not the patient. The patient is (apparently) racist regardless of who the hospital sent to give care. The hospital broke its own rule by deciding to give care based on teh race of the employee.
Originally posted by rageous
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.
What I said:
Effectively, you are arguing that you do not personally favour segregation, but segregation is OK, if other people want it.
I actually wrote that as what I honestly understood his argument to be. If that it is not it, I sincerely apologize.
Such an argument - incidentally - is an argument that some people make - and it is not an argument in favour or racism. It is, however, an argument in favour of 'libertarianism': an argument that rejects the ability of individuals, institutions, or the government to restrict liberties by imposing their values on others. It is an argument that its advocates use to argue for an absolute minimum of government and rules. It does not mean that a libertarian sympathizes with how others exercise their freedom ? i.e., it does not mean that he or she sympathizes with racism. It means, rather, that they do not think that they, or anyone else, has the right to interfere with the freedom of a racist to be a racist, however much they might personally abhor it. This is the view that I thought Kickaha was advancing.
Incidentally, libertarianism is an attractive philosophy at first glance, but it is, in my view, totally unrealistic where people live together in close social interaction. One person?s exercise of their rights can interfere with another person?s rights. Society can and does impose rules to address these situations, and these are expressions of society's values.
Originally posted by BR
As long as no other patients at the hospital were put in jeopardy by this little accomodation to avoid a confrontation, there is nothing wrong with appeasing them here.
Even if it is illegal?
I am amazed that the argument in this thread is proceeding without the slightest acknowledgement of the whole history and law with respect to desegregation and civil rights. The patient has absolutely no right to care segregated by race, and it was arguably illegal for the hospital to offer it.
Originally posted by Chinney
Even if it is illegal?
I am amazed that the argument in this thread is proceeding without the slightest acknowledgement of the whole history and law with respect to desegregation and civil rights. The patient has absolutely no right to care segregated by race, and it was arguably illegal for the hospital to offer it.
He has every right to believe black doctors are inferior. It isn't true but it is his right. It should also be a non-issue if the idiot requests a white doctor and it doesn't put anyone else's care in jeopardy.
If the law mandates that one must create a confrontation and contribute to a hostile environment, the law is dumb.
"Sorry boys...kaff, kaff...ACK...you'll have to go back and get two white guys to save my life...urgh...ACK!"
Life. Ya never know...
Originally posted by Artman @_@
If I was this racist dipstick I'd be worried that if fate had it and he was lying, bleeding from a gunshot wound or by an automobile accident...would he demand the same thing if two black EMTs came to his aid...? I can imagine...
"Sorry boys...kaff, kaff...ACK...you'll have to go back and get two white guys to save my life...urgh...ACK!"
Life. Ya never know...
Ahhh you get my point.....