Delete. Wrong Thread.
Who's assuming that? I'm pretty sure that if said Nazi said, "Hey, I'm a Nazi!", those awful prejudiced people would still hold those awful similar prejudices. I'm pretty sure these prejudiced people wouldn't go, "But, he can't be that bad--He doesn't have a tattoo!"I don't think we can assume that makes them more violent than people of similar beliefs who don't have such tattoos.
^^^ You are kidding, right? What, the guy just happened to get that tattoo 'cause he thought it was pretty LOL!
That tattoo is a declaration. Right along with the request about no blacks coming near his kid. His belief was not quiet. It is meant to draw a line.
DH - and that's just my opinion
It's not well known by most people, but the swastika (made famous by Hitler and the Nazis) is an ancient symbol used for over 3,000 years, until the Nazis changed its meaning forever. Origins: From Sanskrit "su" meaning good; and "asti" meaning to be. My, how ignominiously ironic.
In any case, it is well known today that "swastikas as a symbol have been adopted by neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and other white supremacist groups."
Just having the tattoo of course does not necessarily mean the person wearing it is prone to violence, but I'd side with Rex's view on that probability. Anyway, in this instance, stupidity, ignorance, and racist beliefs of the tatooed father seem rather apparent, particularly coupled with the request he reportedly made.
Last edited by aftershocks; 02-22-2013 at 03:27 AM.
Well, I don't think you can assume that. I think you have to judge his propensity for violence based on his demeanor.
Delete. Wrong Thread.
^^^^^ YAY! I knew that! And, "Semitic" was co-opted as well. I learned that after my nephew's new girlfriend (now wife) at our first get together, (she is Persian) and she said she was not Arabic but Semitic. There was this dead silence at the table as I (a Jew) tried to figure out how to respond (politely) to that.....
DH - and that's just my opinion
In a hospital you have many, many innocent medically challenged (for some reason or another) people who are unable to move out of the area should an event erupt. The security guards at a hospital are not usually high level trained law enforcement, but a presence to help defuse a situation. Unless the facility is huge and/or in a "gun and knife" emergency department/trauma center, there may be one or two people trained in non-violent crisis intervention. Without knowing specifics of security staff qualifications, the number of potential victims, etc. I don't know that I would consider the hospital at fault. I think that the hospital could have handle the situation better. The supervisor or administrator on call might not have chosen the best avenue to inform staff of the request or even why they would grant it in the first place.
Taf - was your friend seeking emergency care? EMTLA laws make that illegal to refuse care - for example: if I show up at a pediatric hospital with a life threatening health issue, they are required to stabilize me before transporting me to another facility that has agreed to take my case. Or was this pre-EMTALA
I realize that most emotionally charged and ethically charged issues such as racism, abortive care, refusal of care, etc. elicits emotions within us based upon our experiences or core beliefs. I personally think that it was/is unethical for the customer to make such a request. I don't know that I think the hospital gave into the demands as much as tried to protect as many people as possible for potential injury.
numbers, I don't remember exactly but I left that office in 1997 so it was prior to that year.
BTW, he had had a stomach bypass but he continued to overeat to the extent that he had burst thru the stitches & had developed that condition (I forget what it's called) where you have a massive infection going on. And yes, he went to the emergency room & they turned him away. The county hospital was only 2 blocks away so they probably thought he had time to get there. However, his wife unsuccessfully sued the hospital - they were found to be within their rights.
Revisions to the EMTALA laws were enacted in 2003.
Delete. Wrong Thread.
Thinking further about this, I have to wonder whether quite a few public hospitals would for the most part politely tell patients that they couldn't turn away care providers on the basis of colour or gender or religion or personality. Even if they respected requests based on religion or comfort with the same sex, they just might not have the resources. Simply because so many public hospitals are understaffed already. If a majority of nurses or aides are black or Asian or female, patients in a public hospital may have no choice but to accept their care. Choosing a family doctor or another health care provider for an outpatient procedure is different as you usually have more choices (at least in major cities).
In the case of a patient becoming violent against a care provider due to that individual's sex or ethnicity, I don't know what would happen. If a hospital can't meet the patient's request for a white or male care provider, say, and anticipates that the patient might cause trouble, what should it do?
As a blood bank technologist, I've lost track of the number of times a patient called and asked if they could be transfused with a unit donated by someone who was the same religion or race. The answer? No can do. If you refuse blood from the blood bank, have your family donate for you.
As for whether prisons segregate prisoners based on race and give them same-race guards, I don't know the answer to that. My gut instinct is that, because of sovereign immunity, they should be able to do that. However, some states may voluntarily allow certain types of claims be brought by civil servants (though possibly through less formal procedures than courts), but I don't know what kind of claims would be allowed, how they would apply to the scenario with prison guards, and assume, to the extent they exist, they might differ widely from state to state.
Well, putting some of this into a broader historical perspective, I've heard that there have been instances in America's history where black people died after being denied treatment from white hospitals. Or, perhaps not literally denied treatment in every case, but end result, they may have died partly as a result of discrimination on the basis of skin color.
A case in point: The blues singer, Bessie Smith, suffered serious injuries in a car accident along Route 61 between Memphis and Clarksdale, Mississippi, in 1937. A legend grew up that she was refused treatment at a whites only hospital. According to eyewitness accounts, a doctor who happened to pass by the scene, treated her. An ambulance was called from a black hospital but it took a long time to get there. By the time the ambulance from the black hospital arrived, another ambulance from a white hospital had also arrived, having been called on a tip from someone who had not visibly seen the seriously injured accident victim. In any case, another car with white passengers was later involved in the incident (the white passengers were not seriously injured).
The interesting thing about all of this is the rumors that arose and the documented discrediting of those rumors, along with this declaration by the doctor who initially treated Bessie at the scene: "The Bessie Smith ambulance would not have gone to a white hospital. You can forget that. Down in the Deep South cotton country, ... no [one] would even have thought of putting a colored person off in a hospital for white folks."
Okay, from the description of Bessie Smith's injuries, she likely may not have survived the accident in any case. However, the eye witness accounts of what happened also bring into question the length of time it took for the ambulance from the black hospital to get there. How far away was the black hospital from the accident scene? Was the white hospital closer or were both hospitals far away? Would medical treatment for the traumatic injuries Ms. Smith suffered perhaps have been more effective at the white hospital (due to better equipment and facilities)? And might Ms. Smith have survived had an ambulance gotten her more quickly to any hospital where she could have been treated sooner, regardless of the color of her skin?
I think the possible answers to the above questions, and perhaps the lack of answers to these questions, are reasons why the rumors that Bessie Smith was refused treatment at a white hospital grew up. Add to that the obvious fact that blacks could not be treated at white hospitals in the South, so in reality Bessie Smith, due to being black was persona non grata at any white hospital near the accident scene, and so no attempt was made to rush her to one, despite the fact she was in shock and losing blood. Also, within black communities across the country at that time, there were probably many known and documented instances of black people dying because they could not be treated at the nearest or most medically well-equipped whites only hospitals.
Last edited by aftershocks; 02-22-2013 at 09:30 AM.
Just a point of clarification: patients are not bound by any code of professional ethics. So, technically, the patient in this situation did not act in an unethical manner, nor was it illegal.
The patient didn't act unethically in a professional way, I suppose. I think, however, that his request was unethical, as a person.
As to this case, however, even if there was a fear of violence, I still think that, if the hospital had granted the father's request, it was mis-handled. It is one thing for a supervisor to explain to the affected nursed immediately, that "we are scared that this guy might be violent, so we are going to try to honor his request"; it is another thing entirely to simply note "white only nurses" on the paperwork.