Michigan hospital sued over 'No African American Nurse for a baby- father's request'

[rfisher]

The patient didn't act unethically in a professional way, I suppose. I think, however, that his request was unethical, as a person.

Personal ethics are just that: personal and vary widely among cultures and even people within a community.

[cruisin]

So we recognize there might have been a potential threat, but because it's potential, they have no move to call security because nothing happened? If we're going by this argument, then the threat was certainly there if the hospital thought they were protecting their staff from a potentially dangerous situation. In that case, I can see a cause to refuse care for him and his family since he put his own prejudices ahead of the care for his family. Shows where his priorities were.

The threat might not have been perceived as a physical one. However, had they refused his request, would he have become a problem. Might he have said nasty things about the nurse? Might he have caused a scene, upsetting others? Sometimes, as ugly and revolting as a request can be, going along with it, prevents victimizing.

This is all supposition. Who knows what the hospital thought. Some posters are guessing because we're all trying to understand the actions that were taken. There is no evidence from the information available that the hospital's staff was in a potentially dangerous situation. One thing I do know is that people and business entities take actions in the event of ... (fill in the blank) ... That's why we all have insurance we may never need. BUT, if we all called the cops and security becauses of any potential threat -- and the list of potential threats in any given situation could be a mile long -- we'd never have any emergency response team available for true emergencies. That is why we all must call upon our judgment and the judgment of others to make decisions.

The debate in this thread has been about what decisions should have/could have been made to diminish any potentially negative consequences, including violating the nurse's rights.

O-

It is supposition. I suppose some of us would like to believe that the hospital's motives were correct. To prevent their nurses from being harassed by a jerk. I would imagine that the nurses would not want to have to associate with someone who is openly racist. It would jut make their life more difficult. But, it should have been done differently. The head nurse could have gone to the nurses, explained that there is a nut job who is racist, and told them to avoid him for their own safety.

[duane]

If the "jerk" wasn't threatening anyone, which I suspect he was not, calling "GUARD! SECURITY!" definitely would have landed the hospital in a big, fat lawsuit.

You took my comment WAY too literally and out of context. People are saying that perhaps the guy's request was initially granted because of fear that he might be dangerous. Well, that's why hospitals have security--to, among other things, deal with dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. If the staff felt threatened or were fearful of what might happen if they didn't appease the guy, they should have called security. Instead, they granted the unethical, discriminatory request, and are now facing a "big fat lawsuit" because of it.

[manhn]

Personal ethics are just that: personal and vary widely among cultures and even people within a community.

In what cultures would forbidding African-American nurses from doing their job be ethical?

[PDilemma]

In what cultures would forbidding African-American nurses from doing their job be ethical?

The same ones where embracing Nazism is viewed as merely a personal ethical choice.

[OliviaPug]

You took my comment WAY too literally and out of context. People are saying that perhaps the guy's request was initially granted because of fear that he might be dangerous. Well, that's why hospitals have security--to, among other things, deal with dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. If the staff felt threatened or were fearful of what might happen if they didn't appease the guy, they should have called security. Instead, they granted the unethical, discriminatory request, and are now facing a "big fat lawsuit" because of it.

I did take your comment literally because that's what you wrote!

In any event, it is also the hospital's responsible to assess risk. No one wants to get to the point where security has to be called.

A big, fat lawsuit could have resulted from any number of actions taken by the hospital.

The hospital is facing a big fat lawsuit because it took action that the nurse felt was wrong. The hospital could have taken several different approaches and still faced a big fat lawsuit -- possibly by the jerk if the hospital had refused his request. Whether or not the hospital has a valid defense to the nurse's action or the nurse has a valid claim have yet to be determined. The situation would be the same if the hospital refused and the jerk had filed a lawsuit -- valid claim, valid defense? People file big fat lawsuits all the time, many of which are frivolous. Other folks who may have valid claims decide not to because of other, personal reasons.

Relying on security to intervene or settle a dispute, rather than trying to assess risk beforehand and head off a dangerous situation, seems like a bad choice to me. Even though this is a disturbing situation, at least no one was hurt physically or possibly worse.

O-

[duane]

No one wants to get to the point where security has to be called.

Whoever made the decision to appease the guy is probably now in danger of losing their job.

But in regards to lawsuits, I know that lawyers have a bad reputation, but who would take the guy's case even if he wanted to sue? And sue on what grounds? Failing to discriminate?

[rfisher]

In what cultures would forbidding African-American nurses from doing their job be ethical?

What's ethics? It's whatever a professional organization determines which is why there is no code of ethics for personal behavior except what society as a whole decides. And there are cultures where being a different race most certainly would preclude you from a lot of things, jobs being only one of many. And if you think Western cultures don't do that, look a little deeper into your environment.

[manhn]

What's ethics? It's whatever a professional organization determines which is why there is no code of ethics for personal behavior except what society as a whole decides.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

Not just a professional organization.

And there are cultures where being a different race most certainly would preclude you from a lot of things, jobs being only one of many. And if you think Western cultures don't do that, look a little deeper into your environment.

Just because other people do it doesn't make it "ethical."

[cruisin]

In what cultures would forbidding African-American nurses from doing their job be ethical?

In my opinion, none! However, as much as we see the request as unethical, would it have been right for the hospital to do nothing? If they had simply warned the nurse, would she be liable if something went wrong and she avoided the infant/mother? If she did tend to the child/mother and the jerk said horrible things to her, should she be subjected to that? Possibly, in going along with the request, they absolved the nurse of any responsibility.

I do think assessing potential harm and heading it off is much better than allowing it to happen and dealing with the consequences.

[iloveemoticons]

I tend to think that avoiding potential violence generally shouldn't be the main goal of any entity's daily operations. I mean, what if the nurse had crazy friends that looked like they'd be willing to burn down the entire ward if the nurse were reassigned, then what would the hospital do? I think it's a valid point that sticking to principle is easier said than done in the heat of the moment when nurses are working in a hospital environment, but this situation continued for a month, which was enough time to find a better solution, IMO.

[iloveemoticons]

Oops double post

[reckless]

A couple of years ago, in a case involving a black prisoner named Johnson v. California, the US Supreme Court held that racial segregation in prisons was illegal ... so the same rules would probably apply to guard assignments. Here is the case:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-636.ZS.html

Actually, looking at the Johnson v. California case, the Supreme Court did not hold that racially segregating the prison was illegal. That issue was never decided. It only decided what the appropriate test would be for evaluating if the practice was constitutional. It held that it was a practice that had to satisfy strict scrutiny, which is the strictist standard for determining the constitutionality of practicises subject to civil rights challenges. To be constitutional, the state would have to show that racial segregation served a legitimate state interest (preventing violence probably wuold qualify) and was the least restrictive means of serving that interest (i.e., it was the way of serving that interest that least infringed on civil rights so that if there was a way to avoid violence without segregating races, the policy would fail). The lower courts had applied different legal standards. After the Supreme Court decision, the case settled and a new policy that did not automatically segregate inmates was put into effect.

[numbers123]

I am going to present a hypothetical scenario:

Your baby is in the nursery in the same nursery as the baby in question. The father had made his request known to the hospital staff and the hospital administrator on call made the decision to ignore the request saying it was unreasonable and not acceptable in their hospital environment. The father enters the unit and views the nurse caring for his infant. He begins verbal interactions with the staff - yelling profanities, etc. at them. The staff feel threatened and fear that the staff and other patients/visitors are at risk for violence (whether or not he has begun violent behavior). They begin to institute non-violent crisis interventions techniques and the situation escalates. Your baby is injured because the isolates are being pushed around. You or your family members are injured. How would you feel then? In this situation, the hospital is aware of the potential issues and does nothing - are you going to be thinking good for the hospital for standing up to this man? Or are you going to be thinking, the hospital should have considered the potential situation and planned for it?

MacMadame is correct - this is going around in circles. In a perfect world no one would be racist, no one would have objections to receiving care from any and all caregivers. In a perfect world the hospital would never have to make a decision like this. In a perfect world, the nursing supervisor or who ever took the first "request/demand" would have not put it in the chart. But life/decisions are never in a perfect world.

[milanessa]

MacMadame is correct - this is going around in circles.

Circles that are being stretched more and more.

[OliviaPug]

In response to Duane:

You don't think neo-nazis are lawyers? Believe me, there is a lawyer out there for anyone and everyone who wants file suit for just about anything. I've been a lawyer for 21 years, and I've seen some incredible stuff.

O-

[iloveemoticons]

While people are considering what could have happened potentially, what about what did happen? Because of this request, someone else's baby had their original nurse reassigned, breaking that child's continuity of care. Then replaced with this now clearly demoralized, clearly upset nurse is thinking about quitting and/or suing the hospital. If this nurse is distracted and makes a mistake with your child as a result, would you be happy about it? There are always potential consequences to any decision, but the fact is, drug addicts, gangbangers, hardened criminals, and the mentally ill are often in hospitals, and they always have the potential to cause harm, but that does not mean that their requests are always granted.

[cruisin]

Circles that are being stretched more and more.

But, in this case possibly to protect the nurse, even if from hideous language.

While people are considering what could have happened potentially, what about what did happen? Because of this request, someone else's baby had their original nurse reassigned, breaking that child's continuity of care. Then replaced with this now clearly demoralized, clearly upset nurse is thinking about quitting and/or suing the hospital. If this nurse is distracted and makes a mistake with your child as a result, would you be happy about it? There are always potential consequences to any decision, but the fact is, drug addicts, gangbangers, hardened criminals, and the mentally ill are often in hospitals, and they always have the potential to cause harm, but that does not mean that their requests are always granted.

I have to be honest here. If it were me, the nurse, and I found out that the hospital was asked that I not tend to the child (for grantedly ugly racist reasons), and I knew the father had a nazi tattoo, I would be thanking the hospital for keeping me away from the shit. Could the hospital have handled it better? Sure. But, was the nurse better off for not having to deal with this low life? Absolutely.

[AxelAnnie]

I tend to think that avoiding potential violence generally shouldn't be the main goal of any entity's daily operations. I mean, what if the nurse had crazy friends that looked like they'd be willing to burn down the entire ward if the nurse were reassigned, then what would the hospital do? I think it's a valid point that sticking to principle is easier said than done in the heat of the moment when nurses are working in a hospital environment, but this situation continued for a month, which was enough time to find a better solution, IMO.

Um...that is the kind of logic....not making a difficult call when called for...that left a very ill teenager in Newton out of a hospital. In the moment the hospital felt that the most appropriate action for the health, and safety and well being of all concerned was to give into the guy. Unpopular choice for the hospital an they knew that.

Had someone pushed to have the Newton shooter properly removed from the General population and treated there would be a lot of people alive and unharmed.

[MacMadame]

I mean, what if the nurse had crazy friends that looked like they'd be willing to burn down the entire ward if the nurse were reassigned, then what would the hospital do?

Did her friends have tattoos? If they had tattoos, watch out for them!

Circles that are being stretched more and more.

And will continue to be stretched until we get more information. Which I suspect we're not going to get. Since the nurse is suing, everyone has clamped down and no one is talking.

While people are considering what could have happened potentially, what about what did happen? Because of this request, someone else's baby had their original nurse reassigned, breaking that child's continuity of care. Then replaced with this now clearly demoralized, clearly upset nurse is thinking about quitting and/or suing the hospital. If this nurse is distracted and makes a mistake with your child as a result, would you be happy about it? There are always potential consequences to any decision, but the fact is, drug addicts, gangbangers, hardened criminals, and the mentally ill are often in hospitals, and they always have the potential to cause harm, but that does not mean that their requests are always granted.

I dont know what kind of experience you have with giving birth but I've done it twice in two different hospitals and in both cases my baby spent 99% of his or her time with me. Babies hardly go into the nursery any more. They are there for a bit each day to be tested but most people are out of the hospital pretty quickly so that may only happen once. For a vaginal birth, you are generally home within 24-48 hours.

I'm not saying nothing could have happened but I think it's unlikely and it would have been easy enough to do that baby's tests only when the other babies were mostly in their mother's rooms if it was truly considered an issue. Or they could have called a security guard to stand by the door while that baby was in the nursery.