Plime is now in read-only mode and will remain as an archive of old plime activity.
This means you cannot login, post a comment or news post, edit your profile, etc.
 Catholic Nurse "Forced" To Assist In Abortion Procedure
Catholic Nurse "Forced" To Assist In Abortion Procedure
A nurse is suing Mount Sinai Hospital, claiming the institution "forced" her to assist with an abortion, despite her pleas. "The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit." picked by suebe 2 years ago
tags nurse catholic forced abortion mount sinai hospital
 quote edit #1 

  comments (25)  share edit history (0)
< 1 2 >
13
 nikneven
2 years ago
"I'm sorry, my 'religious convictions' prevent me from working Monday - Sunday. What? you cant fire me because I am not doing my job! I BELIEVE in something, therefore I am exempt from job requirements, obviously"

face --> desk
quote #2
22
 JoshSF49
2 years ago
It's disgusting that she was forced to assist in this process.

I hope the supervisors receive their just punishments.
quote #3
49
 2manyuse...
2 years ago
« JoshSF49 : It's disgusting that she was forced to assist in this process.

I hope the supervisors receive their just punishments.
right, because employees should only have to do what they feel like doing.

She was not "forced" to do the work she was paid for. She could have clocked out and gone home.

Sorry, just like we get upset because some muslim grocery clerk refuses to touch pork products, a muslim doctor/nurse refuses to touch patients of the opposite sex, a pharmacist refuses to sell birth control, etc, this person is in the wrong.
quote #4
30
 gammerus
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames:right, because employees should only have to do what they feel like doing.

She was not "forced" to do the work she was paid for. She could have clocked out and gone home.

Sorry, just like we get upset because some muslim grocery clerk refuses to touch pork products, a muslim doctor/nurse refuses to touch patients of the opposite sex, a pharmacist refuses to sell birth control, etc, this person is in the wrong.
The difference is that a nurse signs up to save people, not kill them. (yes that is the pro-life belief)
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

19
 makri
2 years ago
« gammerus : The difference is that a nurse signs up to save people, not kill them. (yes that is the pro-life belief)
I think "saving lives" is fairly small proportion of duties in the job description of nurses.
quote #6
11
 lilyang
2 years ago
Yep, if you don't want to do the job, don't work there. If you complain later that they made you do the job (by which I assume she means they said she had to or be fired) then claim religious intolerance. Of course, it's against my religion to listen to such douchebaggery.
quote #7
6
 shillela...
2 years ago
« gammerus : The difference is that a nurse signs up to save people, not kill them. (yes that is the pro-life belief)
Hahahaha! My husband was an R.N. (nurse) for many years. When he was asked what he did, he usually answered, "A lot of well-paid, geriatric butt-wipin'".
In his entire career, he never assisted in an abortion procedure (he was actually never asked or "Forced" to), but he would have Laughed His Arse off if someone had referred to him as a "Life-Saver".
So much hysterical nonsense.
quote #8
8
 Levitate...
2 years ago
I'm totally with this nurse on this one. There was a friend of mine that got a job at McDonalds and even though the manager knew that he was a vegan, the restaurant continued to serve the flesh of animals!! THE NERVE!!
quote #9
22
 JoshSF49
2 years ago
« 2manyusernames:right, because employees should only have to do what they feel like doing.

She was not "forced" to do the work she was paid for. She could have clocked out and gone home.

Sorry, just like we get upset because some muslim grocery clerk refuses to touch pork products, a muslim doctor/nurse refuses to touch patients of the opposite sex, a pharmacist refuses to sell birth control, etc, this person is in the wrong.
I would say that assisting in the termination of an innocent life is not quite along the same lines as a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control.

Additionally, employers are using threats like this in order to force people to do things beyond their call of measure in order to keep their jobs in the unstable economic climate we currently live. What her supervisors did was wrong.
quote #10
34
 chez
2 years ago
If you're not ready to face ALL procedures that may pop up in your job, maybe you should consider a different profession.
I'm sorry, this isn't a pro-life/pro-choice debate. It's about someone who has a job to do and is using their religion as an excuse not to do it.

monster.com, lady. use it.
quote #11
18
 sidran32
2 years ago
« chez : If you're not ready to face ALL procedures that may pop up in your job, maybe you should consider a different profession.
I'm sorry, this isn't a pro-life/pro-choice debate. It's about someone who has a job to do and is using their religion as an excuse not to do it.

monster.com, lady. use it.
This is true, though it is not a typical procedure, as it is just one of the many duties that a nurse would partake in, correct? The VAST MAJORITY of things that nurses do are encouraged and applauded by Catholics, as it is a very noble profession to get into health care, to provide comfort and healing to those that need it, this is where things like conscientious objection is reasonable. She was assigned to do it. It is reasonable to think that the staff could perhaps have rotated the nurses to accommodate her beliefs (certainly she's not the only one there, and I would think "forcing" would be only appropriate if she was).

Here's the thing though... for a pro-life person (and I mean pro-life as in literally, not anti-abortion and lets bomb the hell out of Iraq and expand capital punishment kind of "pro-life"), the person wants to protect life. All life. This would be one catalyst to getting into the medical profession, and even nursing, because they are closer to the patients and provide healing, as well as support. The beliefs of the person are that the embryo (especially in late term) are an individual human life. So for the person who wants to protect the life of the mother, performing an abortion (a very gruesome procedure in itself) is tantamount to the exact opposite of what she signed up for. It would be analogous to asking a charity worker to help kill some homeless "so that we aren't as spread thin" in her paradigm. It is that strong.

The strength of conscientious objector laws are that they are to protect the religious beliefs and freedom of practice of the individuals, a Constitutional right, while not degrading the quality of service to those who believe differently. But, as all laws should be, I don't believe that they should be hard nose, but rather, with the subtext that if there is no other to assist or refer to, they may be forced to do the procedure.
quote #12
15
 Interest...
2 years ago
« makri : I think "saving lives" is fairly small proportion of duties in the job description of nurses.
I think every nurse I have ever met will STRONGLY disagree with you. My wife, mother and sister are all nurses and I have worked in the OR, so I do know a thing or two about nursing. In today's hospital system (in the US anyways) the nurse is where the "buck stops" as far as responsibility for the life of the patient. For example: If a doctor orders a drug, and that drug will have a conflict with another drug ordered by a different (or the same) doctor, the nurse is the one who is supposed to notice. Certainly the doctor and pharmacist also have responsibility but the nurse as the one who gives the drug will take a lot of the blame if the drug kills the person (it happens).
As far as saving lives, the nurse is very often the medical professional that notices that a patient is having difficulty, and is almost always a nurse who responds first when a code blue is called. So yes nurses save lives.

As far as the being forced to do something against her religious beliefs, I agree that she could have just walked away. But I also agree that an employer can not ask someone to do something that is against their beliefs. Of course this can be regulated by only recognizing the beliefs of organized religion so that people who say things like
Of course, it's against my religion to listen to such douchebaggery.
don't get away with it. A person's religious belief is a part of who they are, and you are stepping on their rights if you ask them to go against them. In this case I'm certain the hospital could find a different nurse who is both capable and willing to assist in the abortion.
quote #13
23
 cb__
2 years ago
Fact: "During her job interview, an administrator asked Cenzon-DeCarlo whether she'd be willing to participate in abortions. She flatly said no. The nurse said she put her beliefs in writing."

Participating in abortions was obviously NOT a job requirement.

Fact: "Institutions that get federal funding (and this hospital is one) are required to prove they were respecting medical workers' right to bow out of controversial procedures."

Mount Sinai FAILED. Add to that their deception in calling a non-emergency life threatening, in order to bully this nurse into participating by threatening patient abandonment. She could have walked away, yes, but if this is standard operating procedure, the hospital needs to be legally called on it.

As far as the "value" and responsibilities of a nurse, it varies tremendously from one job to the next. In any case, I'd like to see the health care system function without them.
quote #14
34
 Doggyliv...
2 years ago
« Interesting:I agree that she could have just walked away. But I also agree that an employer can not ask someone to do something that is against their beliefs. Of course this can be regulated by only recognizing the beliefs of organized religion so that people who say things like don't get away with it. A person's religious belief is a part of who they are, and you are stepping on their rights if you ask them to go against them.
Why should someone be exempt from perfectly reasonable aspects of their job based on their religious beliefs?

If an employee of mine who knew that working weekends was sometimes essential to keep a build on schedule turned round and told me he couldn't work on the Sabbath, I'd fire his ass and find someone who would.

This nurse knew what her duties might entail and if those duties conflicted with her religious beliefs then she shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. Why should religious folk have special pleading when it comes to job roles?

Also, the notion that only organised religions should figure into the "let people off doing what goes against their religion" reasoning would allow a Mormon to get a job in a liquor store and then turn round and tell their employer, "Sorry, it's against my religion to sell alcohol" and still keep their position. It's ridiculous.

If your religion keeps you from doing certain things then you don't apply for position where it requires that you do those things.

Employers should not have to bend and twist job positions to suit the whims and notions of their employees
quote #15
5
 detectiv...
2 years ago
Interesting dialogue. As an emergency nurse I can state succinctly that a very LARGE portion of my job involves saving lives. Even though not every patient comes in to the hospital on death's door, we do our best to keep people alive and ticking. To assume that a nurse does any less is simply slanderous. That said, I'm also a Roman Catholic. It was well within that nurse's rights to refuse to assist on an abortion. I don't push my beliefs on anyone, to each their own, but at the same time I don't go out of my way to trounce all over someone's values and ethics as Mount Sinai has done. With a six hour window to find a replacement nurse, the hospital had ample time to find someone who's core being wouldn't be traumatized by working on the case.
It appears, more likely, that she was bullied into assisting in the procedure with harsh language such as "patient abandonment". What makes it worse is that Mount Sinai has written documentation stating that this poor woman was opposed to assisting in abortive procedures. This poor woman is a nurse, a mother, and a wife. To have her predicament compared to slinging burgers, or religious intolerance is nauseating. Not one of the Filipino nurses I work with would want to assist on an abortion, but then again not one them, though I can't speak for the aforementioned nurse, parades around with posters of dead babies in front of abortion clinics. Sorry if I seem a wee bit bitter, but I just got done 12 hours of only KINDA saving a handful of overdoses and traumas.
quote #16
18
 sidran32
2 years ago
« Doggylives:Why should someone be exempt from perfectly reasonable aspects of their job based on their religious beliefs?
The first amendment to the US Constitution, stating:

The Bill of Rights : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If an employee of mine who knew that working weekends was sometimes essential to keep a build on schedule turned round and told me he couldn't work on the Sabbath, I'd fire his ass and find someone who would.

This nurse knew what her duties might entail and if those duties conflicted with her religious beliefs then she shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. Why should religious folk have special pleading when it comes to job roles?

Also, the notion that only organised religions should figure into the "let people off doing what goes against their religion" reasoning would allow a Mormon to get a job in a liquor store and then turn round and tell their employer, "Sorry, it's against my religion to sell alcohol" and still keep their position. It's ridiculous.
Employers should not have to bend and twist job positions to suit the whims and notions of their employees[/quote]The difference is that liquor store employee, unless they are stocking shelves, most likely would be selling alcohol 100% of their time. You would have a case with this comparison if she was hired at an abortion clinic.

If a Mormon was working at a liquor store, I would respect his beliefs, and would put him to work doing something else like bookkeeping or stocking shelves or things like that. It's respect of their beliefs. If I had more positions to fill, then I would fill them.

If you religion keeps you from doing certain things then you don't apply for position where it requires that you do those things.
Of course in some cases the burden is on the person looking for a job to find one that they agree with. However, it is unreasonable to expect all pro-life Catholics here to all of a sudden ditch the idea of health care because of a couple procedures that are certainly available from others who are willing to do them.
quote #17
24
 DerAlt
2 years ago
Any doctor or nurse that requires special treatment for their religious beliefs should be smart enough to understand there will be procedures that conflict with their sense of what is a required duty.

The solution is pretty simple. Plan ahead and only work in religious affiliated hospitals that don't perform these procedures.
quote #18
22
 JoshSF49
2 years ago
« DerAlt : Any doctor or nurse that requires special treatment for their religious beliefs should be smart enough to understand there will be procedures that conflict with their sense of what is a required duty.

The solution is pretty simple. Plan ahead and only work in religious affiliated hospitals that don't perform these procedures.
That's understandable.

But when she was hired, the hospital more than gave her the assumption that she would never have to assist with an abortion.

Secondly, the hospital had ample time to find a replacement, but they wanted to trample all over her rights to not assist with an abortion. Instead, they lied about the patient's condition and threatened her job with "patient abandonment."

To me, it sounds more like the hospital (or her supervisors) wanted to cause her distress and force her to do something she was not comfortable with, just because they knew they could coerce her to do so. If anything, this is a case of one group of people (pro-abortion) forcing their religion upon someone else.

It's ironic, actually.
quote #19
23
 cb__
2 years ago
« DerAlt:Any doctor or nurse that requires special treatment for their religious beliefs should be smart enough to understand there will be procedures that conflict with their sense of what is a required duty.

The solution is pretty simple. Plan ahead and only work in religious affiliated hospitals that don't perform these procedures.
That isn't the issue here, DerAlt. Laws and provisions are -in place- to address and deal with conflicts like this and this hospital chose to ignore them, plain and simple. Everyone who argues otherwise really needs to put aside their feelings about religion and their stance on abortion for a moment and look at it from a purely legal point of view, consider the facts. The hospital was wrong.

And in all my years in the profession, there has never been a circumstance that I refused, or would refuse, to give care based on my religious beliefs. As far as assisting with abortion, however, I (and other like-minded health care professionals) do expect my employer to respect my wishes as guaranteed by law. If not, it is a certainty that this particular nurse, for one, would have found another place of employment from the get-go.
quote #20
24
 DerAlt
2 years ago
« cb__:That isn't the issue here, DerAlt. Laws and provisions are -in place- to address and deal with conflicts like this and this hospital chose to ignore them, plain and simple. Everyone who argues otherwise really needs to put aside their feelings about religion and their stance on abortion for a moment and look at it from a purely legal point of view, consider the facts. The hospital was wrong.

And in all my years in the profession, there has never been a circumstance that I refused, or would refuse, to give care based on my religious beliefs. As far as assisting with abortion, however, I (and other like-minded health care professionals) do expect my employer to respect my wishes as guaranteed by law. If not, it is a certainty that this particular nurse, for one, would have found another place of employment from the get-go.
I respect your point of view and realize that being against abortion is usually but not always a religious view.

But I don't agree with you.

The "conscience clause" was only adopted by 14 states and New York is not one of them. Therefore unless she is a recent hire that clause did not cover her in NY. It was in the waning days of Bush's administration that he changed the rule and extended it to a Federal mandate. But while the rule has not been in effect very long it does seem the hospital may have violated it...maybe.

That would assume that the nurse in question is telling the truth and the hospital is lying. There are too many examples today that people are using lawsuits, not with the conviction they will win, but in the hopes that a prestigious institution like Mt Sinai will settle.

That's off the point of the article but it needs to be considered.

I just can't accept that someone will decide to go into medical or medical support work, like a pharmacist for instance, and decide in advance they are going to make up their own rules. I'll sell this medication but I won't sell that one even though it is a legal drug.

Is she an OR nurse? Will she agree to do D&C procedures or are they too close to being an abortion? We should not be cultivating medical choices like these.

That's carrying personal convictions way too far.
quote #21
+ add a comment
< 1 2 >