Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lawsuit: Race-based request sidelined Michigan nurse


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#46 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:56 AM

Not really.

Racism on the part of the Nazi guy? Yeah, he's an idiot.

Racism on the part of the hospital? No. Just an attempt to avoid a bad situation while dealing with an idiot.



stop posting

#47 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:03 AM

Refer to the note on the medical chart stating no care from blacks allowed. That isn't intent or enabling of racism?


Intent to be racist isn't against any law. I can work with the most bigoted person in the world but if that person doesn't use race to drive me out of a job or pass me over for promotions in favor of a white person then it's not discrimination.

You have to differentiate between "making a decision based on race" and discrimination. The former isn't illegal while the latter is.

I'm not defending anyone and somebody may well be reprimanded by the hospital. But from a legal standpoint the actual lawsuit doesn't have much merit.

#48 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,968 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:30 AM

Just like the people trying to sue Disney, this is just another sad example of someone trying to get a financial payday for doing nothing. Seems like this is now the new American way.

#49 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:31 AM

As for HP, I have no idea the source he got this information from.


Internet search I would guess, but he didn't leave a link.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article612.pdf

#50 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:18 AM

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and suggest that even if your anecdotal evidence isn't just you making something up, in none of those cases were nurses/doctors FORCIBLY reassigned due to their gender, religion, or ethnicity. They voluntarily stepped aside, or the requests were made before anyone had been assigned to the patient's care.


You're seriously reaching here.

Nurses and doctors being told to comply with patient requests is a common thing, regardless of whether the request makes sense or not. Refusal to do so would only be on the grounds that it might hinder the patient's treatment.

And again, other than feeling offended (which isn't actionable) what actual harm is there to the nurse for not handling this particular baby?

The guy's request is crap. The guy is a prick. But again, none of that is the hospital's fault, and their honoring his request to avoid trouble is not grounds for legal damages. Frame it any way you want, but the result is the same.

#51 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,929 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:23 AM

I am truly shocked rightwing huddle would defend racist policies

lol

#52 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

I am truly shocked rightwing huddle would defend racist policies

lol


No shock to see you trying to frame people as racist when they're not.

The hospital took what they saw as the best course of action to avoid problems in an infant care unit with a jackass.

If the hospital actually had "racist policies" there would have been a pattern of actions, not just this one thing based on one patient's request.

Hospitals comply with requests by Muslim husbands that their wives only be seen by female nurses and doctors. Does that make them sexist?

#53 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,929 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:38 AM

What I see here in no unclear terms is that you think it's okay to have any racist demands be accepted and adhered to by the hospital.

#54 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:49 AM

What I see here in no unclear terms is that you think it's okay to have any racist demands be accepted and adhered to by the hospital.


You see wrong (which is no shock).

I think hospitals don't have much choice but to try and honor requests from patients and their families. Sometimes the request itself may be unreasonable or - as in this case - downright odious, but the alternative here is either refusing treatment (in this case, to a baby in need of intensive care) or risking the guy causing trouble inside an infant care unit or having him wait for the nurse and assault her in a parking lot or something worse.

It's not exactly a stretch to think a guy with a Nazi tattoo is capable of violence. And even if hospital security throws him out, are they gonna watch him all the time after? For that matter, doing so gives him grounds for a lawsuit because they'd be preventing him from being there for his wife and child in a dire situation. What if something happens to the baby while he's off the premises?

The hospital was trying to avoid trouble, and I don't blame them for that.

The villain here is the husband, not the hospital.

#55 TheRed

TheRed

    California Dreamin'

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,682 posts
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

Intent to be racist isn't against any law. I can work with the most bigoted person in the world but if that person doesn't use race to drive me out of a job or pass me over for promotions in favor of a white person then it's not discrimination.

You have to differentiate between "making a decision based on race" and discrimination. The former isn't illegal while the latter is.

I'm not defending anyone and somebody may well be reprimanded by the hospital. But from a legal standpoint the actual lawsuit doesn't have much merit.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article612.pdf


Thanks for the link.

We can all give our "opinions" on this matter but luckily it will be left to professionals.

The fact that the hospital lawyer strongly objected to all this and stopped it tells me all I need to know.

#56 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:30 PM

What I see here in no unclear terms is that you think it's okay to have any racist demands be accepted and adhered to by the hospital.


I suspect you are being facetious but I do see this attitude in discussions like these all the time. Nobody is defending racism since this thread isn't about racism per se. It's a discussion from a legal standpoint about whether the case has merit. Which it does not.

The father acted inappropriately as did the hospital for putting up signs. If the lady has truly suffered suffered emotional distress AND the supervisor intended her to suffer in some way, then it's certainly racism and a potential discrimination case.

Smells of frivolous lawsuit to me.

#57 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:39 PM

http://www.eeoc.gov/...se/7-14-11a.cfm

Here is a successful discrimination lawsuit against a hospital. It includes many aspects of discrimination that the above case does not:

Retaliation due to race
Demotion due to race
Segregation due to race
Assignment to crap jobs due to race

#58 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:12 AM

People keep comparing this to Muslim requests for female doctors. This is not the same thing. Religious requests are protected under the constitution. The hospital has to honor them. Racist requests are not. It is not complicated. There are no extenuating circumstances.

Also, the hospital has no obligation to make the husband comfortable, under any circumstances. Any act they take is willful and at their discretion. Hence, their liability in this case. Had the mother made the request, maybe they could have made the argument but not the father, because it is unbelievably irresponsible for a hospital to make decisions based on whether or not some family member is going to be upset. That would be ridiculous and if you take the time to really think about it you would atleast agree with that point.

I understand that some people have a deep-rooted hate for "frivilous" lawsuits. I agree that there is a connection between them and high insurance costs and such. But whether or not this is one, a hospital has an obligation to act with decency and since almost everyone agrees that the request was indecent... This is really not a hard case.

#59 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,561 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:54 AM

People keep comparing this to Muslim requests for female doctors. This is not the same thing. Religious requests are protected under the constitution.


How so?

#60 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 39,917 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:02 PM

People keep comparing this to Muslim requests for female doctors. This is not the same thing. Religious requests are protected under the constitution. The hospital has to honor them. Racist requests are not. It is not complicated. There are no extenuating circumstances.

Also, the hospital has no obligation to make the husband comfortable, under any circumstances. Any act they take is willful and at their discretion. Hence, their liability in this case. Had the mother made the request, maybe they could have made the argument but not the father, because it is unbelievably irresponsible for a hospital to make decisions based on whether or not some family member is going to be upset. That would be ridiculous and if you take the time to really think about it you would atleast agree with that point.

I understand that some people have a deep-rooted hate for "frivilous" lawsuits. I agree that there is a connection between them and high insurance costs and such. But whether or not this is one, a hospital has an obligation to act with decency and since almost everyone agrees that the request was indecent... This is really not a hard case.


Sorry. Wrong on pretty much every point.

First, the constitutional right to religious freedom mandates that you have the right to express your beliefs. It does not mandate that individuals or businesses must comply with any request you make simply because it's based on one of those beliefs.

Second, do you honestly believe that a woman who would marry a Nazi yahoo like this guy is going to be in disagreement with his request?

Third, hospitals in general do make every attempt to help patients and families be comfortable, which includes giving them a say in their treatment. Do you think if a patient requests a certain doctor over another that a hospital's going to say "no, he's better for you" and override them? As my friend the nurse said, they comply with patient wishes as long as it's not detrimental to their care. You can't really make a case that this request fits that mold.

Bottom line: The request sucked, but compliance with it was the lesser of two evils. Like I said, the husband is the villain, not the hospital.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com