Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on July 27, 2021, 03:24:48 PM
-
I’ve just tested positive for COVID (I’m fine - just a wheezy cough, some weariness etc) and have completed a follow q’aire about the text experience. Curiously it asked for my religion, and the first option was “No religion” and the second was “Atheist”.
Why are they asking I wonder, and what’s the difference?
-
I’ve just tested positive for COVID (I’m fine - just a wheezy cough, some weariness etc) and have completed a follow q’aire about the text experience. Curiously it asked for my religion, and the first option was “No religion” and the second was “Atheist”.
Why are they asking I wonder, and what’s the difference?
Get well soon, thinking of you. Haven't got a clueabout the q'aire.
-
Vlad,
Thank you. I intend to...
-
I hope you make a full recovery BHS. Goodness knows why the questionnaire has one about religion.
-
I'll just add my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
I can see the rationale for an ethnic declaration but religion seems a bit odd.
-
Vlad,
Thank you. I intend to...
That's the spirit, Kick it's ass.
-
Thanks all - feeling better already so hopefully there's light at the end of the tunnel - either that or it's a train coming in the opposite direction...
I know the news talks about low vaccination rates in the Muslim community etc so maybe that part of it, but it still seems a bit odd. Oh well - no doubt Dido Harding knows best :'(
-
Get well soon Blue..! Take care. :)
-
I'll simply add my best wishes to those already expressed.
-
Thank you again all. I'm pretty sure mine is mild - unlike perhaps for some of the absent friends we used to have here?
-
Get well soon.
-
I’ve just tested positive for COVID (I’m fine - just a wheezy cough, some weariness etc) and have completed a follow q’aire about the text experience. Curiously it asked for my religion, and the first option was “No religion” and the second was “Atheist”.
Why are they asking I wonder, and what’s the difference?
Interesting. "No religion" means you do not have a religion. "Atheist" means you do have a religion and it is called "Atheist" I guess. Or it could be a catch all for all religions that do not have gods. I believe some forms of Buddhism are atheist.
As for why they are doing it, they probably want to know the demographics of testing. Which religions might be discouraging people from getting tested or vaccinated, or something like that.
-
Hope you're OK, bhs.
Your faith or lack thereof is no-one's business but your own.
Same thing goes for the census (Ours is next year, btw)
The last census had a question on faith stance.
I wrote 'None of your business' as an an answer.
-
Hospitals routinely ask in-patients for their religion in case they snuff it, so that they know which variety of sky-pilot to contact. This is probably the same.
-
Hospitals routinely ask in-patients for their religion in case they snuff it, so that they know which variety of sky-pilot to contact. This is probably the same.
In my local bandage factory, in-patients are asked whether they would permit a hospital chaplain of whichever persuasion to visit them. They have to affirm this; even were they committed to specific faith or humanist, failure to do so, or let their next of kin do so on their behalf, will mean no such visit can take place.
There have been a few issues over that, when patients have not realised the implications and have been miffed to see their minister or priest - or Moslem leader - pass their room without poppong in.
-
I’ve just tested positive for COVID (I’m fine - just a wheezy cough, some weariness etc) and have completed a follow q’aire about the text experience. Curiously it asked for my religion, and the first option was “No religion” and the second was “Atheist”.
Why are they asking I wonder, and what’s the difference?
Get well soon mate!
Just have to ask, what the hell is a "follow q'aire"?
-
In my local bandage factory, in-patients are asked whether they would permit a hospital chaplain of whichever persuasion to visit them. They have to affirm this; even were they committed to specific faith or humanist, failure to do so, or let their next of kin do so on their behalf, will mean no such visit can take place.
Which is exactly as it should be. Let's not forget that in patients in hospital are effectively a 'captive audience' and also in many cases in a vulnerable situation and in those circumstances the 'freedom from religion' element of our religious freedoms is never more important. So in the context of a visit from a religious chaplain it must always be based on clear opt-in consent from the patient. Not that this always happens as I can attest with both my parents during stays in hospital where there were unwanted visitations from chaplains despite there being no consent.
There have been a few issues over that, when patients have not realised the implications and have been miffed to see their minister or priest - or Moslem leader - pass their room without poppong in.
As mentioned above, the opposite is my experience. And regardless, if someone hasn't consented then they should not be visited - in which case the process seems to be working. And if that person is miffed all they need to do is to say to a nurse etc that they'd like a visit next time the chaplain is passing and their consent will be respected no doubt.
-
In my local bandage factory, in-patients are asked whether they would permit a hospital chaplain of whichever persuasion to visit them. They have to affirm this; even were they committed to specific faith or humanist, failure to do so, or let their next of kin do so on their behalf, will mean no such visit can take place.
There have been a few issues over that, when patients have not realised the implications and have been miffed to see their minister or priest - or Moslem leader - pass their room without poppong in.
So long as the issues of consent are respected (see by earlier post), I've no issue with religious chaplains in hospitals. However they should be paid for by that religious organisation, not from the NHS budget. Currently the NHS spends tens of millions each years on specifically religious chaplains. That is wrong.
-
So long as the issues of consent are respected (see by earlier post), I've no issue with religious chaplains in hospitals. However they should be paid for by that religious organisation, not from the NHS budget. Currently the NHS spends tens of millions each years on specifically religious chaplains. That is wrong.
NHS does spend on chaplaincy - but 'chaplaincy' is not confined to religious personages.
One local health authority near me employs a humanist chaplain.
The only full time CofS chaplain in my own patch is technically employed by the Ayrshire Hospice. Since he's also a qualified psychologist, his role is wide ranging. He's due to retire this year, and the hospice are looking for a replacement, not necerraly a religious person, but with similar medical qualification.
I fully agree that 'normal' chaplains should be paid for by their organisation, with the proviso that, if their hospital appointjment is official, a team from the health board vett the applicant first.
-
NHS does spend on chaplaincy - but 'chaplaincy' is not confined to religious personages.
One local health authority near me employs a humanist chaplain.
The only full time CofS chaplain in my own patch is technically employed by the Ayrshire Hospice. Since he's also a qualified psychologist, his role is wide ranging. He's due to retire this year, and the hospice are looking for a replacement, not necerraly a religious person, but with similar medical qualification.
I fully agree that 'normal' chaplains should be paid for by their organisation, with the proviso that, if their hospital appointjment is official, a team from the health board vett the applicant first.
Which is why I clearly said religious chaplains - these should not be paid for by the NHS. And in the case of your CofS chaplain funding should be divided, I have no issue with the NHS funding his work as a psychologist, acting in a clinical capacity, but the CofS should cover the costs of his religious work, and there needs to be a clear demarkation between the two roles.
-
Which is why I clearly said religious chaplains - these should not be paid for by the NHS. And in the case of your CofS chaplain funding should be divided, I have no issue with the NHS funding his work as a psychologist, acting in a clinical capacity, but the CofS should cover the costs of his religious work, and there needs to be a clear demarkation between the two roles.
I'd contend that demarcation in an end-of-life situation is the last consideration - as, of course, is proselytising.
-
I'd contend that demarcation in an end-of-life situation is the last consideration - as, of course, is proselytising.
But the demarkation is incredibly important as a person may consent to receiving the support of a clinical psychologist but not want input from a religious chaplain. If there is any blurring of the boundaries then that patient's wishes are not being respected. And it is all the more important to respect patient's wishes in end of life situations.
A little anecdote from me - when my dad was terminally ill and had just a few days to live in a hospice-type wing of his local hospital (not a million miles from you AM) I visited one day to find a small bible and a kind of prayer guide booklet on his bed-side cabinet. I was somewhat confused as my father was not religious and had no truck with religious chaplains and certainly didn't consent to a visit. One of his closest friends was a very committed christian so I suspected he might have been responsible and when we were both at his bedside his friend clearly picked up on a glance of mine at the material on the bedside cabinet. They hadn't come from my dad's friend but from the chaplain, who my dad's friend knew. His response - 'well I know your dad didn't want him here, but he gets a bit over enthusiastic about his work at times'. I'm sorry but this is just wrong, and all the worse taking place at an end of life situation.
-
Hospitals routinely ask in-patients for their religion in case they snuff it, so that they know which variety of sky-pilot to contact. This is probably the same.
You could be right.
-
But the demarkation is incredibly important as a person may consent to receiving the support of a clinical psychologist but not want input from a religious chaplain. If there is any blurring of the boundaries then that patient's wishes are not being respected. And it is all the more important to respect patient's wishes in end of life situations.
A little anecdote from me - when my dad was terminally ill and had just a few days to live in a hospice-type wing of his local hospital (not a million miles from you AM) I visited one day to find a small bible and a kind of prayer guide booklet on his bed-side cabinet. I was somewhat confused as my father was not religious and had no truck with religious chaplains and certainly didn't consent to a visit. One of his closest friends was a very committed christian so I suspected he might have been responsible and when we were both at his bedside his friend clearly picked up on a glance of mine at the material on the bedside cabinet. They hadn't come from my dad's friend but from the chaplain, who my dad's friend knew. His response - 'well I know your dad didn't want him here, but he gets a bit over enthusiastic about his work at times'. I'm sorry but this is just wrong, and all the worse taking place at an end of life situation.
Were that chaplain on the staff of the hospital, he/she should have been suspended pending inquiry.
If your dad had stated his faith stance, then the chaplain should not have been nvolved.
However, there are very significant differences between an end of life care unit in a hospital and a hospice.
NHS involvement in the latter is purly confined to pain relief and any other medical concern, wheras the rest of the work with residents is usually as far removed from a hospital scenario as it is possible within the limitation of the illness.
Roles of staff are therefore 'morphed'.
If a resident wishes to talk, then there is no division of responsibility.
Most do wish some spiritual counselling, others simply wish someone to be with them and talk about trivia. The conversation must, in every circumstance, be led by the resident.
Since the situation in a hospice is more relaxed, it's not as easy to monitor such conversation - nor, for very obvious reasons, should it be.
I was once a volunteer counsellor there - about five years after the hospice opened. If a person asked me what I believed, we'd discuss it. If they didn't, we didn't - but that was fine by me; this was their journey, not mine.
-
Were that chaplain on the staff of the hospital, he/she should have been suspended pending inquiry.
I don't know whether he was on the staff of the hospital - I had other, more pressing matters to deal with as you might imagine.
If your dad had stated his faith stance, then the chaplain should not have been nvolved.
But it is an opt in so it should be the other way around - it shouldn't rely on my father stating anything (although I'm pretty sure he would have done). The only time a religious chaplain should be involved is if there is a clear indication from the patient that they consent to them being involved. A statement to the contrary or no statement at all should both lead to the patient not being visited by the chaplain.
-
ad,
Get well soon mate!
Just have to ask, what the hell is a "follow q'aire"?
Thank you.
Sorry, I should have said “follow-up” there. I had the test on Monday morning, got the result Tuesday morning and soon after was sent a q’aire about how I found the texting experience (“Were the staff helpful?” etc). Normally I don’t respond to q’aires, but given the circs I thought I should.
-
Steve,
Hospitals routinely ask in-patients for their religion in case they snuff it, so that they know which variety of sky-pilot to contact. This is probably the same.
I don't think so. Yes it makes sense for hospitals (in case the worst happens) but this was more a "Help us improve our service by answering a few questions about your experience" type of deal.
-
ad,
Thank you.
Sorry, I should have said “follow-up” there. I had the test on Monday morning, got the result Tuesday morning and soon after was sent a q’aire about how I found the texting experience (“Were the staff helpful?” etc). Normally I don’t respond to q’aires, but given the circs I thought I should.
I didn't know what q'aire meant. Of course, I could just google it. :)
-
I didn't know what q'aire meant. Of course, I could just google it. :)
Questionnaire
-
Steve,
I don't think so. Yes it makes sense for hospitals (in case the worst happens) but this was more a "Help us improve our service by answering a few questions about your experience" type of deal.
Yes seems a slightly odd question to ask, and usually there are standard stock 'tick-box' answers just like for ethnicity. I've certainly never seen a question asked on religion with both 'no religion' and 'atheist' as options.
When you report lateral flow test results via the NHS system they ask about age, sex and ethnicity, which make sense as building up data on who is, and isn't getting infected is useful in a demographic context. They don't ask about religion however.
-
Questionnaire
I thought it was some French phrase. LOL!
-
Just to go off topic for a mo, I thought I'd cheer myself up by watching some decent sport on the Olympics coverage. All I can find instead though is dancing horses (there don't seem to be many African competitors oddly...).
Any new sports nominations for the Paris Olympics to come - Eton fives maybe? Carriage driving perhaps?
-
Just to go off topic for a mo, I thought I'd cheer myself up by watching some decent sport on the Olympics coverage. All I can find instead though is dancing horses (there don't seem to be many African competitors oddly...).
Any new sports nominations for the Paris Olympics to come - Eton fives maybe? Carriage driving perhaps?
Isn't "dancing horses" what we always used to call dressage? If so, it's been in the Olympics for quite a while.
-
Jeremy,
Isn't "dancing horses" what we always used to call dressage? If so, it's been in the Olympics for quite a while.
“Tokyo 2020 will embrace ‘Diversity’ by celebrating the differences of individuals, while ‘Inclusion’ will see people accepted and respected regardless of age, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or intellectual or physical impairment (provided they can afford a dancing horse)."
Can you guess which bit I added? ;)
Also (I’m on a roll now by the way) what hell is the carbon footprint from shipping horses to the other side of the world and back again?
And another thing... (wanders off mumbling to himself, trying to kick a passing stray dog but missing etc).
-
Jeremy,
“Tokyo 2020 will embrace ‘Diversity’ by celebrating the differences of individuals, while ‘Inclusion’ will see people accepted and respected regardless of age, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or intellectual or physical impairment (provided they can afford a dancing horse)."
Can you guess which bit I added? ;)
Also (I’m on a roll now by the way) what hell is the carbon footprint from shipping horses to the other side of the world and back again?
And another thing... (wanders off mumbling to himself, trying to kick a passing stray dog but missing etc).
Wee point.
As I read this, my screen reader speed was at the highest level.
What I read was "....the carbon footprint for shitting horses..."
My mind went off in several directions at that point; not all blessed with coherance.
-
Anchs,
Wee point.
As I read this, my screen reader speed was at the highest level.
What I read was "....the carbon footprint for shitting horses..."
My mind went off in several directions at that point; not all blessed with coherance.
Are you sure that's a "wee" point? :)
Anyway, we're right off topic now (my fault) so that's enough Dave Spartism from me for one day.