Nurse: We all prayed for you at church. Now how's the knee? Patient: Oh, about the same.

A nurse was suspended after offering to pray for the recovery of an elderly patient, it emerged yesterday. Caroline Petrie was accused of failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity after the incident and is awaiting the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

The community nurse, who lives in Weston-super-Mare and carries out home visits, has been suspended by North Somerset primary care trust and could lose her job. Petrie, a Baptist who has two children, said she had not forced her beliefs on anyone, but had simply asked if the woman would like a prayer said for her.

Petrie said the incident that led to her suspension occurred after she visited a woman in Winscombe in December. She said she asked the woman: Would you like me to pray for you? after putting dressings on her legs. The woman replied No, thank you, and Petrie insists she did not press the matter.

The woman, understood to be in her 70s, is believed to have told the trust about the incident. Petrie was challenged by her superiors.

Update: Prayers Answered?

7th February 2009. See article from telegraph.co.uk

Following overwhelming public support for Caroline Petrie, the Christian nurse who was suspended after she offered to pray for an elderly patient, her employers have caved said she could return to her job.

Sir Patrick Cormack, the Tory MP for South Staffordshire, claimed that her case had highlighted the utter absurdities of political correctness.

Meanwhile a little-noticed document published by the Department of Health last month gives warning that attempts by doctors or nurses to preach to other staff or patients will be treated as harassment or intimidation under disciplinary procedures.

Faith groups said the guidelines were so vague that they could mean action could be taken against anyone who talks about their beliefs to fellow workers or patients.

The document, called Religion or Belief: A Practical Guide for the NHS, states: Members of some religions... are expected to preach and to try to convert other people. In a workplace environment this can cause many problems, as non-religious people and those from other religions or beliefs could feel harassed and intimidated by this behaviour.

To avoid misunderstandings and complaints on this issue, it should be made clear to everyone from the first day of training and/or employment, and regularly restated, that such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures.

North Somerset Primary Care Trust carried out an internal investigation and concluded: It is acceptable to offer spiritual support as part of care when the patient asks for it. But for nurses, whose principal role is giving nursing care, the initiative lies with the patient and not the nurse.

A Muslim dentist refused to treat patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress, it was alleged. Omer Butt ordered women to put on head scarves or he would not register them or their families at his NHS-funded clinic, it was claimed.

The GDC heard how Butt believed it was his duty to stop Muslim patients committing what he believed was Al-Kaba'ir, a religious sin. He even put a laminated sign on the wall of his waiting room telling patients they would have to adhere to his strict dress code or find another dentist.

John Snell, for the GDC, said: He sought to impose a dress code on patients attending his practice. He required that women cover their hair with a head scarf, or hijab, and that male patients remove any gold jewellery.

If he had simply expressed a preference, without imposing any compulsion to adhere to this dress code, there may be no cause for complaint. However, he insisted - and those who did not comply were refused treatment.

He made compliance with Islamic dress code a condition of treatment, which is entirely inappropriate under the auspices of the National Health Service. Patients should have access to NHS treatment regardless of their religious observance, or otherwise.

Butt denies charges of misconduct for his treatment of two patients at the clinic. If found guilty he faces being removed the dental register. In September 2007 Butt was formally reprimanded by the GDC for similar behaviour and found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

The hearing continues.

Ok Ok...no jewellery How about a hair band?

A hospital has defended its decision to ban a member of staff from wearing a Christian cross, saying it was about safety not religion.

Helen Slatter was warned by the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital that she would be sent home if she did not adhere to the trust's uniform policy.

The NHS trust said necklaces and chains could spread infection and were also a possible health and safety risk.

She was called to a disciplinary hearing on Friday where the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust explained the uniform policy to her. A spokesman for the trust said: The issue is not one of religion; the trust employs a uniform policy which must be adhered to at all times. This policy applies to all staff employed by the trust and who wear a uniform on duty. Necklaces and chains present two problems; firstly, they provide a surface that can harbour and spread infections, and secondly they present a health and safety issue whereby a patient could grab a necklace or chain and cause harm to the member of staff.

Ok Ok...no crucifix Can I wear a hair band?

A Christian hospital worker who was ordered to remove a crucifix which could harbour infection has left her job in protest.

Helen Slatter was told by Gloucestershire Royal Hospital the necklace posed a health and safety risk and could even be used as weapon.

Ms Slatter, a blood sampler - or phlebologist - was not content to accept the hospital's offer that she wear the emblem in her pocket and has now resigned.

When the row erupted in May the trust said: The issue is not one of religion. The trust employs a uniform policy which must be adhered to at all times. Necklaces and chains present two problems - firstly they provide a surface that can harbour and spread infections, and secondly they present a health and safety issue whereby a patient could grab a necklace or chain and cause harm to a member of staff.

Doctors are demanding that NHS staff be given a right to discuss spiritual issues with patients as well as being allowed to offer to pray for them.

Medics will tell the British Medical Association conference this week that staff should not be disciplined as long as they handle the issue sensitively.

The doctors said recent cases where health workers had got into trouble were making people fearful. The doctors, who are behind the motion being discussed at the Liverpool conference, are unhappy about the guidance that has been issued.

The General Medical Council code suggests that discussing religion can be part of care provided to patients - as long as the individual's wishes are respected.

At the start of this year the Department of Health issued guidance warning about proselytising. It said that discussing religion could be interpreted as an attempt to convert which could be construed as a form of harassment.

The Department of Health said it was the responsibility of the NHS Chaplaincy Service to meet the spiritual needs of patients. A spokeswoman said: We are committed to the principle of ensuring that patients and staff in the NHS have access to the spiritual care that they want, whatever faith or belief system they follow. Although all staff should be sensitive to religious needs and preferences of patients, the delivery of spiritual care should be provided by the hospital chaplaincy service.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, agreed it was not the role of doctors and nurses to bring up religion: The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say 'yes' thinking their care will suffer. Really, it is an infringement of their privacy. I think we should be very clear that patients should have to ask for this, not offered it.

AA Muslim NHS dentist faces being struck off after a tribunal ruled he tried to force patients to wear traditional Islamic dress before treating them.

Omer Butt ordered female patients to wear headscarves and forced men to take off gold jewellery before allowing them into the dentists' chair. He even kept a box full of hijabs at his practice so he could lend them to women before checking their teeth.

Butt enforced his religious dress code despite previously being warned by the General Dental Council for the same offence. The GDC has ruled Butt imposed a general dress code at his practice, the Unsworth Smile Clinic in Bury, Lancashire, for more than two years from April 2005.

Butt was also found to have confrontations with two patients known as Ms B and Mr C and their families during that period. The panel will now decide what action to take.

Your evidence was that you regard yourself as a Muslim first and a dentist second and it is clear you were using your position as a dentist to seek to influence patients as to non-clinical issues, committee chairwoman Gill Brown told the dentist.

You have explained you had a moral and religious obligation to persuade other Muslims to comply with Islamic requirements. The committee is satisfied from all the evidence that your attitude went beyond merely seeking to persuade, request or advise Muslim patients and that you sought to impose the dress code upon them.

Update: 'Headscarf' request dentist can work on

Based on article from thescotsman.scotsman.com

Dentist Omer Butt who told Muslim patients he would treat them only if they wore Islamic dress, will be able to continue to practise, a General Dental Council panel has ruled.
It noted that he had changed his approach after he ordered two women to wear headscarfs.

Doctors have voted down a Christian motion at the BMA conference this week that would have given carte blanche for religious medical practitioners to share their faith without restraint. The motion had called for doctors not to be suspended for offering to pray for patients.

The Conference also rejected a motion saying that abortion services should not be advertised on television and calling for values-based education on sex and relationships.

The notion of a values-based education was opposed by members who were worried that the wording was unspecific and that values were perceived differently according to the individual.

Commenting on the decision to retain the rule discouraging doctors from offering prayers to patients, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: The restrictions are there for a very important reason – to protect patients from embarrassment, irritation and possible conflict with their doctor. If patients want to raise the issue with their doctor or nurse, that is a different matter, but we think the initiative should rest entirely with the patient.

Sanderson said that the NHS was spending more than £40 million on hospital chaplains whose job was to pray and offer spiritual comfort to patients. Sick people want doctors to take care of their physical health and a clergyman to take care of their spiritual health. Doctors and nurses have enough to do without burdening themselves with the need to pray with patients.

A Christian nurse who refused to remove a crucifix at work has lost her claim for discrimination after an employment tribunal panel ruled that she should have reached a compromise with her hospital employers.

Shirley Chaplin suggested that her religious beliefs would be violated if she took off the necklace because she felt that she was being asked to hide her faith. She had the support of a number of bishops who claim that Christians are being persecuted in an increasingly secular society. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also criticised a wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness that prevents people from wearing religious symbols at work.

John Hollow, the tribunal chairman, ruled that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital had acted reasonably in trying to reach a compromise. It had argued that the objection to the crucifix, which Chaplin had worn for 30 years, was based on health and safety concerns about patients grabbing the necklace, not religion.

The hospital came up with a series of compromises after Mrs Chaplin's case was taken up by the Christian Legal Centre. Managers suggested that she pin it to her uniform or wear it on her identity lanyard.

Hollow suggested that the damage to Chaplin, who wore the jewellery each day to the hearing in Exeter, had been slight and noted that wearing a cross was not a requirement of the Christian faith.

After the judgment Chaplin claimed that every Christian would now be afraid to reveal their beliefs at work, adding: This is a very bad day for Christianity.

The Christian Legal Centre intends to appeal.

Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has warned of future civil unrest if judges continue with disturbing and dangerous rulings in religious discrimination cases.

He intervened in a case being brought by a Bristol solicitor and relationship counsellor who wants a special panel of five senior judges to hear his appeal against being sacked for refusing to counsel homosexual couples.

Carey attacked the courts over a series of disturbing judgments and accused judges of being responsible for some dangerous reasoning which could, if taken to extremes, lead to Christians being banned from the workplace.

Carey said it was but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a religious bar to any employment by Christians.

Carey, who said he had the support of several other Anglican bishops and other leading churchmen, also attacked recent decisions by the Court of Appeal on the right of Christians to wear crosses in the workplace. These displayed a worrying lack of awarness of Christian religious and cultural manifestations, he said.

This type of 'reasoning' is dangerous to the social order and represents clear animus to Christian beliefs. The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other faiths feel compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions and cases is illuminative of a future civil unrest.

The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries. If there is to be a limitation of Christian liberties in Britain, this should be a matter for Parliament.

45% of medical students surveyed hink doctors should be allowed to object to any procedure that conflicts with their personal, moral, or religious beliefs. 40% disagreed and 14% were unsure.

The survey, published in the Journal for Medical Ethics, found Muslim students were the most likely to support the right to refuse to treat a patient who wanted an abortion, contraceptive services, or who was drunk or on drugs, or who required an intimate examination and was of the opposite sex. 76% of Muslim students supported the right to object, as did over half of Jewish and Protestant students. Support was lower among Catholics, 46% and Hindus 34%.

The survey contacted 1437 medical students at medical schools in Leeds, London, and Cardiff, and asked them to complete an anonymous questionnaire to canvass their views on conscientious objection.

Report author Dr Sophie Strickland said: Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine.

A Christian midwife who sued hospital bosses for making her wear scrub trousers rather than a dress in the operating theatre has lost her religious discrimination claim.

Hannah Adewole claimed a command in the Bible forbids women from wearing trousers.

In Deuteronomy 22:5 (New International Version) it states: A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who doesn't

She sought £7,000 in compensation from Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, but her claims of religious discrimination and harassment were thrown out at East London Employment Tribunal.

It ruled the strict uniform policy in force at Queen's Hospital in Romford, Essex, where she works did not disadvantage Christians unduly as a group. It concluded the policy was 'legitimate and proportionate for infection control'.

Adewole had complained that Christian midwives were being treated less favourably than their Muslim colleagues. Muslim midwives were allowed to vary standard uniform with their own hijabs and tops, the tribunal heard.

Mrs Adewole's solicitor Lawrence Davies said she might appeal.

There's something wearying about the seemingly endless procession of religious discrimination cases coming before courts and employment tribunals. But the case of Dr Richard Scott, currently being heard by the General Medical Council, is really a remarkable one. The accusation against the Margate GP is that he inappropriately discussed religion with a patient, a vulnerable and depressed 24-year old. To be more specific, having first gained the patient's consent to broach the topic, he explained that Christianity might be of greater benefit than the religion (unspecified) to which the patient currently adheres. Becoming a Christian, it was implied, might help him get better.

Dr Scott can at least not be accused of springing Christianity on his patients without due warning. He belongs to a Christian-oriented practice, the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate. Until recently, the official NHS website carried a profile of the surgery which stated:

The 6 Partners are all practising Christians from a variety of Churches and their faith guides the way in which they view their work and responsibilities to the patients and employees. The Partners feel that the offer of talking to you on spiritual matters is of great benefit. If you do not wish this, that is your right and will not affect your medical care. Please tell the doctor (or drop a note to the Practice Manager) if you do not wish to speak on matters of faith.

...Read the full article

The UK's doctor police of the General Medical Council (GMC) have proposed a new draft of their guidance to be taken to consultation later this month. The proposal adds a duty for GPs to consider patients' religious, spiritual and cultural history when assessing patients.

Its previous guidance had stated: You must not unfairly discriminate by allowing your personal views to affect adversely your professional relationship with patients. Its new version removes the word adversely, requiring GPs to challenge their colleagues' behaviour if there is any effect to the professional relationship.

There is a seriously disturbing article on the blog of a theologically and liturgically conservative Roman Catholic priest that impinges on issues of free speech.

Margaret Forrester has effectively been sacked for handing to a colleague a booklet expressing views about abortion which are held, like it or not, by huge numbers of Christians, Jews and Muslims, at least. (I don't know enough about the doctrines of, say, Hinduism or Sikhism to comment on their views.)

Seeking peacefully to persuade others to share your belief (or disbelief) is surely a pretty basic aspect of freedom of religion - or am I missing something?

See article from marymagdalen.blogspot.com:

On 15th November the Central London Employment Tribunal will begin to hear the case of Margaret Forrester v Central London NHS Trust. The case is an important one not just for Catholics and other Christians but for everyone who believes in Freedom of Speech.

Margaret Forrester was employed by the NHS as a Mental Health worker and in the course of a conversation with an NHS colleague who worked as a receptionist organising Abortion appointments she gave her colleague a booklet called Forsaken in which 5 women who have had Abortions talk about their experience of Abortion and how it affected them.

A few days after the booklet was given to the receptionist Margaret was suspended and subsequently disciplined for Gross Misconduct the wording of the Disciplinary Charge was

You distributed material which individuals may find offensive which is described in the Statement of Case presented to the Tribunal as a charge which is so vague as to be meaningless Margaret was given a final written warning and told she would be moved to another department. She subsequently objected to the move and was then sacked. It is very important to note that

The Booklet was NOT given to any NHS patient and it was never suggested by Margaret that it should be given to any patient

The conversation between Margaret and her colleague was cordial and the colleague did not object to receiving the booklet and has never suggested that it was forced on her. Indeed the NHS are not even calling her as a witness in the Employment case.

The Booklet simply consists of Five women talking about their own experiences of Abortion and how they felt about it then and afterwards. It does NOT say that Abortion is a sin though some of the women say that is how they now regard it

The Booklet does NOT contain any graphic images or descriptions of Abortion

Margaret had NOT given this or any similar booklet to any colleagues in the NHS before and had never been told that she was not allowed to do so.

In their defence given to the Tribunal the NHS states that their reason for disciplining Margaret is because the Forsaken booklet offered a religious view on Abortion ie they admit they objected to it because it is religious. They objected to it because one of the women who has had an Abortion said that she now regards what she did as a sin.

A Christian doctor is suing his employers for unfair dismissal after being sacked following his sending of a motivational prayer e-mail to colleagues and a Christmas text message to one individual.

Dr David Drew's employers at Walsall Manor Hospital complained that his behaviour was inappropriate after he e-mailed a prayer by St Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, to colleagues for motivation.

The employment tribunal in Birmingham heard that his bosses also complained that he sent a Christmas text message to a colleague which read have a peaceful Christmas.

The Doctor was finally dismissed after he failed to accept one of the recommendations of the investigation against him which ordered that he refrain from using religious references in his professional communications, verbal or written. He was told that unless he agreed to the recommendations and accept them without questioning then he should resign.

The hearing continues.

A Christian doctor sacked after emailing a prayer to colleagues has lost his claim for unfair dismissal after a tribunal judge ruled that there was no place for religious references at work.

Dr David Drew told an employment tribunal that he was made to feel like a religious maniac after sending out the prayer by St Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, to motivate his department.

But Employment Judge David Kearsley ruled that if complaints were made about Muslim or Hindu doctors who had quoted from holy texts, they too would be asked to refrain from such behaviour. Similarly, if an atheist consultant caused unease by trying to educate his colleagues about the works of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, he or she would be treated in the same way.

The Birmingham tribunal heard that he had also sent emails to colleagues in which he quoted from poems and from the Bible. One said he found it strange and another felt they were bizarre and inappropriate.

Dr Drew said that the case would have major implications for any workplace: This means that you cannot be yourself in the workplace, you cannot say 'I am a Christian'.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which brought a string of other court cases involving claims of discrimination against Christians at work, said:

This is like the shutting down of identity. This approach to Christians is like forcing them to deny their identity -- being Christian isn't something which you take off when you go to work.

To say that it is not appropriate to say that you are a Christian at work is to totally misunderstand our history, our heritage, freedom under the law, freedom of religion, it is deeply illiberal, it is wrong.