This court decided that race wasn’t an appropriate criteria for discrimination, though sex is. I’m not really interested in talking about the law as it is but the law as it should be.
So, should nursing homes and similar facilities abide by patient wishes when it comes to the races of their caregivers? Should racism be accommodated in circumstances like this?
Is the larger question how much control the nursing home or facility should have over the medically “safest” choice for the patient? Should the patient have full rights to all decisions while under the care of the nursing home, or should their dangerous decisions be curtailed?
This is a hard one. We see a lot of patients with racist attitudes towards nurses, and the general way of handling it is to roll our eyes and make them suck it up if they’re only there short term, and quietly without fanfare attempt to accommodate them in they’re in long term. But if you need care and the only people on shift are of the “wrong” color, you get what we got.
(Actually, the most common form of racism I’ve seen personally is Black patients treating Black nurses like crap. Yelling, hitting, ignoring, spitting, swearing at them, etc. Then I walk in with my white face and blonde hair and suddenly they’re quiet, cooperative and sweeter than pie. Grr.)
I can see why it would be hard on patients to be subjected to the stress of being cared for by someone they hate, rationally or no. From a nursing perspective, emotional stress is just as detrimental to one’s health as physical stress, and we work to eliminate patient stress as much as possible.
From a human perspective, much as I try to understand the culture that racist older folks were brought up in and that their attitudes are deeply ingrained…I think they’re assholes. I’ll still provide you good care if I’m the “right color” nurse assigned to your care, but you can bet your sweet bippy you ain’t getting any special considerations or treats from me, and I’m following Nursing Practice Act to the letter of the law and not a single step further. That means I’m not spending any time searching for apple juice if your doc says you can drink orange, and your family members are leaving exactly at the end of visiting hours, and don’t even think about asking me to snag you an extra magazine or chocolate bar. Sorry, but I’m human, too.
Ewww. Gross question. Gross because I’m reluctantly holding my nose and saying that a person’s desires should be accommodated where possible.
This doesn’t mean I can put “must get a blowjob every Tuesday” and have that honored, but if I was fully ambulatory and could walk up to salesperson X or Y because I like the cut of their jib or disliked the cut of another’s, I should remain free to accept or decline services in my care.
Clearly, if someone is left on the floor for an extra hour and comes to harm because their preferred caretaker is not available, they cannot then complain of any additional injury.
In addition, they can be expected to pay whatever reasonable costs are associated with my requests. That is, if I demand that only left-handed people take care of me, and the facility needs to charge me more to cover additional staffing, I can either pay their higher, reasonable rates or they can refuse me as a patient (or refuse my request).
Basically, in a situation where someone is seeking services, I don’t see penalizing that person for having preferences, nor do I see penalizing the institution for carrying out those preferences (within limits, of course).
I’m a little surprise Chaney pursued this. Senile bigots aren’t going to play along with court rulings - it just creates more hassle for the residence. I figure if you prefer to lie on the ground until the “right” attendant comes along… well… go ahead and lie there, you damned old fool.
I think it’s a question of who did the discriminating here. Was it the workplaces idea to limit what black employees could do, or was it the end user of their service? If it originated from the workplace, then it is clearly discrimination. If it originated from the customer, well, people are free to pick who provides them services on whatever criteria they want.
This case is in a gray area since the company was acting on behalf of the customers wishes. Still, ethically speaking, I believe since the discrimination originated with the customer then the company shouldn’t be found at fault. It wasn’t the companies idea, and the company didn’t go overboard by, for example, prohibiting blacks from working at that location entirely.
It also brings to mind a question, if the old woman had said she doesn’t want Brenda Chaney specifically to assist her rather than the broader she doesn’t want blacks to assist her, would the company be discriminatory to honor that request? What if the request was made for the sole reason that Brenda was black? What if the old woman was fine with blacks but thought Brenda was just a bad nurse? Does the customers reasons matter or is the simple fact the request was made all that’s important?
If enough clients requested “no gingers!” in their file, wouldn’t that likely affect an institution’s hiring practices? Scheduling practices? A client shouldn’t be able to compel or motivate a facility to do anything it couldn’t legally do–such as discriminate in hiring or make other decisions based on race.
Perhaps the solution is for the institution to say to its clients:
“We do not discriminate on the basis of race. If you are unwilling to be served by staff of a particular race, then perhaps it is better that you don’t use our services at all. If you do want to use our services, then you must accept that you will be served by the staff available, regardless of race.”
And I’m curious what she thinks that is, what her best-case scenario outcome is. The employer doesn’t take these patients? The employer tries to make clear to the patient (who may or may not be fully lucid) that these conditions won’t be honoured? The employer gives her extra salary to have to deal with these patients?
Let’s assume they take on a long-term resident who a few years in starts to insist on whites-only. Then what? Kick 'em out?
No. The facility’s obligation is to provide appropriately trained/qualified staff and proper care. If the caregiver is qualified to provide the care needed, and provides proper care, the facility has fulfilled it’s obligation. If the patient can’t accept that, they should be free to seek services elsewhere.
I don’t understand this at all? If we accommodate patients for this, then why not allow me to specify that I only want a white clerk to wait on me at the DMV?
Well, you don’t live at the DMV. The DMV is not responsible for your day-to-day medical care. And though the lines at the DMV can be long, they’re not (usually) long enough for you to start sliding into senile dementia while waiting your turn.
I don’t like it, either, but I have to figure this is akin to treating mental patients with odd obsessions and aversions (in some cases, it’s probably exactly like treating mental patients with odd obsessions and aversions). No amount of court rulings can make them comply, and I’m unclear on how much compliance the employer alone can give.
Then then the relatives of the “senile bigot” turn around and sue the nursing home.
Didn’t we have a thread awhile back where a doper with a elderly (grand)mother in a nursing home ran into problems getting them not let Black male aids bathe or provide personal car to the old lady because it was too traumatic for her and she kept thinking she was being raped?
You can refuse to be serviced by a non-white clerk at the DMV. It may mean you’ll have to go at certain times when whitey is working or go through the line again if luck of the draw gives you a non-white person. However, you are perfectly able to not have a non-white assist you. In fact, if you choose, you can just not deal with the DMV at all.
Now contrast that to the nursing home. The patient has little control over being there, often it wasn’t their decision nor was the choice of nursing home in their control. The patient has little if any control over the employees. They have to interact with the employees a LOT more than you have to interact with the DMV. They don’t have the option of leaving and going somewhere else. So should grandma have to tough it out and be forced to live her final days surrounded by people who make her miserable when she had no choice in the matter?
Note: I’m not saying I support racism. I personally think asking someone to not help you because of their skin color is absolutely moronic. Should be thankful anyone at all is willing and able to help. However, I also don’t support forcing racists to deal with blacks helps things any. And in this case, because the patient is unable to make a choice or do without, they are in effect being forced.
The article specifically mentioned that it is ok to enforce a patients desire for the opposite sex to not care for them. Presumably for exactly this sort of reason.
It sounds like you’re assuming the patient will just shrug in disappointment and carry on. I suggest that even if the reasoning is stupid and bigoted, not playing along can easily create more stress for the patient, in a situation where stress can actively interfere with health care and longevity.
I know the injustice of it sucks and all, but in this limited case, there’s not much to be gained (it’s not like somebody in their eighties is going to come around) except a lot of additional hassle.
And as for potentially-suing relatives, what happens when they side with their parent who was touched against their will by a black person? It’s a no-win all around.
Eh, well… life isn’t all skittles and beer. Even when you’re old.
My concern, believe it or not, is not about making crotchety old white people better human beings (or making white people happy or relaxed or anything really—let’s stop being so concerned about the welfare of white people for a moment). It rather has more to do with not subject the medical staff of color to those kind of indignities.
Well until a motion to dismiss/summary judgment. Then it becomes a white-people-lose-nursing-home-wins situation.
My knee-jerk reaction is that this isn’t discrimination at all. The government, landlords, and some businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate. Customers can. (Note to self: leave instructions to only be touched by female nurses under 30.) In this case, the nurse did not lose her job, did not have any sort of effect on her job, nor was her earning ability harmed in any way. I’m rather surprised the court ruled in her favor. The hospital would get in trouble if it changed hiring practices to reflect patient preferences.
But, the court did rule in her favor. Therefore, it is by definition discrimination. I wonder if they will force people to eat at restaurants where they don’t like the food. Personally, I don’t like Mandarin-style Chinese food, so I avoid those restaurants. Am I discriminating?
Yes, you are. It may even be racial discrimination. But it’s not unlawful discrimination.
Similarly, the resident in a nursing home may refuse to be helped by staff of certain races. It’s lawful for her to do that. And (just as you can take your business to the Indian restaurant) she can take her business to a nursing home that only employs races that she tolerates.
But (of course) she may find it impossible to find such a nursing home. Not a problem. She can employ nursing staff to look after her at home, and limit the staff to those that she finds congenial. But that’s too expensive! Tough: if she limits her choices, she’s going to have to pay one way or another.
You say that as if they have that ability. People in nursing homes are not like you and I, if they were then they wouldn’t be in nursing homes. instead, they are either mentally or physically incapacitated. She can not take her business to another nursing home because, often, she isn’t the one who choose to be there. Someone else put her in a home and choose which home to put her in. Even if she did choose to be there, how could she evaluate a different home well enough to decide to move? It’s not like they have day trips to other nursing homes so the patients can make an informed choice. This isn’t a situation where she can just go elsewhere with her business. This is essentially a captive to circumstances beyond their control being forced to endure something they do not want to.
So the question boils down to what causes more harm, forcing something on an incapacitated person that they don’t want and do not need or a nurse enduring the hardship of not assisting one patient with no effect on her career?