I don’t entirely disagree with you Vinyl Turnip and Kimmy_Gibbler, but we’re talking medical care. Yes, that includes mental health.
Fact is, almost everything any patient is in a hospital or nursing home for is something that probably could have been avoided had they addressed it earlier in their lives. Fact is, people just don’t. I can’t send Mrs. Smith back in a time machine and talk to her rationally and help her get over her racism. I can wipe her ass when she’s incontinent, though. I can do what’s legal and required, as well as what’s just compassionate and nice, with the patient I have now, not the patient I wish I had.
An -ism held so long held often reaches the level of true phobia. Would it be right for me to leave a cobweb in the corner of a room of a person terrified of spiders when a quick swipe would take it away? Sure, she could suck it up and deal with it, or she could have planned her life better so she needn’t be in this room. But what I have to deal with is right here, right now, not the patient history as I wish it would have been.
So, seeing both sides, I think the way it’s been is the way that’s best. Informally attempt to accommodate whenever possible, but make no binding legal agreement to do so. This seems to best balance the needs of the institution, staff and patient.
Sounds like utter racist Granny got her just deserts. I love it. Stressed and terrified just because someone of a different skin color was hired to clean her house? Sounds like her racist attitudes were mollycoddled for her whole life - about damn time she was forced to face reality.
Just because you’re old, you should not get a pass on behaving in a civilized manner. I have little sympathy for racists who think they should be able to do whatever they like just because they’ve taken up space on the planet for more years than most. They’re “set in their ways”? Tough. Life is not fair - suck it up.
Just to be clear, is celebrating someones traumatic experience because they have different views than you do considered behaving in a civilized manner?
The quote is yours, but the question can be asked of anyone who thinks granny should suck it up just because they don’t like granny’s beliefs. Is forcing someone to comply with your viewpoint, even when it causes that person significant mental trauma, really a moral behavior? If so, how exactly is this position superior to the old woman’s? After all, she wasn’t actively attempting to cause mental hardship on others or gloating about it happening.
No, it’s a very easy one. They are entitled to treatment and service. That’s what they are paying for. They are not paying for skin color. This is a no brainer. If they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else.
Nobody forced anything on granny. All they did was COMPLY with her. She forced her trauma on herself. She would not PERMIT the black CNA to help her. She’s the one who forced mental trauma on someone else by forcing her to comply with her “viewpoint.” No one did, or could have done, a single thing different than what they did. They did not deny her help, she REFUSED it. get your facts straight.
And yes, it is gratifying when anyone’s bigotry hoists them on their own petard.
It’s disingenuous to try to dismiss racism as simply a “viewpont” or a “Diagreement,” by the way.
Personally, I don’t think that racists simply have a different “viewpoint”, and I should respect their “beliefs”.
I don’t respect the beliefs of racists, and if they suffer mental trauma because of their racism, then my feelings will range from “yay!” to “tough titties”.
I don’t understand what problem this presents. The nasty old woman doesn’t want certain people providing care. She can lie on the floor until someone she approves of comes along. No one is harming her, she has harmed herself. If she has raised the level of harm sufficiently, she has become incompetent, and her wishes become irrelevant.
If the care provider has contractually promised a level of care that can’t be provided, they can return her money, and put her on the street. The care provider didn’t create this situation, she did.
For the tearful sorts out there, consider the principle applied to a nasty old man like myself who insisted that he be cared for only by Megan Fox. How would you respond to that?
I forgot for a moment that I was posting on the Dope, one of the few fora in which the kid-glove indulgence of self-originating eccentricities and irrational phobias takes precedence over lesser goals like behaving as civilized adults and treating others with respect.
If you tell someone to get their facts right, you may want to consider actually verifying what the facts actually are first. It’s not all that hard, the article that explains what this is all about was linked in the OP after all. Becoming informed before you speak is generally a good thing…
How exactly is this viewpoint superior to someone saying the EXACT same sentence but with the word ‘Muslim’ or ‘Jew’ or ‘non-American’ instead of racist? You seem to hold a viewpoint of tolerance, at least I assume opposing racism indicates such, so please explain to me how your version of tolerance is better than those who express hatred in the exact same words you use?
I already did. You don’t have your facts right. Inform yourself before you spout.
Because racism is, itself, intolerance. You are espousing a sophist view that people should tolerate intolerance. That’s moronic, and in your case hypocritical since you are showing intolerance to people who don’t like racism.
The “mean old racist lady” is not competent in most instances to make decisions for herself. In many of these cases these people have brain damage from one form or another of dementia that has severely eroded the social editing portion of their brains. Some of these same people may have marched in civil rights rallies decades earlier. I would suggest that the judgment on the old person should be reversed because of this reason. Unless it is at the KKK or Aryan Nation Nursing homes.
You may want to re-read it then. The issue isn’t that she was left lying there because of her request. Her wishes were complied with, and everyone was fine with that. Except the nurse, who took it to court, and the court ruled that her wishes should have been discarded. Which means the court feels she should have been forced to be cared for by someone she refused to accept assistance from. The old woman’s position is rather moronic, but the court did actually say she should have had assistance forced on her.
Ok. If you rather just call things stupid instead of rational debate, I can go with that. You’re being hypocritical because you’re showing intolerant to those who are intolerant, which makes your argument moronic.
Ah, the old ignore and dismiss anything you oppose, with no proof or logic applied to the matter gambit. Thanks for implying it’s my intolerance by the way, but I’m not a racist old lady in a nursing home.
The court ruled that the nurse’s rights had been violated, but you’re still missing the point that nobody “forced” anything on the old lady, and certainly nobody tried to force her to accept their “views.”
I’m not being hypocritical because I’m not saying people have to tolerate intolerance. YOU are. YOUR argument is hypocritical, irrational and disingenuous.
You haven’t offered up anything to rebut other than a patently illogical claim that people should tolerate intolerance.
Moreover, nobody has said the old whore’s right to be a racist should not be tolerated, only that tolreance of a right to hold and express repugnant views does not translate into an obligation to indulge her desire to infringe on other people’s rights.
I’m not ignoring or dismissing your premise. I’m saying that it is not logical. It makes no sense. In effect, you are saying that anyone who opposes racism is hypocritical, because they are being intolerant of racists. Your argument is nonsensical on its face. Your reasoning is fatally flawed.
I do not have to be tolerant of racist attitudes or beliefs in order to be classified as a “tolerant person”.
Actually, I’m claiming is not that intolerance should be tolerated. If you see a racist and want to confront them, by all means do so. I’d probably be right beside you actually. My argument is that tolerance should not be FORCED on those who are intolerant. The court just ruled a invalid’s request to not be cared for by certain people should be denied if it’s based on race. The person is in a nursing home specifically because they can not care for themselves, they are unable to just go elsewhere. They have no choice about the matter, all they can do is request something and hope it’ll be followed. Thanks to this case, it won’t be. The nursing home is, in effect, the racist geezers house. At least their room is functionally equivalent to their home. To me, this ruling crosses the line between ‘tolerating intolerance’ and ‘forcing tolerance on the intolerant’. It’s the difference between saying citizens can’t stop a NAACP meeting in their town and saying they must host the meeting in their house.
Nor do you have to happily pronounce you love a story of someone experiencing mental trauma to be a tolerant person. So I’m wondering how taking joy in others suffering is tolerance because I honestly don’t understand how being gleeful at others agony is tolerance. So I ask you, yet again, explain to me how celebrating another persons pain, as you did, is tolerance.
and that’s the last post before my lunch is over so…
No, you have it backwards. It just says that a patient can’t force a place to discriminate against its own employees. The patient isn’t being forced to do anything because she isn’t being forced to be in that nursing home.
Nobody said it was “tolerance.” That’s a non-sequitur. It’s justified to be gratified that a person’s own self-enforced bigotry has bitten them on the ass, because they did it to themselves. That’s just karmic justice, and karmic justice should always be celebrated.