Devout nurse quits job over crucifix ban
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
A Christian hospital worker who was ordered to remove a crucifix "which could harbour infection" has left her job in protest.
Devout Helen Slatter, 43, 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.
The mother of one said she was not willing to choose between her job and her religion, despite the NHS trust insisting the issue was about safety, not faith.
The divorcee told the Gloucestershire Echo: "They made it clear that if I went back the hospital would send me home if I was wearing my crucifix.
"I am not willing to stop wearing it, so I have been left with no choice but to leave my job. They are the NHS and aren't going to back down - I'm not sure if I'd want to work somewhere where I had been treated like this anyway."
When the deadlock occurred last month Mrs Slatter, who worked at the hospital for five years said: "I've always worn my cross and I've always been a Christian. It is important to me. I've worked here for 15 months and if it was an issue, why didn't they let me know in the interview?
"The NHS have spend money training me."
The cross was worn under the uniform, said Ms Slatter who attends St Peter's Catholic Church in London Road.
If she had come back wearing the cross the hospital would have sent her home for reasons of "health and safety and infection control", she revealed.
A spokesman for Gloucestershire NHS Trust confirmed today that she had handed in her notice. An "informal" non-disciplinary meeting last month failed to reach a solution, the trust said. A fuller statement is expected this afternoon.
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."
Jewellery is restricted to one pair of plain ear studs and one band-type ring on the ring finger, the trust added.
Mrs Slatter finished her shift on May 12 and never returned after being signed off with stress.
The case echoes that of Nadia Eweida, who clashed with British Airways after refusing to take off a crucifix. BA later changed its policy to allow staff to wear a "religious symbol".
Last year bank nurse Caroline Petrie, from Weston-super-Mare, Somerset faced disciplinary action after a patient complained that she had offered to pray for her.
The primary care trust later agreed that she could continue to pray for patients as long as she asked first them if they had any spiritual needs.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
If they allow wedding rings then logically there is no reason to ban crucifix's - over than the typical over zealous reaction of the politically correct who in the NHS always try to disguise their actions as something else.
By the way - I also see may workers of Hindu faith often wearing those string wristbands - also get very wet and harbour lot's of bacteria - would be intersting to know if this trust also bans them.
I am neither religious or biased - would just like to see common sense or at least fairness prevail.
There's no reason she couldn't have carried the cross in her pocket if it meant that much to her, this is just a publicity stunt.
What makes matters worse in my opinion is the fact that if this exact same story had happened but it had been a plain necklace and not a crucifix then it wouldn't have made the news at all. The only reason this is newsworthy in the slightest is because the necklace was a crucifix, even though that had no bearing at all on the decision the NHS made.
I also want to point out, THIS BAN IS ON NECKLACES!!! NOT CRUCIFIXES!!!
Which is why they said she could wear it in her pocket. No one ever asked that she turn on her faith, only that she not wear it on a necklace. I wasn't aware that the crucifix HAS to be worn on a necklace to carrying its importance.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/200
http://www.legalday.com/Schools-to-B
http://www.legalday.com/currentissues/D
Dennis 1980 wrote:
"Although I understand the comparison by "greyno", wedding rings are covered by gloves when examining patients"
Actually you are mistaken - there are hundreds of ocasions when workers touch patients without using golves. Not all contact is a clinical examination. Taking a blood pressure is one such example. Not only do they touch patients they touch commonly used and shared objects such as phones, computer terminals, equipment etc
I've personally heard of cases of staff being attacked by patients who have used something around their necks to try to strangle them with. And it's a fact that jewellery constitutes an unacceptable hygiene risk - while any surface can potentially harbor germs, there are regulations in place to ensure that vital things like uniforms, equipment, and peoples' hands are cleaned regularly. Jewellery is not vital - for Christians at least, it's an optional symbol of one's faith, not an essential requirement of it. So her suggestion that she's being forced to choose between her job and her faith is ridiculous. Taking off her crucifix won't make her any less a Christian, so she should put aside her personal preferences and comply with the Trust policy.
Someone mentioned wedding rings - the head infection control nurse here at my Trust says that ideally they shouldn't be worn either, but are allowed as a concession because they're so important to so many people. I agree that this is a major inconsistency, but I think the answer is to ban wedding rings as well, not to start allowing necklaces.
People think you cannot challenge H&S tied rulings, but you can with simple, logical argument.
Excuse 1. Infection carrying - threat to patient. Wrong - and a huge distortion of the truth. I've had my blood taken at GRH (great team!), and many of the phlebotomists (male & female) wear glasses, and a lapel watch to measure pulse/heartrate. These hang externally, as opposed to internally like the necklace in question. There are also pens in lapel pockets etc. Microbes love this stuff.
If GRH are this serious about infection, the blood team should be wearing no clothes, be bald and wrapped in cling film. Also, if memory serves, blood is taken with a sterile needle and syringe - not chain and crucifix (no pun intended).
Excuse 2. Strangulation. Hilarious. A violent patient will always go for the hair, arms, clothes (uniform edges) or lash out instinctively. They will not reach down a nurses blouse fumbling for a necklace to strangle them with. Apparently hands make good strangulation tools as well.
If GRH are this serious about violence, perhaps they could start by banning the ID badges that hang around workers necks on blue cords - (a lot of doctors have them)..
It all reminds me of the of MP's claims over expenses i.e. 'it's within the rules'. That may be true, but whole affair exposed a ridiculous system of rules that should have been sorted years ago with common sense.
Forget the religious angle, it's a distraction. Look at the Trust's replies. This is not an 'Health & Safety' or security issue. Looks like microbes, bacteria and nurse stanglers are showing more brain cells than that the average GRH manager or executive.
I think many people locally are just fed up with the Glos Hospitals Trust board. This issue should never have seen the light of day. It only takes 30 seconds to say 'Fine - wear your cross, inside. Now wash your hands'.
Anyway - another life destroyed at GRH. Ho hum!