Islamic exemptions to hospital policy

[Prometheus]

There is a UK hospital called Bare Below the Elbows (BBE). It requires healthcare workers in the clinical area or upon patient contact are have nothing covering their skin from the elbow down. Its aim is to reduce hospital acquired infections. There is some debate as to whether it actually works, but for the sake of this thread let us assume that it is effective.

 

There are some female Muslim healthcare workers who, for religious reasons, want to be exempt from this policy: that is they wish to be able to cover their arms at all times.

 

The question then is whether this exemption should be allowed. We are balancing peoples right to practice their religion against a professional duty to reduce the risk of infection to the patient.

 

As an interesting parallel, there already exists an exemption in that all healthcare workers are allowed to wear a plain wedding band. This establishes a precedent that we can increase the risk of infection being transmitted to patients so that healthcare professionals can conform to the cultural norm of wearing wedding rings.

[Phi for All]

This doesn't seem like a religious issue to me. If the hospital has certain procedures that require NOTHING be worn below the elbows, then it's violating its own directive by allowing wedding rings. And if female muslim healthcare workers want covered forearms, then they shouldn't apply for a job that requires them specifically to be bare.

 

The hospital shouldn't be required to have the capability of hiring anybody who applies for a specific position. If I'm hiring for a position that specifically requires a small person (physical restrictions of the equipment, like a weight limit), I'm allowed to turn away people because they're too big. If doing the job properly requires bare arms, then I should be able to say "Sorry, you won't do" if someone refuses to comply with the directive.

 

If the whole hospital is called Bare Below the Elbows, being turned down for a job there because you want your sleeves should come as no shock. I also think it's deplorable to devise such a strategy, and then violate it with a random amendment like plain wedding rings. It's silly, and obviously discriminatory. Seriously, does a plain band trap fewer germs between the metal and the skin than an ornate one does? Who decides "plain"?

 

I've seen quite a few healthcare workers in the last several months, and even commented that they don't wear their wedding rings when the subject of their spouses and families came up. Most leave them off so it doesn't snag on things, or get discolored from chemicals. Putting on/taking off a brazilian pairs of latex gloves every day increases the odds you're going to lose your ring eventually.

[iNow]

Couldn't have said it better. Agree with Phi 100%.

 

Reminds me of a recent case in Kentucky (just last week/past few days) where a state/county employee/clerk refused to grant same sex marriage licenses (which are now legal across the entire U.S. due to a SCOTUS decision this summer) and her claim was that it was due to religious reasons. Well, no. You are an agent of the state. If your religious objections prevent you from executing fully on the duties of that job, then you'll need to get a different job.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?_r=0

[swansont]

Related to this are hospitals (or states) that require vaccinations of healthcare workers (e.g. flu shots), but offer up religious exemptions for this. I personally don't agree, but these exemptions exist. The law in the US says to have to reasonably accommodate one's religion (or disability, etc.), but that the employee still has to do their job

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

 

The question becomes (under US law; I don't know what the UK laws say) is accommodating this an undue hardship? I think probably yes, because "compromises workplace safety" is one of the listed hardships.

This doesn't seem like a religious issue to me. If the hospital has certain procedures that require NOTHING be worn below the elbows, then it's violating its own directive by allowing wedding rings. And if female muslim healthcare workers want covered forearms, then they shouldn't apply for a job that requires them specifically to be bare.

 

There are issues where there is "hidden" discrimination. If this were a case where safety were not in play, this might be discriminatory. One of the standard stories we get in our annual training was a place that developed a requirement that all applicants be at least 6' tall. That was struck down as gender discrimination, since there was nothing about the job that actually required you to be that tall, and it affected women disproportionately.

[fiveworlds]

As I see it then the wedding band should go. The hospital policy is bare below the arms. Some hospitals have naked policies. I know for a fact that most uk hospitals allow women to cover their arms and faces. If one private hospital decides that their policy is bare below the arms then that should be respected. Also as far as I am aware a wedding ring has no religious significance.

Is there an exact line in the qur'an stating women must cover their arms?

Also you must consider the fact that average life expectancy at the time the qur'an was written was less than 20 years of age so these women are elderly by the qur'an's definition of elderly.

Edited September 2, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Phi for All]

There are issues where there is "hidden" discrimination. If this were a case where safety were not in play, this might be discriminatory. One of the standard stories we get in our annual training was a place that developed a requirement that all applicants be at least 6' tall. That was struck down as gender discrimination, since there was nothing about the job that actually required you to be that tall, and it affected women disproportionately.

 

I'm sure there are examples that might be harder to spot, or more of a judgement call, but in the case you cite the discrimination should be obvious. Just as obvious as the bad judgement involved in tailoring a process to reduce hospital-acquired infections that removes all objects below the elbow, and then allowing a silly breach like wedding rings.

 

It's absurd, and hopefully this kind of reasoning isn't becoming the norm. It seems a bit like having a clean room where everyone has to wear protective clothing to ensure a completely uncontaminated environment, and then exempting executives because nobody can see their suits.

[swansont]

 

It's absurd, and hopefully this kind of reasoning isn't becoming the norm. It seems a bit like having a clean room where everyone has to wear protective clothing to ensure a completely uncontaminated environment, and then exempting executives because nobody can see their suits.

 

Yes, but we're talking about the legal system in the intersection with religion. I don't know what that's like elsewhere, but (as I'm sure you're aware) "it's my religion" has a way of skewing what's become normal here in the US ... but often only as long as you're a Christian. It can give rise to behavior that would otherwise be wholly unacceptable.

[iNow]

"it's my religion" has a way of skewing what's become normal here in the US ... but often only as long as you're a Christian.

Indeed. I wonder how these same folks would feel if a muslim clerk at the DMV decided not to grant drivers licenses to women due to their religious beliefs, or if a buddhist refused to grant a gun license due to theirs.

[Greg H.]

 

Yes, but we're talking about the legal system in the intersection with religion. I don't know what that's like elsewhere, but (as I'm sure you're aware) "it's my religion" has a way of skewing what's become normal here in the US ... but often only as long as you're a Christian. It can give rise to behavior that would otherwise be wholly unacceptable.

Sad, but too often very true.

[fiveworlds]

Indeed. I wonder how these same folks would feel if a muslim clerk at the DMV decided not to grant drivers licenses to women due to their religious beliefs, or if a buddhist refused to grant a gun license due to theirs.

 

There is nothing in the quran about women not driving. It is the law in some patriarchal countries that women do not drive.

Edited September 2, 2015 by fiveworlds

[iNow]

There is nothing in the quran about women not driving. It is the law in some patriarchal countries that women do not drive.

There are quite a number of believers who disagree (even though I don't), and those believers often do prevent women from driving due solely to their religious beliefs. See: Saudi Arabia. The same can be said about same sex marriage... It's easy to argue that it's not in the bible, yet that doesn't stop people from claiming it to be against their religious beliefs (as with the woman in Kentucky).

 

Back to the topic, I think the wedding band exemption should go away and anyone who has religious objections to showing their arms be asked to find employment elsewhere.

[fiveworlds]

There are quite a number of believers who disagree (even though I don't), and those believers often do prevent women from driving due solely to their religious beliefs. See: Saudi Arabia. The same can be said about same sex marriage... It's easy to argue that it's not in the bible, yet that doesn't stop people from claiming it to be against their religious beliefs (as with the woman in Kentucky).

 

Realistically though not allowing Muslims to take advantage of my ignorance like the catholic church used to do. According to http://www.islamopediaonline.org/fatwa/are-women-allowed-drive-islam-and-if-so-then-why-muslim-country-saudi-arabia-are-they-forbiddeThe ruling for women driving must be derived from other laws and principals; meaning that we do not have a direct ruling on women driving in the Quran or Sunnah.

There is nothing in the quran about women not driving.

There is however something about if the country's laws forbid it then it is forbidden by the quran.

Edited September 2, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Phi for All]

Yes, but we're talking about the legal system in the intersection with religion. I don't know what that's like elsewhere, but (as I'm sure you're aware) "it's my religion" has a way of skewing what's become normal here in the US ... but often only as long as you're a Christian. It can give rise to behavior that would otherwise be wholly unacceptable.

 

So true, and emphasized by the fact that there's nothing in the Bible about wedding rings. Nothing. Rings used to ceremonially bind people together were actually of pagan origin, hijacked like many holidays and other ceremonies to make the transition to the new Christian religion less bumpy.

 

Iirc, the original ring-binding ceremonies involved chaining the bride-to-be up so her spirit could be controlled by her master new husband. So good job on those claiming their religion says they can never take their rings off.

 

As a symbol of servitude and caring, I guess you have to ask who the healthcare workers are serving best with their insistence on wearing them.

[iNow]

The ruling for women driving must be derived from other laws and principals; meaning that we do not have a direct ruling on women driving in the Quran or Sunnah.

There is nothing in the quran about women not driving.

A Wahhabi muslim would disagree, but it doesn't really matter. It was an example, and one the reinforced the existing discussion. Let's please move on, as I also gave an example about someone refusing to grant a gun license based on being a quaker or a buddhist...

[Danijel Gorupec]

Hmm... 'someone wants to be exempt' is a normal situation. It is perfectly ok to lobby according to your interests. I see no problem as long as these healthcare workers are still doing their job according to current hospital procedures. (Wedding rings were also allowed after some lobbying, probably.)

 

Whether this exemption should be allowed - this really is no question. What will eventually happen is a matter of power distribution within the group. I however think it would be ridicolous to call a hospital BBE, but still allow for long sleeves. So if the anti-bare-below-elbows group overpowers the rest, then the hosptial will probably be forced to change its name (and loose its marketing edge).

 

If you ask should there be law that will grant 'religious rights'. I am lobbying "NO!!!"

 

....

 

Now, a more complex situation would arrise if the hospital management at one point decided, for marketing reasons, to change the hospital name to BBE and require that all their workers from now on display bare hands. I this case I would stand together with female muslim healthcare workers against the new hospital policy (as well as with those who have nasty scars on their hands from attempted suicide when they were much younger, despite the fact that they cannot call it 'religious reasons').

Edited September 3, 2015 by Danijel Gorupec

[Phi for All]

Now, a more complex situation would arrise if the hospital management at one point decided, for marketing reasons, to change the hospital name to BBE and require that all their workers from now on display bare hands. I this case I would stand together with female muslim healthcare workers against the new hospital policy (as well as with those who have nasty scars on their hands from attempted suicide when they were much younger, despite the fact that they cannot call it 'religious reasons').

 

If the hospital announced this decision effective immediately, you would have a point. But as long as they gave workers enough time to either comply or find other employment, the fact is that the policy has merit (have we established that? Does the BBE system result in fewer infections?), and the criteria for performing effectively in that setting has changed.

 

Also, I don't recall seeing any arguments regarding scars, or even tattoos, being part of the BBE policy. Perhaps I missed it, but I thought the concept was to reduce infection by not wearing anything below the elbows. This would include jewelry and clothing, but not scars or tattoos.

 

I don't know of any religious reasons one could invoke that would justify a demand to cover up suicide scars, but I stop short of claiming there aren't any.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Oh, I did not mention scars in that way... My mentioning of suicide scars was an attempt to demonstrate that 'personal' reasons not to show ones wrists might be as strong as 'religious' reasons.... IMO, differentiating between the two is wierd (I see no ground for doing this) but, as other posters mentioned, is rutenely done (discriminating those without religion, lol).

[Phi for All]

Oh, I did not mention scars in that way... My mentioning of suicide scars was an attempt to demonstrate that 'personal' reasons not to show ones wrists might be as strong as 'religious' reasons.... IMO, differentiating between the two is wierd (I see no ground for doing this) but, as other posters mentioned, is rutenely done (discriminating those without religion, lol).

 

I can understand people having reasons why they don't want to comply with a specific directive. And, as mentioned earlier, some directives need to be challenged because they're unnecessarily discriminatory (like requiring employees to be 6' tall when there's no need for it).

 

But to me it seems really simple in the BBE case, and others like it, and there should be NO exceptions for wedding rings. They're antithetical to the whole reduce-germs program. And female Muslim healthcare workers who require sleeves should NOT apply at BBE.

[Danijel Gorupec]

But to me it seems really simple in the BBE case, and others like it, and there should be NO exceptions for wedding rings. They're antithetical to the whole reduce-germs program. And female Muslim healthcare workers who require sleeves should NOT apply at BBE.

 

Because OP asked that we should assume that the bare-below-elbows practice is effective against germs, then I must agree with you.

 

In a more realistic scenario, the anti-BBE group does have some chance in a possible lawsuit case. In this case hospital management will have to show effectivnes of the BBE pracitce. If unsuccessful, then there is possibility that the court will allow long sleeves claiming that the BBE practice is unnecessarily discriminating (like in the 6-foot personel example).

 

To make things more complex.... Even if BBE practice is effective, if there is no requirement for such practice (from law or specialized government istitutions) then there is still the question how the court will stand.

 

Even more complex... If the hospital management claims that "the BBE prctice is not measureably effective, but there is very measurable money-income effect from enforcing such rules because it is an effective promotion technique" and claiming that these workers are thus working against the firm... This is a gray area already. I am not sure how many people would agree that promoting unexistent benefits is a good reason to force rules that might hurt some workers, even if the promotion itself is effective.

 

 

But I still see the whole issue just as a lobbying problem. No rules are broken. (If for example a hospital management decides that all workers must shave their hands, have sweat glands and fingernails surgically removed, then there would be even more lobbying against it.... It will not happen even if it is more effective agains germs.)

[Prometheus]

Lots of interesting points; too many to respond to, suffice it to say I agree witht the general concensus.

 

As i understand it there was no pressure applied to allow plain wedding bands - when the policy first came out, this exemption was already included.

 

However, given that the wedding band exemption stands i can understand female Muslim workers also wanting exemption. If it is OK to exempt some people for their cultural beliefs, it should be OK to allow exemption for religious beliefs. It's either permissable to have exemptions, or no exemptions are allowed. Having some things exempt and others not seems to be the source of this quagmire.

[Arete]

The hospital policy is bare below the arms. Some hospitals have naked policies.

 

How risque

[fiveworlds]

Risque? Hardly it is the naturist way of life. It is their normal to be naked all the time. They feel that the indecency of not wearing clothes comes from an unnatural social paradigm of wearing clothes.They do not see an indecency in not wearing clothes at all. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturismPerhaps they should be allowed work naked?

There are many naturist people who live in the UK because the UK takes over their islands so they can use them as military bases and relocates them back to the UK forcing them to wear clothes.

 

This reminds me of a story my grandad told me before he died. He said that when my auntie was young she was placed into the girl's school. Guys and Girls schools were separate at the time with women being taught womanly values for life in the home. But she hated the school and ran away multiple times. So my grandad at his wits end went to the headmaster of the boys school. At first the headmaster was stubborn and wouldn't allow it. But my auntie continued running away so my grandad asked again. Please would they teach her and eventually they allowed her to attend. So unlike most of the girls her age she got to play rugby and football with the guys and loved every minute of it. Then one day there was a big fire which burned the schools down. Neither school had the money to rebuild so it was eventually decided that with the success of my auntie in the boy's school that they would pool their resources and build the first school in the country for boys and girls.

 

There is nobody in the UK allowed to wear a nurse's uniform. It is illegal to wear a nurse's uniform if you are not a nurse. It is a badge of honor to even be allowed to wear the uniform. Traditional nurse uniforms were bare below the arms. Nursing uniforms have always been decided by nurses. It is highly disrespectful to dishonor the uniform of such a profession.

Edited September 16, 2015 by fiveworlds

[imatfaal]

There is nobody in the UK allowed to wear a nurse's uniform. It is illegal to wear a nurse's uniform if you are not a nurse. It is a badge of honor to even be allowed to wear the uniform. Traditional nurse uniforms were bare below the arms. Nursing uniforms have always been decided by nurses. It is highly disrespectful to dishonor the uniform of such a profession.

 

Just out of curiosity could you point me in the direction of the law that codifies that point / precedent case. Military Uniform is often legislated for, as is police uniform when the wearing of it is intended to deceive - perhaps the same applies to nurse's uniform but I have never seen it written down.

 

FYG Theatre Gowns tend (in some hospitals) to be long arm with gloves covering the cuffs to mean no area of skin is exposed

[fiveworlds]

Just out of curiosity could you point me in the direction of the law that codifies that point / precedent case. Military Uniform is often legislated for, as is police uniform when the wearing of it is intended to deceive - perhaps the same applies to nurse's uniform but I have never seen it written down.

 

 

It does in order to be a nurse you must be on the nursing register. In order to be on the nursing register you must have no convictions. Insubordination or conduction of illegal activities can result in removal from the register. Nurses can be called to military service at any time the uk decides to go to war. Women have previously been called to war on many occasion since the UK was losing ww2 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/253/pdfs/uksi_20020253_en.pdf

[imatfaal]

You do realise that your reference contains no mention of uniforms. It also handily has a section on offences which completely fails to mention wearing a uniform that one is not entitled to - the closest offence, as I suggested it might be, is misrepresentation a/o deception which may or may not have anything to do with a uniform.

 

Not sure what you are on about concerning conscription. I don't believe there has been peacetime conscription of women after the 1948 National Service Act (which in effect brought about the end of the war time draft).