The recent story of the Sikh girl who won the right to wear a piece of jewellery in opposition to school rules was always going to get a comment out of me.
As evident by the prominent link to a certain Church on my blog front, I don't hold religion is particularly high regard. Not to say I don't have faith, which I do, or I don't see a point in believing in something or than deterministic, reductionist science. I don't consider faith the be all and end all of existence in the same sense that science does not explain everything, however some people on either side of this invisible border between the two continue to have irritating effects on society. A society which is, apparently, looked after by a secular government.
The school in question was running a 'No Jewellery' policy. This in itself is not uncommon from schools I have both attended and worked in. I gather such policies are conducted for several reasons. Firstly, jewellery can cause jealous and envy, which have further follow on and side effects. Secondly, jewellery can cause problems with local health and safety policies (hoop earrings being pulled out - not pretty). Thirdly, some schools employ a uniform policy in an attempt to make children feel smart and equal to each other. Accessories put a dint into this, unfortunately. I don't agree with taking away people's individuality ala uniform policy, but it is a rule in many schools and was in this one, for (debatably) good reason. Rules are rules, and - made to be broken or not - are enforced, and should be if that's what the school board has agreed. Furthermore, the student in question signed a contract saying she would abide by said rules. I'm sure it wasn't a blood-legal document, but still an agreement.
Thus, she was breaking school rules. And anyone breaking rules is usually reprimanded. She continued to break the rules, she continued to be reprimanded. Until she went into the Court system and received what could be described as special dispensation to break the rules of the school. This special dispensation happened because what she was breaking the rules wearing is an accessory of magicoreligious importance. Despite the fact that it is going against the grain of all three of the above points of the rule.
This is particularly annoying. Schoolchildren comprise a diverse mix of cultures and subcultures who are different in physical appearance and psychological standpoint and belief, including any spiritual or magicoreligious standing. For some children, music is king. It's the most important thing in their lives. Listening to it, reading about it, following the tenets set out by the leading stars. And yet they are not allowed to express this through accessories on uniforms. Piercings and eyeliner, for one example, are disallowed. Yet a Sikh bangle has been given special dispensation (thankfully, the Fundamentalist 'SilverRingThing' was thrown out of the courts last year. I almost had a little party in celebration).
So, the crux of the matter is: where do we draw the line? This is not a secular society, so one belief should not receive more privileges than an other. Clearly, Sikhism has existed for a much longer duration and has a larger following than some Gothic music subculture, as hinted at in the example above. But does that automatically make it more important? What about a young black child who is celebrating his or her ethnic or racial links or roots by wearing a certain accessory to their uniform? Is this aspect of colonialism and it's aftermath less or more important than a religion. Where is the line drawn?
My standpoint is that mentioned above. As long as Britain remains a secular country then religion should not get any leg-ups. There are many schoolchildren who believe in fashions or trends just as vehemently as a religion, and yet they're not allowed to express themselves within the gates of a school. Their treatment shouldn't be so unfair.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Mixed Bag
As is becoming the style of the time I will give a brief outlook of the important parts of the day.
Terminal Patients
The patient I looked after through their hypo (see previous posts) suffering from End Stage Heart Failure was discharged today. Although they were in my area, I spent little time with them today. They are depressed about pending doom - which is hard to deal with as a student nurse. We're taught to emphasise with patients, but I'd feel like a right fuckwit if I did what I've been 'taught'.
"I'm dying, I'm not going to be alive much longer..."
Do you answer:
A) "I can imagine..." - *NO*. I cannot. And saying anything like that would be insulting.
B) "That must be terrible..." Obviously! Doi.
C) "How do you feel about that?" This is the most viable option, but I'm aware the patient doesn't want to talk about it anymore. They are already in denial most of the time, as are the family.
The family were around today and the patient had meetings with specialists of all kinds, which was lucky. But it's a tricky situation I hope to deal with at some point.
'I'm dying...'
Another patient who may or may not be dying, this time. For once, I'm going to actually reveal some patient details without infringing anonymity as the story makes little sense without them. MrBelligerent is a man who believes in an archaic religion (take your pick which one) which believes it is a sin/wrong/whatever for a woman to see a man naked. This being said, MrBelligerent has not had a shower or shave for three days and has complained to his family that there is noone suitable to help him out.
[NB. One of my huge hates (not pet, pure hate) within the NHS and nursing is one simple fact. If, for example, an ECG has to be done on a woman, some of the leads need to go under the left breast. This, it is often said or hinted in my experience, makes men unsuitable to perform ECGs on women if there is a female alternative. No such prejudice exists for installation or removal of catheters in male patients. Therefore, I almost kicked up a fuss about this blatent piece of sexism VS. patient choice but decided it wasn't worth the paperwork)
One of the reason reasons for him not getting a shower is that, unless he is on oxygen, he desaturates very quickly on room air. Desaturation is the process by which the blood begins to carry less oxygen, which can make the lungs and heart work harder which can make someone very out of breath. MrBelligerent is not good at keeping his oxygen on normally, but in the shower we imagined this would be worse.
The support workers mithered me to help him shower, even though is diuretic infusion was due at the time. My mentor caved in and I helped him into the bathroom. He is not too steady on his feet, and yet he proceeded to stand up to shave, rather than sit down. This shave was the most brutal act of hair removal I have ever seen, I must mention. It also started with him removing his oxygen.
"If you don't keep this on, you're going to get breathless," I politely remind him.
He swatted me away with a grunt, and so I let him keep it off. He collapsed into his chair for a shower, moaning about being out of breath. I try to help him with the oxygen, but he is struggling with it, trying to get it off, trying to put a different bit in his nose and grumbling constantly. After about a minute under water he insists is 'cold' (which was quite hot, in my opinion) he gets up, soaking wet and soapy, demands a towel and waddles back to his chair to dry off in the main ward. I'd had enough by this point, my polite enquiries being met with angry noises, and left him to his own devices.
It turns out the patient is quite confused. Talking in the middle of the night in a number of languages, complaining of random things, confusion over location. Although I've looked after the patient for a few days now, and he has been generally fine, if grumpy. There's no mention of confusion on handover, and nothing I can see from his history to suggest it. Go figure, as the Americans say.
Doctors on beds and other such unsporting behaviour
I hate to fall into a stereotype and repeat what various people think. But Doctors flouting the rules on ward is starting to get to me. Some wards feature protected meal times. Usually from 12-1pm. Within this time *noone* is supposed to disturb the patients. It is also the time when some consultants like to start their ward rounds. Well done.
If initiatives are going to be placed on ward, and presumably agreed with different departments, Doctors should actually agree to them. The two of my patients who the consultant was disturbing today were desperate to see their doctor, so I didn't shout at the consultant or any of the henchmen or henchwomen. I know, student nurse shouting at consultants is quite a funny image. But I want to get some practice in before I'm a staff nurse shouting at them.
When they come in at a disallowed time, you may also expect them to ahdere to other rules. Like not sitting on beds. They don't. When I want to talk to a patient on their eye level, I crouch. Or I sit on the floor. These things are allowed by infection control rules. Doctors apparently like to flout these as well.
And furthermore, stealing chocolates addressed to 'the nurses' is certainly unsporting behaviour. Doctors do a very important job and we'd be lost without them, don't get me wrong. But they could do a few things to stop annoying me. Especially given the amount of errands I run and favours I do for them, personally.
It'd be nice.
Terminal Patients
The patient I looked after through their hypo (see previous posts) suffering from End Stage Heart Failure was discharged today. Although they were in my area, I spent little time with them today. They are depressed about pending doom - which is hard to deal with as a student nurse. We're taught to emphasise with patients, but I'd feel like a right fuckwit if I did what I've been 'taught'.
"I'm dying, I'm not going to be alive much longer..."
Do you answer:
A) "I can imagine..." - *NO*. I cannot. And saying anything like that would be insulting.
B) "That must be terrible..." Obviously! Doi.
C) "How do you feel about that?" This is the most viable option, but I'm aware the patient doesn't want to talk about it anymore. They are already in denial most of the time, as are the family.
The family were around today and the patient had meetings with specialists of all kinds, which was lucky. But it's a tricky situation I hope to deal with at some point.
'I'm dying...'
Another patient who may or may not be dying, this time. For once, I'm going to actually reveal some patient details without infringing anonymity as the story makes little sense without them. MrBelligerent is a man who believes in an archaic religion (take your pick which one) which believes it is a sin/wrong/whatever for a woman to see a man naked. This being said, MrBelligerent has not had a shower or shave for three days and has complained to his family that there is noone suitable to help him out.
[NB. One of my huge hates (not pet, pure hate) within the NHS and nursing is one simple fact. If, for example, an ECG has to be done on a woman, some of the leads need to go under the left breast. This, it is often said or hinted in my experience, makes men unsuitable to perform ECGs on women if there is a female alternative. No such prejudice exists for installation or removal of catheters in male patients. Therefore, I almost kicked up a fuss about this blatent piece of sexism VS. patient choice but decided it wasn't worth the paperwork)
One of the reason reasons for him not getting a shower is that, unless he is on oxygen, he desaturates very quickly on room air. Desaturation is the process by which the blood begins to carry less oxygen, which can make the lungs and heart work harder which can make someone very out of breath. MrBelligerent is not good at keeping his oxygen on normally, but in the shower we imagined this would be worse.
The support workers mithered me to help him shower, even though is diuretic infusion was due at the time. My mentor caved in and I helped him into the bathroom. He is not too steady on his feet, and yet he proceeded to stand up to shave, rather than sit down. This shave was the most brutal act of hair removal I have ever seen, I must mention. It also started with him removing his oxygen.
"If you don't keep this on, you're going to get breathless," I politely remind him.
He swatted me away with a grunt, and so I let him keep it off. He collapsed into his chair for a shower, moaning about being out of breath. I try to help him with the oxygen, but he is struggling with it, trying to get it off, trying to put a different bit in his nose and grumbling constantly. After about a minute under water he insists is 'cold' (which was quite hot, in my opinion) he gets up, soaking wet and soapy, demands a towel and waddles back to his chair to dry off in the main ward. I'd had enough by this point, my polite enquiries being met with angry noises, and left him to his own devices.
It turns out the patient is quite confused. Talking in the middle of the night in a number of languages, complaining of random things, confusion over location. Although I've looked after the patient for a few days now, and he has been generally fine, if grumpy. There's no mention of confusion on handover, and nothing I can see from his history to suggest it. Go figure, as the Americans say.
Doctors on beds and other such unsporting behaviour
I hate to fall into a stereotype and repeat what various people think. But Doctors flouting the rules on ward is starting to get to me. Some wards feature protected meal times. Usually from 12-1pm. Within this time *noone* is supposed to disturb the patients. It is also the time when some consultants like to start their ward rounds. Well done.
If initiatives are going to be placed on ward, and presumably agreed with different departments, Doctors should actually agree to them. The two of my patients who the consultant was disturbing today were desperate to see their doctor, so I didn't shout at the consultant or any of the henchmen or henchwomen. I know, student nurse shouting at consultants is quite a funny image. But I want to get some practice in before I'm a staff nurse shouting at them.
When they come in at a disallowed time, you may also expect them to ahdere to other rules. Like not sitting on beds. They don't. When I want to talk to a patient on their eye level, I crouch. Or I sit on the floor. These things are allowed by infection control rules. Doctors apparently like to flout these as well.
And furthermore, stealing chocolates addressed to 'the nurses' is certainly unsporting behaviour. Doctors do a very important job and we'd be lost without them, don't get me wrong. But they could do a few things to stop annoying me. Especially given the amount of errands I run and favours I do for them, personally.
It'd be nice.
Monday, 19 May 2008
In God's Name...
I'm tired, so this will be close to a ramble. But I want to get it out. (My day, by the way, was passable. Not much to report).
Christian Fundamentalists (the latter syllables being the operative ones) were featured on Channel4 just now, 8-9pm. Nadine Dorries featured, which is shocking considering she often denies connections with Christian movements. She says she's "there for everyone" but I can't remember the last time she listened to any of the massive amount of pro-choice evidence in the country.
These CFs amuse me. Christians in general are very funny to me, but the fundamentalists more so. At least crazed Jihadits have the balls to come out and say they want to kill everyone who's not part of their zany scheme. The whole Christian gig has this 'love everyone' kick. Even more annoying is the sense of 'if you're not with us you're completely and utterly misguided, you poor, Godless fool'. Zealots, pure and simple. All because of blood religion.
Example: I support Liverpool Football Club. My friend supports Manchester United. Currently, they have different things going for them and against them. I can talk about Liverpool's fantastic performances in Europe, they could talk about Manchester United's Premiership dominance. We could debate on those points, amongst others.
Religion isn't involved, therefore neither of us could turn around and say: "I'm right because a mystical figure is on my side." Well, we could, but it wouldn't be true. As soon as you involve religion in an arguement, it just gets silly.
Don't get me wrong - I have my faith, I like faith. Just not when it causes wars or suffering. Which is usually when people try to force it on everyone else like these people are trying to do, whether they admit wanting to be despots or not. '20 Reasons for 20 Weeks' is funded by groups like 'Right to Life' and all that shit, which is religious and 'moral' in it's findings. They want to control the destiny of thousands upon thousands of women. That's just one example of what these Christian Fundamentalists would like to do, given the chance. They protest against Mosques being built because they consider Allah to be a false prophet/the devil, depending who you speak to. They protest at gay meetings because they think people being gay is the work of the devil.
At least Jihad-loons have the evil honesty to hate all outsiders. CFs dress it up as it these people can be 'saved'. If, that is, they turn their backs on all they hold dear. And why? Because they say so. Although they'll tell you it's not their will, but the will of God. Convenient, that.
I have a real ying against people who try to force their way of thinking onto the general population. I'm quite pro-chaos, I suppose, although realistically we don't have it too badly as we could have it underneath a religious regime. I mean, I know we live under a government that has it's own way of running things but it could be the lesser of most of the evils.
As a final point, the concept of praying. There was a man on the programme who had called his Driving School 'MiracLe'. He said he prayed for customers when they ran dry, and God delivered them to him. Obviously, without financial records it'd be difficult to work out just how many customers 'God' brings him, but I'm sure the telephone numbers on his car that's out on the roads most days don't hurt. Some Christians have this idea of 'P.U.S.H.' - 'Pray Until Something Happens'. And if it doesn't happen, God didn't want it to happen. So if you want something to happen and it does, thank God. If it didn't, then you were wrong in the first place to want it. The whole concept just makes me laugh.
Christian Fundamentalists (the latter syllables being the operative ones) were featured on Channel4 just now, 8-9pm. Nadine Dorries featured, which is shocking considering she often denies connections with Christian movements. She says she's "there for everyone" but I can't remember the last time she listened to any of the massive amount of pro-choice evidence in the country.
These CFs amuse me. Christians in general are very funny to me, but the fundamentalists more so. At least crazed Jihadits have the balls to come out and say they want to kill everyone who's not part of their zany scheme. The whole Christian gig has this 'love everyone' kick. Even more annoying is the sense of 'if you're not with us you're completely and utterly misguided, you poor, Godless fool'. Zealots, pure and simple. All because of blood religion.
Example: I support Liverpool Football Club. My friend supports Manchester United. Currently, they have different things going for them and against them. I can talk about Liverpool's fantastic performances in Europe, they could talk about Manchester United's Premiership dominance. We could debate on those points, amongst others.
Religion isn't involved, therefore neither of us could turn around and say: "I'm right because a mystical figure is on my side." Well, we could, but it wouldn't be true. As soon as you involve religion in an arguement, it just gets silly.
Don't get me wrong - I have my faith, I like faith. Just not when it causes wars or suffering. Which is usually when people try to force it on everyone else like these people are trying to do, whether they admit wanting to be despots or not. '20 Reasons for 20 Weeks' is funded by groups like 'Right to Life' and all that shit, which is religious and 'moral' in it's findings. They want to control the destiny of thousands upon thousands of women. That's just one example of what these Christian Fundamentalists would like to do, given the chance. They protest against Mosques being built because they consider Allah to be a false prophet/the devil, depending who you speak to. They protest at gay meetings because they think people being gay is the work of the devil.
At least Jihad-loons have the evil honesty to hate all outsiders. CFs dress it up as it these people can be 'saved'. If, that is, they turn their backs on all they hold dear. And why? Because they say so. Although they'll tell you it's not their will, but the will of God. Convenient, that.
I have a real ying against people who try to force their way of thinking onto the general population. I'm quite pro-chaos, I suppose, although realistically we don't have it too badly as we could have it underneath a religious regime. I mean, I know we live under a government that has it's own way of running things but it could be the lesser of most of the evils.
As a final point, the concept of praying. There was a man on the programme who had called his Driving School 'MiracLe'. He said he prayed for customers when they ran dry, and God delivered them to him. Obviously, without financial records it'd be difficult to work out just how many customers 'God' brings him, but I'm sure the telephone numbers on his car that's out on the roads most days don't hurt. Some Christians have this idea of 'P.U.S.H.' - 'Pray Until Something Happens'. And if it doesn't happen, God didn't want it to happen. So if you want something to happen and it does, thank God. If it didn't, then you were wrong in the first place to want it. The whole concept just makes me laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
