Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Religion vs. infection control, part 2
Last month I blogged about a phlebotomist in the UK who was facing disciplinary action because she wore a crucifix while working. Today, British newspapers are reporting that she has resigned her position because she refused to comply with an order to remove it. She reports that she wore it under her clothes. If this is true, the claim that the crucifix represents an infection control risk is baseless, and such heavy handed treatment only serves to undermines infection control efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OSHA! OSHA! OSHA!
In many parts of the country, as rates of COVID-19 are declining and vaccination coverage is increasing (albeit with substantial variati...
-
Back on clinical service again and having more thoughts on poor hospital design. Last month I wondered why there were no stethoscope wipe... -
Those that follow me on twitter or the blog have probably noticed my recent focus on trying to understand the emergence of compulsory influe... -
REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha With the assistance of a great supply management team, we have been able to outfit all of our clinical staff wit...
This is an interesting situation. Secularism in infection control? If the crucifix was truly under the shirt, and not in contact with patients, it does not constitute a risk. Something more pervasive, possibly agenda driven, could be driving this policy. I commend this women for standing with her values, as religious freedom does not compromise infection control.
ReplyDelete