Is there a place for religion in the NHS?
At an Employment Tribunal Dr David Drew, 64, lost his claim for unfair dismissal against Walsall Hospital NHS Trust. The judge ruled that that there was
“. . . no place for religious references at work”.
Dr Drew’s crime was to send an email containing the prayer of St. Ignatius Loyola to colleagues to encourage and motivate them. He also sent a text to a fellow consultant saying,
“Have a peaceful Christmas.”
This was perceived as being an “aggressive and unwelcome intrusion”. An internal investigation by members of the Trust concluded that Dr. Drew’s religious language was inappropriate in a professional setting and he was ordered to keep his religious views to himself. Dr. Drew could not accept this recommendation and was subsequently dismissed for “gross professional misconduct and insubordination”.i
The Need for Religion at Work
The belief that there is no place for religious references in the NHS is unacceptable for many reasons.
All people are spiritual as well as physical, psychological and social beings. The World Health organisation has defined health as well being in all these areas. Sir Kenneth Calman, when Chief Medical Officer, emphasised in his ‘On the State of the Public Health’ report in 1997 that a pre-eminent concern for those making decisions about health must be a concern for individuals. He went on to explain that he meant care for the whole person which includes,
“. . . holistic aspects to cover physical, social, psychological and spiritual aspects of life.”
How can the spiritual needs of patients be adequately addressed without reference to religion?
Doctors and medical students are trained to take patients’ histories by asking specific questions about physical symptoms, drug history, family history, past history, social history as well as spiritual matters. These can all have relevance to a patient’s wellbeing. Good holistic medical practice in our hospitals and practices will necessitate all practitioners being aware of these holistic areas of need.
Trusts are very aware of this. They employ chaplains to help with the spiritual care of staff and patients. Chapels are provided where staff and patients can go to meditate, pray and hold services. Religion is part of the very nature of man so it cannot be excluded from our work. People need to be informed about these by notices and word of mouth. Gideon Bibles, Korans and other religious books are freely available in our hospitals.
When patients are admitted to our hospitals they are asked about their religion. So clearly it is acceptable for religion to be talked about at work.
Trusts allow Sikhs, Jews and Muslims to wear religious clothing at work. These are not banned, yet they make statements just as clearly as verbal statements made by Christians. A cross for a Christian is a sign of faith and some Christians wear a cross in remembrance that Jesus died on the cross for us and yet this practice has been banned in the NHS whilst more ostentatious religious clothing is allowed.
There is much evidence that patients benefit physically, emotionally and psychologically from having a faith. Studies have shown that having a personal faith can give over a ten per cent advantage in recovering from disease or major operations. It is considered negligent not to discuss a potentially beneficial physical remedy with patients, so why is discussing the advantages of having a faith frowned upon?
What does the NHS think about the use of anti-Christian expletives such as “Jesus”, “God” and “Christ” in the NHS? Has such speech been banned and would their use receive similar disciplinary action from the Trust and criticism in court?
Why does the NHS allow Muslins prayer breaks and permit the working of altered hours to allow for Muslims’ fasting at Ramadan?
Clearly the NHS is selective over which religious practices are permitted. There has to be a place for religion in the NHS because humans are involved.
Who Rules?
All people, including doctors, nurses and hospital managers are spiritual beings. Unfortunately some worship themselves and reject any divine authority over them. Thus in George Bernard Shaw’s play “A Doctor’s Dilemma”, he introduces the doctor as,
“A self-made man who worships his creator.”
Self worship is a particular danger for those in authority, whether clinical or managerial. They can easily regress into a self-centred arrogance where others are not valued as much as themselves. This can result is an uncaring approach with resulting disharmonies.
Law or Faith Standards?
Rules or laws can never be a substitute for personal faith in controlling personal standards. It is faith that leads people to “go the second mile” in serving both their patients and colleagues. Laws can only prescribe minimal standards but we all expect higher standards. If it is so important for staff to behave altruistically, how can it be wrong to discuss these matters at work? Over the centuries the selfless, moral practice of medicine has always been based on faith, whether Hippocratic or from other religions. These high moral standards are impressed on medical students so how can it be wrong to discuss them when in practice? How can reminding others to give and not to count the cost and to do so because that pleases our creator be abhorrent?
Dearest Lord,
teach me to be generous;
teach me to serve You as You deserve;
to give and not to count the cost,
to fight and not to heed the wounds,
to toil and not to seek for rest,
to labour and not to ask for reward
save that of knowing I am doing Your Will. Ignatius of Loyola
When someone complains about such ideas being shared with them, the question must be asked about motives. Are they angry at the sharer or angry at God?
Clearly there is the question of the shortage of time. Religious people have responsibilities to their employer as well as their patients. However the same argument of limited time could be posed to those who spend extra time caring for others in different ways - but it never is.
The Need for Religion
Even atheists recognise the need for religion. Alain de Botton has written a book called ‘Religion for Atheists’. He astutely demonstrates how both religion and rituals have a deep effect on us all. He writes,
“The premise of this book is that it must be possible to remain a committed atheist and nevertheless find religions sporadically useful, interesting and consoling – and be curious as to the possibilities of importing certain of their ideas and practices into the secular realm.”ii
He has rejected the possibility of their being a God, yet he clearly and articulately demonstrates the benefits that religion gives us – especially that we are frail, finite and sinful. He recognises that religion points to something bigger than we are.
“Religion is above all a symbol of what exceeds us and an education in the advantages of recognising our paltriness.”iii
He is saying that religion is a vital part of our humanity. It helps us to recognise that there is more to life than the material world. It is therefore very wrong to suggest to people that the material world, the secular, is all that there is.
True concern
A Christian who is unconcerned for those without Christ is himself in serious need of help. Even atheists understand this. Penn Jillette is an avowed and vocal atheist. His is one half of the famous comic illusionist act, ‘Penn and Teller’. One day a polite but impressive elderly man tried to share the Christian good news with him. This is what Penn had to say about the experience,
“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytise. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward . . . How much do you have to hate someone not to proselytise? How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a truck was coming at you and you didn’t believe it, and that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that!”
A central tenet of the teaching of Jesus Christ is that his people should share the good news with those they meet.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20
“It is written: I believed; therefore I have spoken.” 2 Corinthians 4:13
“Since, then we know the fear of the Lord we try to persuade men.” 2 Corinthians 5:11
“And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God is making his appeal through us.” 2 Corinthians 5:19-20
Christians proclaim their belief in a loving, saving God by how they live and by what they say. To prohibit Christians from talking about the gospel is blatant discrimination and persecution, reminiscent of oppressive communist regimes. Sharing the good news is an essential tenet of the teaching of Christ and his apostles. Christians cannot keep the news to themselves.
Archbishop William Temple commented:
“No-one can possess (or rather, be indwelt by the Spirit of God) and keep that Spirit to himself. Where the Spirit is, he flows forth; if there is no flowing forth, he is not there.' Jesus said, '"Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive' (John 7:38-39).”
It would be so wrong to prevent people from discussing the relevance of Jesus particularly when they are in need. The law allows people to demonstrate their faith by their clothing, why does it not allow Christians to share the benefits of faith in God in a sensitive, caring manner?
Character
It is however vital to remind Christians about the character of their God. He described himself as,
“The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished . . .” Exodus 34 :6-7
These are therefore the characteristics that Christians must demonstrate at work and at home. Dr Drew was told he should leave his faith at home. The Spirit that God has given Christians is ‘compassionate and gracious’. A doctor’s attitude to patients and colleagues should demonstrate whether he or she is a helper or harasser. There can therefore be no place for forcing our views down other people’s throats. Sensitivity is essential. After all, if people reject us they will inevitably reject our message, a message the Bible says they need to hear. It is therefore very important that we always obtain consent to discuss any matter that may be contentious. If a discussion starts, then repeated consent is warranted. It is simple to ask, “Are you happy to discuss these matters?” It doesn’t matter whether the subject is sexual, personal or spiritual, respect must be shown to all.
So because the NHS deals with people it must also be willing to be involved with spiritual or religious topics. Open discussion of people’s real needs cannot be wrong. Harassment, whoever it is by and for whatever motives, is wrong and must be discouraged.
Truth
Everything we espouse in good medicine is the search for truth. What is the right diagnosis. What is the best treatment for this patient. My new book ‘Stepping Stones to Faith’ is all about the evidence that Jesus really is the Saviour of the world for all people. If, as Jesus affirmed, he embodies the truth of God (John 14:6) how dare some people exclude him from caring for the people he created. To forbid his involvement in the care of patients is a denial of his claims.
Sir Lionel Luckhoo is mentioned in the Guiness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Lawyer". As a defense attorney he won 245 murder trials in a row either before a jury or on appeal. He was knighted twice by Queen Elizabeth. He became a noted diplomat and a member of the highest court in his country.
The reason I was so intrigued by this man I thought, "What kind of skill do you need to achieve this phenomenal level of success. He's brilliant, savvy. He must be able to have such tremendous analytical powers that when the prosecutor presents what appears to be an air-tight case against his client, he must be able to find all the flaws, all the holes. He must be able to know what questions to ask to make a case fall apart. And this guy must really understand what evidence is all about. He must know what constitutes reliable evidence, powerful and convincing evidence. And all that was true of Sir Lionel Luckhoo. One day Sir Lionel Luckhoo was challenged to take his monumental legal analytical powers and to apply them to the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and come to a conclusion. He spent several years studying the historical records. This was his conclusion:
"I say unequivocally that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt."
Surely truth does matter?
BVP
i Article by Victoria Ward and John Bingham in the Daily Telegraph, Thursday, May 3rd 2012 p 5
ii Alain de Botton, ‘Religion for Atheists: A Non Believers Guide to the Uses of Religion’ p. 12
iii Alain de Botton, ‘Religion for Atheists: A Non Believers Guide to the Uses of Religion’ p. 200
