Anybody remember a QFR on JW nurses tattling on blood transfusions?

I've looked on JWN (first) and Watchtower Library (second) and can't find a Questions from Readers that I thought I remembered from the 70s or 80s. 

Maybe it wasn't actually a QFR.  Anyway, the gist of the question was, what does a conscientious JW nurse do when, in the course of her duties, she becomes aware of a fellow JW who is accepting a blood transfusion or getting an abortion. 

I thought I remembered the official direction was some typical WT Legal Dept double-speak which didn't explicity tell the JW nurse to rat out her fellow JW, but there was enough wink-and-nod language that a JW nurse with a good, sensitive, Bible-trained conscience would obey God as ruler rather than men and go running to the nearest JW kangaroo court. 

Anybody else remember this or am I hallucinating?

More to the point, if a late-teens JW female who is not ready for marriage goes on the pill and the nosy JW medical assistant at the clinic finds out about it, should the medical assistant violate HIPAA and tell the illdoers?  My purely hypothetical advice to my purely hypothetical daughter would be to find a different clinic before it becomes an issue.

Anyway, does anyone remember the WT giving at least tacit approval for JW medical professionals to violate patient confidentiality when "gross sin" (blech) is involved?

om

i think it was an article in the magazie as opposed to qfr, it has been posted here possibly under work ethics or confidentiality.

i expect someone else will remember where but i know its here somewheres

I remember it.  Would have been 80's or possible very early 90's.

I thought it was in the KM but I could be wrong.

It's been referenced on JWD within the past 2 years.

Blondie would know, pretty sure of it...!

-Aude.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/38045/1/Jws-and-confedentiality  think this one might narrow it down, if you search the site under nurse cofidentiality it brings up a few links too

Here's a related thread from 5 years ago:  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/72936/1/Confidentiality-at-the-Doctor-Dentist-Office

Scully has posted several articles on this subject too.  In fact, I think it was a paper she wrote while working on a degree.

As to your question about your hypothetical daughter, YES!  Switch before it is an issue.  If anonimity is a strong concern, maybe consider using an alias???  Pay cash and use a different name.  A JW can be hired at a later date and may go snooping through records potentially causing trouble.

Of course, in the hypothetical situation you presented, BC pills are prescribed for more than just prevention of pregnancy.  So the mere fact that said daughter was on 'the pill' does not in and of itself prove that she is sexually active.

-Aude.

Found it!!   "A Time to Speak - When?"  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/107603/1/A-Time-to-Speak-When-with-scans

You're Welcome. 

-Aude.

I remember that article.

Mrs LoB works as an administrator at a local Hospital. There are at least two Witnoids locally who were fired and lost their nursing licence for doing just such a thing. Mrs. LoB, being a respector of privacy AND Federal law does not speak of the details of the cases (and she knows) so I cannot speak to the details.

HIPAA is enforced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Dept. of Civil Rights and they do not fuck around with these things.

I love this place!

Thanks to Aude & all the rest.

Re-reading that article with the Borg-blinders removed is unbelievable.

om

Now I'm really curious.

You can legally refuse employment to an Orthodox Jew or 7th Day Adventist who won't work Saturdays, (I think).

Could a clinic refuse to hire JWs based on the possibility they may violate HIPAA privacy requirements?

om

Could a clinic refuse to hire JWs based on the possibility they may violate HIPAA privacy requirements?

A good hypothetical question...

Can they even ask the question "What is your religion? " these days ?

If so, and the employer is aware of the potential, then surely he could emphasise the need for confidentially in all circumstances. Could not pose the question at the interview?

If the Witness confesses loyalty to the Borg as above patient confidentiality, then surely he could employ someone else. If the dub turned to one of the few, not supported by the WT, who would sue for discrimination, it would be very interesting how the Court would view it...

to be sure, it is only witnesses and their families that are at risk.

that is certainly enough to get all current witnesses that are serving in these responsiblities fired, however.

They use Leviticus 5:1 as their scriptual basis for taking the stance they do on telling on a publisher who takes blood or has an abortion and it comes to the attention of a witness employee at a hospital.

New International Version

Leviticus 5     Read This Chapter

5:1 "'If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible." They totally misapply this scripture as usual. In the case of a blood transfusion or an abortion being accepted by a publisher at a hospital, this scripture has absolutely no bearing on either proceedure. It simply means if a man was defrauded by a fellow Israelite, he would go to the city elders who sat at the front gates and any witness to the crime the man was complaining about......was required to speak up as a witness.  Gumby

JWN Celebrity Alert!!

Gumby, you're back!!!!! How've you been? Stick around a while; we've missed you.

(parakeet whispering): This site has HIPPA laws of its own. Don't mention your former sideline business (though I thought it was hilarious).

OpenMind: Could a clinic refuse to hire JWs based on the possibility they may violate HIPAA privacy requirements?

Employers cannot ask potential employees about their religion. They can, I believe, ask if there's anything that would prevent them from fulfilling their job description and preserving patients' confidentiality. If the dub is truthful, his answer would eliminate him from the candidate pool. If the dub lies, when that's a dub for you.

I remember when they came out with that article. It really bothered me as I was working in the healthcare field and knew it was illegal to break the privacy of a patient.

The best thing a former JW can do to protect themselves from nosy-nelly JW snitches working in hospitals is go to the admitting department and have any JW reference erased from their files.

At the institution where I work, a person's religion is identified on their ID plate which is used to stamp their information on all chart documents.  However, there is an option of NIL, which means that either the person is unaffiliated or does not want that information to be part of their chart.  Hospital computer systems would allow someone working in the Pastoral Care service to provide the names of all Roman Catholic patients to the volunteer who is making rounds, offering to do mass with them.  That option is also available to JW Elders™ who have been cleared by the hospital to provide Pastoral visits to hospitalized JWs.  If you don't want them visiting, do not inform the hospital that you are JW.

The same goes with any clinic you attend - just don't mention it or if it is already on file in your chart, tell the doctor that you no longer wish to be identified as a JW in your medical records.

I would LOVE to go to a hospital or clinic where a known witness worked just to get ratted out.  I mean I could really use the couple hundred grand THAT lawsuit would get me!  I mean it's sort of entrapment but they DO have the ability to keep their mouth shut.

I don't remember the article but I know of a now deceased Witness that was a nurse adn readily gave the blood transfusions to patients but would have ratted on any Witness that took a transfusion.  What I never understood back then was what is the difference in giving someone a transfusion and taking one?

Thanks for all the replies. 

One last question:

If a JW has a nut-sack shining performed by medical professionals, does a JW medical assistant have to report it?

It's gross.  But is it a "gross sin"?

Where does the Gumbster weigh in on this sensitive topic?

Nice to see you Gumb.

om

crapola writes:

I don't remember the article but I know of a now deceased Witness that was a nurse and readily gave the blood transfusions to patients but would have ratted on any Witness that took a transfusion.  What I never understood back then was what is the difference in giving someone a transfusion and taking one?

I don't have the article reference handy, but the Logic™ was that the nurse, being an employee of the hospital, would be merely carrying out her professional responsibility, and performing per her job description, and following an order written by a physician, to a patient who had consented to a transfusion.  A JW has a choice to accept or refuse a transfusion.  By the same token, it was deemed inappropriate for a nurse to work in a situation where blood transfusions were happening all the time, or where blood was procured for the purpose of transfusion.  Same idea as someone working as a cashier in a store that sells cigarettes - it would be ok to be at a register where the customer brings the cigarettes to you to scan, but wrong to work at the counter that exclusively sells cigarettes.  (straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel, perhaps?)

I have seen a few JW nursing students go through my area while doing their clinical placements.  One of them flat out refused to give ANY blood products, even those that the WTS deemed to be a Conscience Matter™.  The goal of her giving this one treatment had nothing to do with blood - it was so she would learn how to do a certain nursing skill - and apparently the instructor was going to fail her because she refused to do it.  Of course, she appealed, claiming her Constitutional Right to practice her religion ::barf:: and the instructor had to let her pass even though she could not demonstrate competence in all the required skills.