Abandoning longstanding ethical principles, the Royal College of Nursing in the UK has issued new guidelines that justify refusal to treat or withdrawal of care in cases of discriminatory behaviour, including racism.
The Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority (“SRA”) is also following a totalitarian ideology. Solicitor, Lois Bayliss, has been accused by the SRA of acting “against mainstream science” because she sent out “anti-vaccine” letters. The SRA claims to have a “body of evidence” against her anti-vaccine beliefs but refuses to allow her to bring in medical expert witness evidence to defend herself in her final hearing. How Orwellian is that, remarked Jonathan Engler who is a healthcare entrepreneur, qualified in medicine and law.
The first is The Royal College of Nursing (“RCN”), which says (of the recent protests):
These scenes around the country are nothing short of despicable racism – they have no place in our society. As an anti-racist organisation, the RCN will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.
So, they have issued new guidelines which state that “where there is discriminatory behaviour, including racism” a refusal to treat or the withdrawal of care may be justified.
The RCN announcement can be found HERE. The new guidance is HERE.
Aside from the concerns – expressed in THIS article – over a professional body essentially acting as a social justice organisation (as well as simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist), this represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles.
Who is to judge what is racist? And how? Are 95-year-olds who don’t keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as “coloured” to be refused treatment because they are “racist”? According to these guidelines that could well be justified.
What about a cheeky laddish comment by a male adolescent towards an attractive female nurse? Well, that’s misogyny, which is discriminatory – so no treatment?
It’s all very well responding, “Don’t be silly, nurses will exercise discretion,” but the whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don’t depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of – well anything, really – leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their carers.
Hellbound and Down 