Industrial action against the dying
The nurses’ union has ordered those of its members who work at Boffa Hospital, where cancer patients are treated, to boycott one man who has terminal cancer. It says that this is because he is “a health hazard”. Now I don’t know whether the order was given in Maltese and translated badly into English by the newspapers, but ‘health hazard’ implies that there is a risk of infection and not a risk of being yelled at or met with aggression. So I read it and thought: “Health hazard? Does he also have a highly contagious disease besides cancer, and if so, so what? Aren’t people with highly contagious diseases usually looked after by nurses who take protective measures?”
I couldn’t work it out, until I read through to the end of the story. Apparently, this patient had lost his rag with one of the nurses, complained to the hospital authorities, and the nurse was transferred elsewhere. The nurses’ union complained – perhaps rightly, I don’t know – that the nurse’s version of the event wasn’t heard before the decision to whisk him or her off elsewhere.
Taken in the context of what I read, the union’s order to nurses not to treat this cancer patient and to immediately leave any room that he may enter looks like nothing other than sheer vengeful spite. As Stephen Brincat, the oncologist who has been responsible for our cancer hospital for many years now, said of the union’s order: “It’s totally immoral and outrageous….It’s unheard of to act against a patient. Since the directive is completely unethical, I expect the nurses not to obey it on grounds of conscience.”
I can only imagine that the behaviour of those bus drivers was catching. That reminds me: the other day I was outside the InterContinental hotel while a polite and patient man from RMF changed a wheel on my car, when up walked the driver of one of the white taxis there and introduced himself, then set up helping the RMF man with the wheel. “I just want you to know that we’re not all animals,” he said. Point taken.
7 Comments Comment
Reply to Anthony Click here to cancel reply
This is simply unacceptable. A cancer patient is someone who has a fragile outlook on life, and chemotherapy does affect your judgment. Is it possible that nurses treating this patient didn’t make this allowance? Of course it’s not done. What have we now, nurses or bloody primadonnas ? And can its union in all conscience even tolerate this at all?
The ‘directive’ to nurses, had to be something like :-
“Nurses must treat this patient, only in the presence of
hospital superintendent or his deputy.”
I must confess to a ginormous respect for nurses, their profession, their union, their patience and their everything else. The value of the role they play in society is inestimable. I accept that they usually get well paid for whatever they do, BUT, they have a tough job. I am sure no one will deny this. The more ill their client the tougher it gets. It cannot get much tougher than at Sir Paul Boffa’s. Ask Stephen Brincat. I appeal to the nurses’ Union from the bottom of my heart : withdraw this blessed directive guys (and dolls). In the vernacular ” zlaqtu fin-niexef” – let us blame the heatwave and forget all about it.
So should a cancer patient be allowed to treat nurses like they owe him a favour? Or should he be thankful that these people are doing their best for him?
does anyone have any idea how the story developed? it seems to have gone off the radar
“The unique function of the nurse is to assist the individual, sick or well, in the performance of those activities contributing to health or its recovery (or to peaceful death) that he would perform unaided if he had the necessary strength, will or knowledge. And to do this in such a way as to help him gain independence as rapidly as possible” this was said by Virginia Henderson in 1966.
It seems as if Paul pace (MUMN President) has given the cold shoulder to this definition of nursing. I am sure that most nurses who are members of this union are cringing by the mere fact tht they re paaying members. What must MUMN be thinking? Shame on you MUMN for making the profession of nurses stoop so low in the publics’ eye. Nurses have always complained that they are not looked and viewed favourably by the public………..well there is the proof…….this absurd, cruel, unprofesional directive.
The public demands an apology from MUMN. And I am surprised that the Honourable John Dalli has not as yet steamrolled the MUMN officials. If i were the Minister of Health i will suspend them.
@ Dr. ABC: Maybe – just maybe – the nurses must have felt ashamed of the directive… But probably it’s just me dreaming…