| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
From North Wales, Pennsylvania.
| Correspondence to: Susan Kerr Bernal, JD, MPH, PhD(c) (e-mail: bernal{at}erols.com). |
| Received for publication November 10, 2003; accepted for publication November 10, 2003. |
What makes this event so offensive? The overt racism expressed by the husband as opposed to the typical, muffled, under-the-radar, daily widespread racism that exists? The husband's preoccupation with the color of the hospital staff rather than with his wife's delivering a healthy baby? The hospital supervisor's condoning a nonpatient's racism, despite the hospital's antidiscrimination policy, which states, "employees will be assigned to patient services without regard to the race, creed, color, national origin or religion of either the patient or employee"? The supervisor's failure to consult and discuss the situation with staff members? Or the sad fact that this is not an aberrant isolated occurrence? Obviously, all of the above.
What Should Have Been Done
The first consideration in almost any hospital situation is concern for the
health and safety of the patient, herein, the pregnant woman. Given
her impending delivery and antidumping statutes, it would have been improper
and most likely illegal to discharge the patient to another hospital. Faced
with the reality of treating the woman, who apparently did not disagree with
her husband's request, the supervisor should have explained the policy and
provided a copy of the hospital's antidiscrimination policy to the couple.
The husband's response to such action, gleaned from newspaper reports of his actions even though his demand was accommodated, would have been to become violent and threatening in an effort to get his way. At this juncture the man would have forfeited his privilege to be present at his wife's side and should have been removed from the environment unless able to abide by hospital policy.
What Was Done
Instead of doing the right thing, the Abington Memorial Hospital supervisor
failed in his responsibility to the hospital, to staffers, and to society at
large. In doing so, he disrupted the hospital's staff, promoted bigotry, and
focused unwanted attention from the NAACP and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on the hospital. In general, he utterly embarrassed himself and the
hospital, ultimately engendering comments such as "morally
reprehensible" from the president of this 508-bed trauma facility whose
4510 staff is 24% minority.
Although almost 40 years have elapsed since enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a great deal of understanding and work is still needed. We can and must do better. For those doctors, hospitals, and medical personnel specifically—and all members of society for that matter— who have not experienced such a nauseating and concrete case of racism, discussing and preparing for its unfortunate eventuality will hopefully salvage something positive from Abington's abominable actions.
Footnotes
* Journal of Andrology welcomes letters to the editor
regarding "Forum" articles and other ethical and legal issues of
interest in your own practice or research. We also invite you to suggest
topics that deserve attention in future issues. Papers appearing in this
section are not considered primary research reports and are thus not subjected
to peer review. Unsolicited manuscripts are welcome, and will be reviewed and
edited by the Section Editor. All submissions should be sent to the
Journal of Andrology Editorial Office. 
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
