Chaplains on the NHS should not come out of my taxes
Dear Terry Sanderson,
As president of the National Secular Society (NSS), I’m sure you come across numerous examples of where religion is given a helping hand by government. My continued opposition to faith schools would presumably fit in with your organisation’s viewpoint on education, and when it comes to the NHS we are also in agreement that religious groups should fund their own presence in UK hospitals, be it chaplains or otherwise.
NHS guidance currently states that all patients have a right to ‘religious observance’ and that trusts should provide both faith representatives and places to pray. You contacted 233 acute and mental health trusts which spent a total of £26.72m on chaplains (an average of £48,953 each) and then extrapolated these figures for the whole of the UK. However, this is just the salaries of the chaplains and excluded national insurance contributions, pension payments, administration costs, office accommodation, training and the upkeep of chapels and prayer rooms. Your argument is simple enough - the total of £40 million is equivalent to employing 1,300 nurses or 2,645 cleaners. “I think if people were given the choice they would choose the latter [nurses or cleaners] because frontline services are under pressure, they are going to be increasingly so as the recession bites, and it’s important that savings are made wherever they can be”. The role of NHS chaplains (who come from a range of faiths and denominations including Anglican, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim) ranges from visiting the sick, to administering sacraments and advising on ethical dilemmas. They are also expected to help staff and relatives cope with death and serious illness. You argue that these services are part of churches’ own “fundamental responsibility” and should be paid for out of their own pockets. “This could be done as part of the clergypersons’ regular duties – it should not fall as a burden on the NHS.” You added that in some cases organists were on the payroll to play in chapels and in other instances Catholic priests delivering last rites charge the hospital a “call-out” fee.
I have no doubt that there is a demand for NHS chaplains and I’m sure patients and staff appreciate having them there. However, my taxes should not pay for it. The NHS is there to treat people, not make them feel warm and fuzzy because their sky fairy is apparently looking down on them in the dirty and understaffed hospital wing that they are currently residing in. Mind you, I think I’d start praying if I went into an NHS hospital these days such is the possibility of contracting C.difficile, but still. Chaplains can visit the sick and ‘administer sacraments’ as much as they want but I should not be paying for it. On a related note, I think it is disgusting that chaplains are even allowed, let alone encouraged, to give totally unqualified advice on “ethical dilemmas” in hospitals. Since when did religious representatives have what’s best for the patient at heart? Their only purpose would be to force the teaching of their holy book on patients, which is absolutely appalling when a patient is ill. If a patient wants to a chaplain to visit them and discuss their situation, fine, we live in a (fairly) free country, but I should not be paying for it. The Department of Health are probably right when they say that “Chaplains do an extremely demanding job, often in difficult circumstances, and their skill and dedication is highly valued by patients, relatives and staff within the health service” but that doesn’t mean that my taxes should fund someone else’s pseudo-treatment and/or discussions with sky fairies.
This whole situation seems to go back to the basic principles of the NHS. I would have thought that the NHS was created to ensure that patients have access to whatever treatments they need to patch them up. If chaplaincy counts as a treatment, then why can’t I get ‘extra services’ paid for by the taxpayer like a nice takeaway (which would also reduce my risk of dying, such is the quality of hospital food) or for someone to ship their family over from Australia just to visit them in hospital? Surely having family around us would have a greater impact on our health outcomes than having a chaplain? The logic of using my taxes to pay for chaplains is completely flawed, as it discriminates against non-religious patients who would also probably like to have someone important to them at their bedside to help them through a difficult time. Well done for highlighting this practice and good luck with shattering it in due course.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Incredible that these charlatans, these sky-fairy peddlars, manage to take circa £40m out of the NHS to pay for their mumbo jumbo. The NHS is there to provide evidence based medicine to make people well. This is why Prince Charles is so wrong about homeopathy – its not science, its not medicine – like this prayer, its just voodoo, frankly. After all, if prayer worked for illness we’d never have developed medicine, especially since in the past we were more pious.
So the NHS should only be spending money on *medical* care, not on propagating the absurd, uprovable notions of grown men that believe in fairies.
“… its not science, its not medicine – like this prayer, its just voodoo, frankly…”
Can you get that on the NHS too? It’d be a lot more fun, I’d have to admit. I suspect PETA wouldn’t approve, though…
The parallel with ‘alternative’ treatments is a very important one. There are lots of people who say that alternative treatments work, but there is a distinct absence of evidence along the same lines. I’m sure that the placebo effect can be witnessed in all forms of medicine, but like I sais if we’re willing to pay for chaplains at £50,000 a year plus benefits then I don’t see why the NHS shouldn’t fork out for a huge number of other services that improve our state of mind e.g. family transport, excellent food, a collection of the finest DVDs, voodoo dolls of Gordon Brown to stick pins into…. (what can I say, it would make me feel better if I was stuck in a hospital bed).
Ironically, LFAT, there is much more evidence that providing ‘excellent food’ would improve people’s recuperation time (and quality) since unlike prayer, the role of good nutrition in the healing process is actually demonstrable and well understood. In fact, the provision of decent meals is something discussed semi-regularly in the context of the NHS…
I mean, seriously, what would you rather? Decent food and maybe an extra nurse or some ‘chaplain’ mumbling prayers you don’t believe in?
But more than just ‘providing excellent food’, there needs to be a system in place to ensure that the patients can eat it.
The best food in the world will provide no benefit if people unable to eat unaided are ignored by the staff because it’s ‘not part of their job’.
It should be, and this is where that recovered money from chaplains should go.
Yes Julia.
That recent report about the mentally impaired literally being left to starve, often after having uncomprehendingly removing their feeding tubes, was appalling. But of course, its not permissible to criticise NHS staff – a lefty shibboleth equivalent to the right’s knee-jerk response to gripes about Police crapness.
I’m uncertain about homeopathy on the NHS, of course the whole thing is a load of bunkum, but it has been reported to have something akin to the placebo effect – Northern Ireland’s Department of Health did a study on it. Be interesting to see a detailed methodology of the study, just to check no biases were built in – this being a government study involving alternative medicine, two areas hardly known for scientific rigour. It would also be interesting to see a cost/benefit analysis.
As for the chaplains, surely the religions can provide them to the NHS? It seems ridiculous that the taxpayer funds them – they’re not exactly broke are they? Of course I’d argue most organized religions abandoned their founding principle a long time ago.
Time to stop funding them. If the religions wish to provide a service, let them, but it should be funded either by charitable donations or their own religious bodies, not by the taxpayer.
I’ll also add that nursing care ought to be a higher priority. Last year when my dad was dying in hospital, it was taking three nurses to change a bed (well, chatting around the bed they were supposed to be changing) whilst phlegm, expelled from a tracheal tube, coated his chest. Undignified and unhygenic.
It took my sister getting some gloves and telling them she’ll do it herself to get some action out of them.
There’s more to patient dignity than providing a chaplain.
LFAT the amount of money involved is pitifully small and you are quite wrong if you think the taxpayer does not overwhelmingly support it. You talk about alternative medicine which should for the most part be dropped , but what about ‘therapy and counselling .. There is no convincing evidence that the entire thing does any good and now you are into serious money .The extent of squander on this rational religion is truly monumental but perhaps it points us in a different direction , perhaps there is something missing .Perhaps this vacuous modern ego massage is trying to assuage a hunger it cannot …hmmmm?
You may believe its birth copulation and worm food out there but every action you take proves you do not in your heart believe this soulless vision of pointless atoms .
The service fills a desperate need and even if you do think its illogical LFAT when did that ever concern any Conservative . Clearing out he encrustation of age replacing that illogical old church with shopping centre , replacing the Queen with President Brown this is all rational .
At the heart of Conservativim ( Only one strain of the Conservative Party ) is the perhaps unattractive suspicion that he may not be in possession of perfect knowledge . Te modest assumption that things which have provably worked and best left in the absence of overwhelming arguments tp the contrary. In this case the arguments are underwhelming. Not whelming at all really
LFAT the amount of money involved is pitifully small and you are quite wrong if you think the taxpayer does not overwhelmingly support it. You talk about alternative medicine which should for the most part be dropped , but what about ‘therapy and counselling .. There is no convincing evidence that the entire thing does any good and now you are into serious money
£40m is not pitifully small and what evidence can you offer that taxpayers overwhelmingly support funding religious preaching of various faiths in NHS hospitals? At a time where that kind of money could be used to address some of the more, ahem, scientifically verifiable problems such as poor hygiene or nutrition?
And just because this government, no doubt influenced by its formative days with Dolly Draper, have fallen in love with CBT does not make it uncontroversial at all. I quite agree we should be talking about the drive for CBT over other more expensive but possibly more successful treatments but also over the Government’s perverse desire to treat unemployment with…Cognititve Behavioural Therapy. We won’t get you a job but we’ll try and make you not feel too bad about it!
I don’t see this as a dichotomy – I see this as a seriously anti-science, anti-enlightenment Government which ignores science and evidence in favour of faith or belief in almost every field. That it pushes CBT on the one hand and religion on the other is simply about pushing the irrational.
Newmania, I agree that there is support for these services but why just for Christians? Surely the NHS does not have a particular religious position and therefore has the choice of either fully funding rabbis, imams, chaplains and any other religious representative on a full time basis or not funding any of them? I would be truly amazed if there is no scientific evidence that bereavement counselling is effective, and surely the services that the chaplains are provided would be much better delivered by a qualified professional? In short, the NHS has finite resources and has to squeeze the best value out of every penny. I have no evidence that chaplains are ineffective and anecdotally I’m sure they have support, but because a few people like the service doesn’t mean that cutbacks should be made elsewhere in the NHS budget to pay for it. I’d prefer not to die from c.difficile than have a taxpayer-funded chaplain in the near vicinity.
Obsidian, placebo effects can indeed be noticeable but that doesn’t mean £40 million quid is well spent. That money could be used in many better ways to improve health outcomes so I agree with your sentiments.
Shaun, the NHS has always been a touchy subject with the Left but I still reckon they wouldn’t put up much of a fight on this issue.
Agree with Newmania.
The costs are insignificant. This year UK govt spending, say £745 billion, would make the Chaplins costing around 0.0005% of spending.
its not as if the money saved would go onto something except debt interest payment. All of 1 days worth!
They,and the money spent, are doing far more good where they are now.
I realise that you believe the church should be paying, but still. The monies involved are trivial. There are greater, better savings to be found in every council in the land. Even a curb on MP’s expenses {heaven forbid} would recover more money for the taxpayer.
Most of the expenditure of The Department of Health (£98.7 billion in 2008-9[3]) is spent on the NHS.£40 million is that 0.04% ? Do you seriously think such a budgetary saving would turn into “Nurses “ … Now that’s what I call faith !
On the support well I am using nasal intuition admittedly but 2001 census found that 76.8% of the UK population had a religion, with Christianity being the most prevalent (71.6% of respondents described their religion as such ) .This is not about funding it is about removing the spiritual dimension from life and death . Perhaps you noticed that Doctors support euthanasia , perhaps you are aware that scientifically there is no special reason not to abort new born babies eat your parents or sterilize inconvenient populations as gas often been done and was recommended by the Fabians in the 20th century. Why not ?
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is actually quite sound , the NHS is awash with prehistoric broadly Freudian therapists operating a metaphor as if it were a tool.
The enlightenment was the work of Christians when they were not worrying about more important things it is not the only sort of understanding that has value .
Can you rationalise love ? Loyalty ? Hope ….No.We are not machines , we are souls … although if you oress me I will concede that Shaun Pilkington may be a machine but he is an exception
I’m sorry but I don’t buy the argument that ‘it is a small sum of money so it doesn’t matter’. If all the small, pointless expenditure in the public sector was eliminated, I can pretty much guarantee that the savings will be MASSIVE. Remember the TPA’s publication on all the government quangos, which are tiny when taken in isolation but add up to around £100 billion a year when combined together? MPs expenses are another part of the same problem.
Newmania, I have no desire to see chaplains booted unceremoniously out of hospitals but the church should be paying for them, not us. It is not the state’s duty to impose a spiritual dimension on anyone’s life, that is a purely personal decision that does not involve the state. The census data is also a bit bogus, seeing as I seriously doubt 72% of the population are practicising Christians.
If its like Army Chaplains then they could be of any conceivable faith. Vicars, Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, Imams, the lot. They should pay for themselves, we shouldn’t be paying for them.
I love the ‘de minimas’ argument. I know ex-Councillor Tories who use it to defend MP’s expense fiddles. As LFAT points out – the bloating of the public sector budget is down not to one or two massive screwups, but instead to endemic, smaller wastes. Such as this.
I also enjoy the way the religious automatically have to resort to personal abuse. I’m not a machine, I just don’t believe in gods or monsters and have not seen any evidence for ’souls’. I’ve also not seen a persuasive argument for why we should all be paying to subsidise other people’s irrational beliefs.
Trivial?! £40 million…?
Even if it was, what’s being argued here is the principle. We didn’t, after all, excuse Jacqui Jackboots because the mucky videos her husband claimed were cheap ones, did we?
Placing the absolute values in the context of percentages is just an exercise in figure manipulation. 40 million is 40 million, whether it’s 0.005% or 50% of the total, and can be used someplace more productive.
@Newmania, no ones saying we’re machines, what is being said is that there is appropriate and inappropriate funding, and chaplains sit firmly in the latter. Faith is the realm of the churches, not the state which is here to deal with earthly matters.
As for your 71.6% of people who associate with Christianity in the UK, most of that will be from indoctrination as children – which is why so many lapse. It’s what irritates about all organized religions – they think brainwashed children are equivalent to those who freely find their faith.
@Newmania, no ones saying we’re machines, what is being said is that there is appropriate and inappropriate funding, and chaplains sit firmly in the latter. Faith is the realm of the churches, not the state which is here to deal with earthly matters.
. Yes you are if you think about it .In any case you make a false distinction as I have tried to point out . God is an earthly matter if he matters at all (although I hate to sound so pompous ) . There are numerous things which I consider entirely irrational but I nonetheless contribute my taxes to . I am not at all sure the NHS does not fall into this category in its entirely .For the same taxation I can purchase about £400,000 of health care for my family. If I wish to argue that this is irrational I make my case as I have begun to . I do not say I should not pay for the NHS because its ‘irrational’ . That the conclusion I wish to persuade you off not the assumption I start with..
As for your 71.6% of people who associate with Christianity in the UK, most of that will be from indoctrination as children – which is why so many lapse. It’s what irritates about all organized religions – they think brainwashed children are equivalent to those who freely find their faith.
I am concerned about he increasing number of children indoctrinated into atheism . You think , without “Indoctrination” that spiritual yearning would cease. Can Introduce you to a little thing I like to call “The whole of human history “ which would suggest otherwise.
Shaun I was only kidding for ‘blank`s’ sake .
I thnk you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Yes 40M is a lot but as some have argued above there is a placebo effect, and some people can be helped enormously by chaplains even if they don’t get better physically. I even agree that it should not come out of taxes, since religious orders don’t pay tax anyway! And most donations are in cash so there is lots of room to be dishonest… But my main point is there are a lot more superfluous staff than chaplains, and they take a much larger chunk of the budget than 40M. A thousand more nurses wont’ do any good, we need ten thousand more and we need them to provide proper nursing rather than trying to become “doctors”, and what better way to pay for it than to get rid of all those useless managers with a clipboard who waste clinical staff time in meetings, ticking boxes and trying to meet a target rather than caring for the patient.
May I recommend the blogs NHS blog doctor (who agrees with LFAT on this post) and the Jobbing doctor for anyone who wishes to know about today’s issues preventing hard working NHS staff from doing their jobs properly.
Most comments on the thread seem to have accepted the assumption that Chaplaincy Services deliver no medical benefit, or financial value to the NHS. Why?
Two big problems with this stuff:
1 – The research is not rigorous, and it’s presentation is not objective.
Example: They told the Government that it was 1500 nurses, not 1300. Read the report.
Example: They have used at least 3 different figures for the “cost” of a nurse in different places, without explaining why.
Example: They have made a shoal of assumptions about the cost of “Chaplains” without providing justification.
Example: They have used the “English” figures in their presentations for “how much a Chaplain costs” across the UK, despite having done research in all 4 countries. The figures for all the other countries are – needless to say – lower.
That’s the problem with “research” from campaigning organisations that have a strong set of beliefs to propagate.
2 – They are asking completely the wrong question.
There’s a debate to be had here, but it needs to be based on medical effectiveness rather than the NSS whipping people up about money.
What would you say, LFAT, if the “40 million” (or whatever the real figure is) turned out to be saving the NHS 4 or 5 times as much?
The publication of these reports is about the NSS looking for levers to pursue its agenda, rather than looking for benefit or otherwise to the NHS.
>LFAT:
>I agree that there is support for these services but why just for Christians?
I’m not sure where that came from. The service is integrated and the NSS “raw data” showed that, even if they didn’t put it in the press releases.
>I would be truly amazed if there is no scientific evidence that bereavement counselling is effective, and surely the services that the chaplains are provided would be much better delivered by a qualified professional?
I think you’ll find that Chaplains *are* the best qualified professional staff for bereavement counselling, and that – as with a number of other roles – it is a cost-effective way of providing the service.
And I love Shaun Pilkington’s sense of humour:
“I also enjoy the way the religious automatically have to resort to personal abuse.”
after a first contribution to the entire thread starting:
“Incredible that these charlatans, these sky-fairy peddlars…”
Try not abusing people, and they may not abuse you back.
@Newmania
It’s not a false distinction at all – God is most assuredly not an earthly matter. His alleged representatives may be, but they are independent organizations with a remit of promoting their religion, ensuring its adherents follow its policies and providing succour to the faithful.
The NHS, on the other hand, is in the business of healing. If the church is providing a tested, with verifiable and consistent results, service to the NHS outside of the churches remit, but within the NHS’s, then yes, they should be compensated. If they’re just doing what they’re supposed to as part of church doctrine, then its a freebie – charity being something consistent across most faiths.
As for indoctrination into atheism, I’m against any form of state-based indoctrination (home is an entirely different matter). There is no place for faith in our education system, although I support introducing children to the existence of religion, without trying to force them down any route.
State and Church should remain as separate as possible. The alternative fails everyone as we have seen across history, from the rise of the Inquisition to the fall of Islamic enlightenment. The 30 Years War was the poster child of why religion and politics is a loathsome mix.
As for a yearning for spirituality, it has been shown that our brains are wired with a desire for faith and fantasy, so it’s no more surprising it crops up across human history than any other innate human activity. Of course such wiring offers no proof of any god, and even if it did, not which one.
Matt, of course the NSS have their own agenda, but you will notice that many commentors – myself included – are talking about principles as well as cost. The NSS brought this issue to my attention, that is all.
If there was clear evidence that chaplains had a scientific benefit, I’d be willing to listen, but I haven’t seen you or anyone in the media provide anything of the sort. And where is your evidence that chaplains are the best qualified staff? Furthermore, even evidence that they help would not be sufficient to justify their blanket use. The figure of £50,000 a pop for every religious representative is eye-watering and if the NHS wants to provide bereavement counselling then it must adhere to some kind of sanity when it comes to how effectively it is spending the money. Wouldn’t it be nice to spend the money on completely non-religious qualified professionals who did not have their own agenda and then having the church or the mosque or the synagogue offer extra help at no cost to the taxpayer if patients requests it?
Full of holes Obsidian . Holey you might say. I shall resist the temptation of your silly first para and move onto the second .The NHS , you say , is in the business of healing . Well is it is also necessarily in the business of ushering to death . For you nothing much happens, atoms are arranged this way or that , no fuss. Others have thought that something rather profound happened when a life ended and have sought, especially at this time for more than Kit Kat from the machine .
In fact many people almost as clever as you have thought that such a reaching out was even more important that eeking out another minute of pain. I `m not sure that there is an experiment to prove this to your satisfaction but I feel confident . You are saying , I think that there are two categories here . One are logical things like the EU , the Royal Yacht , RDAs the GLA Banett formula funding , Community liaison through face paint , about which there can be no debate . Others are illogical like the wish for a spiritual and broadly meaningful context to death. Oddly enough to me it seems the other way round.
I do not agree with you that the State should not “indoctrinate although that’s prerogative way to put it influence , cohere …those are better words Our educational system is a process of indoctrination largely for the good . .I understand your views .The state is latterly often force of oppression but it is also the ritual enactment of civic and cultural life . This older conception of the “State “ its true has been almost entirely obscured by its accretion of muck but it still persist in these corners , in the importance of the Queen , the flag , National celebrations . It surprising how important these illogical things are to people.
Here the ferocious rationalism of LFAT has spied a small redoubt of that older government .He wants to squash it and leave the surface clean shiny and hygienic …. Perhaps he is right. It occurs to me that in LFATs new world of rational principles , that an enormous amount of funds are wasted on the inconvenient and unhygienic business of allowing relatives to sit around with their ludicrous weeping at the departing of a loved one . Imagine the savings that this not strictly “healing” function might yield if it were stopped ?
Oh I am looking forward to this new world with all my …atoms
£50,000 a pop for every religious representative is eye-watering.
Let me see 980,000 staff in 2005 lets cal it a million shall we . £745 billion of funding so that’s about £750,000 each .Of course there are other ways to look at it , do you feel the National Secular Society b tried there bestest to be fair ? Then neither shall I.
The issue is surely one of respect for those who are in hospital care – usually through no choice of their own and with no desire to be. They have to be there; we have to respect their reasonable needs.
My son spent yesterday on a ward, and was discharged this morning. Mrs P spent the night there with him. Was it reasonable for us to expect the hospital to provide her with a bed? Yes, I think so.
She needs a strict gluten-free diet, for medical reasons (diagnosed in the same hospital, ironicaly). During previous admissions, we met some difficulty in obtaining food for her. Was it reasonable for us to insist that there was gluten-free food available? Yes, I think so.
If we were Jewish, would it be reasonable to expect kosher food to be available? There would be no medical reason for us to want this; there would be no harm to us as a result of eating non-kosher food. But still, I think that in a civilised society it would be reasonable for us to have expected that to be provided.
If we were of a fervent faith and wished to pray, would it be reasonable for us to expect there to be a space in the hospital where we could do so? Yes, I think so.
All of these decisions adversely affect other patients. That bed needs to be funded. The food preparation areas could be more efficient if they did not need to avoid cross-contamination of food conforming to special diets. There could have been an extra operating theatre, or more parking if there had not been a chapel. And so on. But any community will have a variety of views, and it is the mark of civilisation that we respect them.
So, the big one. Is it reasonable of me to expect the hospital to provide a paid, trained Minister from whatever mainstream faith I happen to abide by? To be honest, I have no idea. It depends on how useful they are, and to how many patients. I don’t see anything wrong in principle with a hospital deciding to do so. If they feel that painting the hospital in bright and cheery colours helps, then good – do it. Likewise, if they feel that it would help to have sensitive, understanding, tactful people of faith wandering around looking for people who need to be made to feel better about their imminent suffering and death, then I think that is fine.
I’d be happy to leave this decision to those who actually know whether it might help; those that have to run hospitals and (presumably) have some experience of it. So, if they think they might find some sensitive, understanding, tactful people in the religious communities, they should be able to go for it.
Cough.
>Matt, of course the NSS have their own agenda, but you will notice that many commentors – myself included – are talking about principles as well as cost.
Agreed on that.
>And where is your evidence that chaplains are the best qualified staff?
Everywhere. See the professional competencies required in job adverts, the details of Hospital Chaplaincy Postgraduate Qualifications, the fact that many hospitals choose to use their Chaplaincy teams as bereavement counsellors, or even that they use them as trainers for there other staff.
>Furthermore, even evidence that they help would not be sufficient to justify their blanket use. The figure of £50,000 a pop for every religious representative is eye-watering and if the NHS wants to provide bereavement counselling then it must adhere to some kind of sanity when it comes to how effectively it is spending the money.
LFAT, you said that they only brought the issue to your attention, and now you are relying on their numbers. The number they come up with for Scotland is less than £40k. The ones for Wales and Northern Ireland less than that. In the press release it suddenly changes to £57k. Really, the credibility is zero.
If they want to argue about Cost of Chaplaincy services, then they need to analyse what these services are and provide evidence for more cost-effective alternatives. That has not been done.
Shaun >Cough
I’m baffled. What has that link to do with this thread? Sorry.
Matt, I hardly think that job adverts is fully representative of the entire NHS – but let’s say you’re correct. Let’s say that Chaplains actually cost just £30,000 a year instead of £50,000. You have still avoided the fundamental point of my this post: these are religious individuals with a religious agenda who will NOT offer patients objective medical advice nor will they be of use to every patient. It is totally unacceptable, even if there is evidence that chaplains help, to allow religious dogma to influence medical decisions and offer counselling based on religious beliefs when the taxpayer is footing the bill. By all means let hospitals bring in religious representatives, but not with my money. If I was in hospital, I do not want some person who believes in sky fairies trying to counsel me after a relative dies – I want a fully trained, impartial professional.
Patently, sorry to hear about your son. You raise some fascinating questions, but my stance does not change. A faith-based representative will never be of equal use to every patient. Doctors and nurses are of use to everyone in society, hence why we pay for them on the NHS. They are impartial, they treat everyone, they are used by everyone (at some point in their lives, anyway) and they are needed. We do not need ministers and rabbis, even if some people might like to have them there. Like I said, if the NHS made funding decisions on what every patient wanted in terms of extra services, it would collapse. The religious communities can pay the bill, the hospitals can use them as and when they are requested – everyone wins.
I lost the last of my belief when I watched young men die after suffering terrible wounds. As one died he asked for help and no one, not me as I was not a medic to be able to stuff something in his chest to stop the blood pouring out so all I could do was say ‘You’ll be ok,’ which was a lie. Not even a God could have stepped in and saved him and he bled his life out on the ground, a total waste of a young man’s life.
Since then, Christian anti abortionists in the US have killed doctors who perform abortions saying that by killing doctors they were doing God’s work, much like the Islamic misfits who blow themselves up along with innocents for God, thinking that He is going to be there in heaven, waiting with virgins for them.
So as far as the NHS, if someone gets a little help from a sky pilot, then so be it, I just don’t want to pay for it.
Why is it that they can pay for Chaplin’s and others to go to Africa? Who pays them?
He’s much better now, thanks LFAT.
You’re moving on to a question of whether the NHS should limit its provision to things that everyone wants (or should want?). Many religious people will not take kindly to the secular counselling that you would prefer, for example. I have no objection to counselling on that score, but did once encounter a CBT practitioner who tried to “help” me, and found the whole basis of CBT counselling to be insulting and belittling. So I would now object to CBT if it were offered.
If there was a drug that was efficatious in certain groups only, we would not use that fact to deny it to all groups. We would seek an alternative drug that might be of help to other groups. If the alternative turned out to lack efficacy in the original group, we would be contented that a spectrum of drugs had been identified which, applied with care, could help the vast majority of those who presented for treatment.
In the same way, the provision of chaplains for some, counsellors for others, and just basic decency and politeness for all can provide a range of approaches to cater for the emotional needs of patients.
Or, to put it another way, LFAT doesn’t want a chaplain but would be happy with a CBT counsellor. Why should that mean that someone who objects to counselling but would talk to a chaplain has to go without?
Or, to put it yet another way, why is LFAT (of all people) suddenly championing the idea of an edict from the centre laying down what forms of emotional care everyone must use – regardless of whether that is the form that suits them? Surely that is just the type of New Labour target-driven centralising Nanny-statist illiberal individuality-crushing move that we hate?
)
Like I said, if the NHS made funding decisions on what every patient wanted in terms of extra services, it would collapse.
I do agree with that bit btw…. but as you will see my hypothetical questions were as to whether it was reasonable to ask for x, not simply whether we wanted x.
Patently, any health service which wants to command credibility and respect surely needs to have universal access and universal services in the sense that everyone who needs to be treated gets treated in an effective and efficient way. Concerns over NICE are not best discussed here because that needs a whole different thread, suffice to say that I have my concerns about how it works. However, even ‘emotional care’ needs to be accessible to everyone, not just the religious. Religiously-motivated services cannot be part of a truly universal healthcare system. Like I said earlier, I’m sure chaplains help some people, but taxpayers’ money being used to employ staff that might help some people is not good enough. Seeing as we live in an increasingly diverse society, your argument surely leads to every NHS hospital having every single major religion or faith represented at the taxpayers’ expense? I may not want a chaplain but someone else can certainly have one – it’s just that my taxes shouldn’t pay for it.
LFAT, your comments re universality mix up the means and the outcome. All should have access to care which will (hopefully) improve their condition, but the nature of the best form for that care will vary between patients. So a range of care-types can be appropriate.
And yes, it would be silly to have 20+ different flavours of chaplain sitting waiting for “their” sort of patient to appear. But that is management issue, not one of principle. My call was for local managers to be able to provide such chaplains as they think is suitable, useful and effective.
LFAT, on you
I’ll come back on the evidence around medical benefits of religious practice – checking up on some papers.
In the meantime.
>these are religious individuals with a religious agenda who will NOT offer patients objective medical advice
I don’t understand why you think “religious individuals with a religious agenda” (whether they are Chaplains or not) are incapable by definition of offering objective advice, medical or other. BTW Can you explain what you mean by “medical advice” – do you mean just physical medicine or “softer” services such as counselling?
If someone is trained as a medic, then they can offer medical advice where they are authorised. Not many Chaplains are medics, but there are certainly (e.g.,) Doctors who are Chaplains.
If you are actually saying that having a religion somehow makes a person incapable of thinking, acting or advising rationally, or of separating “proselytisation” from advising patients, then you need to show me some evidence that that is the case since it looks like a statement of belief itself.
>If I was in hospital, I do not want some person who believes in sky fairies trying to counsel me after a relative dies – I want a fully trained, impartial professional.
Hmmm. And what about all the “people who believe in sky fairies” who are fully trained, impartial professionals?
LFAT, Let me ask you a question:
What is your basic criteria for whether something should be funded under the NHS?
You’ve quoted “Doctors and nurses are of use to everyone in society, hence why we pay for them on the NHS.”
However, there are many doctors and nurses who are of use only to small sections of society, ranging from cancer specialists (involuntary condition) to Diabetic nurses (Type I involuntary, Type II lifestyle related) to those who help people give up smoking (entirely self-inflicted).
I’m arguing that it is a combination of medical effectivess and cost-effectiveness.
You?
Patently, I guess that my argument is that anyone with a religious agenda is not suitable. I know that sounds harsh and I’m sure that chaplains may have good qualifications and the right motivations, but their role is not tolerable. For my taxes to pay for a religious individual to give advice on ethical dilemmas or help tell people that their god is watching over them is horrifying and let us not forget that these chaplains can provide religious services too (and even play the organ) on our collective expense.
Matt, obviously doctors can be religious but their religion does not limit what they do at work or who they help. These chaplains are paid by the taxpayer to administer sacraments, for goodness sake – what possible benefit does that have to anything but a restricted set of patients who believe in the same holy book as the chaplain? Of course we have specialist doctors, but their specialism does not mean that they are useless to a certain proportion of patients in the same way as a chaplain is of no use and no benefit to many patients simply because of their beliefs. They are being used to provide an extra, optional service at the taxpayers’ expense which discriminates against many groups in the population.
Ah … your objection is based on an assumption as to the nature of religious people and, in particular, those that are ordained.
I can accept that some are indeed intolerant and incapable of accepting that another person has a differing view. My own direct experience teaches me that this is so. I can’t accept however that this applies to every single one of them; direct experience also contradicts that view! So, there we must disagree.
That leaves me able to accept that a local hospital manager could appoint a suitable person if they thought fit. Which is, actually, where I started: “So, if they think they might find some sensitive, understanding, tactful people in the religious communities, they should be able to go for it.”
Yup, disagree we must! Really interesting discussion.
Jeesh! You people are so narcisstic. It’s always about you. People in hospitals are often sick and scared. Someday, you may be dying in a hospital. You may not need the services of a chaplain, but others do. And the job of a chaplain is ecumenical.
I am not a believer, but this overt hatred of religion that is currently in vogue in the UK does no good. Frankly, it’s childish.
Yes. It’s been a great discussion. I’ll wrap up my points.
>If there was clear evidence that chaplains had a scientific benefit, I’d be willing to listen, but I haven’t seen you or anyone in the media provide anything of the sort.
One example, for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance strategy, Supportive and Palliative Care for Adults with Cancer, published in 2004. It recommended chaplains as part of a wider care team, after an evidence review – especially to address “spiritual” aspects (not “religious”).
http://www.nice.org.uk/csgsp#documents
Basically, it supports a multi-denominational chaplaincy approach.
There is a reasonable amount of research on the health benefits of religion/religious practice, but it’s not directly relevant to this thread. I have a list of approx 50 papers on “spirituality and health” compiled by Professor Stephen G Wright. I’m not posting the whole thing in a comments box (it’s copyright anyway). I’d happily post a couple though on request or I can probably get permission.
>I guess that my argument is that anyone with a religious agenda is not suitable. I know that sounds harsh and I’m sure that chaplains may have good qualifications and the right motivations, but their role is not tolerable. For my taxes to pay for a religious individual to give advice on ethical dilemmas or help tell people that their god is watching over them is horrifying and let us not forget that these chaplains can provide religious services too (and even play the organ) on our collective expense.
I’d be far more pragmatic, and I just don’t see a major problem. On the input into ethics, the value of (picking one example which may also horrify you) having those working from a faith-base perspective on (e.g.) ethics committees is recognised and the practice quite common, because it is beneficial to have input from different viewpoints, and because that is partly where medical ethics came from anyway.
>Matt, obviously doctors can be religious but their religion does not limit what they do at work or who they help. These chaplains are paid by the taxpayer to administer sacraments, for goodness sake – what possible benefit does that have to anything but a restricted set of patients who believe in the same holy book as the chaplain?
Firstly, I’d point out that it is usual for Chaplains to work with anyone, not just “their own flock”, despite what Evan Harris was implying on TV this week and others have implied. There’s also a myriad of roles that we haven’t covered in this thread. If anyone can come up with a proposal to provide all the roles in the job description for less than £40m a year across the NHS in the UK, I’ll take my hat off to you. I predict it would cost 5-10x more.
Secondly, if people get well more quickly then surely it is good for all of us?
Finally, I’d certainly go with continuing to expand the role of Chaplaincy to include “non-religious” – as started in, I think, 2006.
@Newmania
Feel free to dissect that first paragraph.
As for the remainder of your post, you might want to read what I actually wrote directly, rather than whatever distortion filters you used.
I am nowhere – and, afaict, neither is LFAT – saying the service shouldn’t be provided, merely that it’s not the business of the taxpayers to fund it.
Nor am I denigrating the spirituality of death – I mean, are there any other arguments I haven’t made you’d like to respond to?
And, for the record, the most rational person I’ve ever encountered was a die hard Christian, so quit trying to paint this as some pro-rational/anti-religion debate as opposed to it being one about what is, and isn’t, an appropriate use of taxpayers money in the health service.
[...] * “A Tory” has been questioning NHS spending – and (and this is something I won’t say often), I entirely agree with him. Why should we all be paying for chaplains? [...]