lolPersecution part 87

[NurseNell]

You folks are making me feel really old! :lol: John Paul II was Pope for so long that I guess he is the only Pope many people remember, but I'm pushing 60 and clearly remember the year of three Popes. I don't think that John Paul II created the strong social justice tradition. That had its roots in the papacy of John XXIII and Paul VI built on it.

Had John Paul I lived for longer than 33 days as Pope, I think we would be seeing a very different church today. He had some fairly radical ideas. :D When he died and JPII took over some of us were deeply disappointed. If anything, John Paul II took a step backwards and was conservative in his approach to social justice issues and Church involvement compared to the good old days of John XXIII and Paul VI.

I find it hard to believe that Joseph Ratzinger is Pope today. For Vatican watchers, his involvement in so many financial scandals, his pursuit and diciplining of so many "dissident" priests over the years, and his involvement in some of JPII's more stringent attacks against the position of women in the church make him a very disappointing choice. Nuns that I know in several different American orders believe that he is now focusing on bringing them back into line. Apparently he sees some of their social justice projects as insubordinate and too activist and wants to put them in their place.

I'm 67 and I'm with you. John XXIII really did more for social justice than any Pope since. I was so hopeful when John Paul I was elected. I cried when he died. I'm not a conspiracy person but I still have questions about his untimely death. Ratzinger, in my opinion, was the worse possible choice for Pope.

[Palimpsest]

I'm 67 and I'm with you. John XXIII really did more for social justice than any Pope since. I was so hopeful when John Paul I was elected. I cried when he died. I'm not a conspiracy person but I still have questions about his untimely death. Ratzinger, in my opinion, was the worse possible choice for Pope.

Yep. So much so that I decline to give Joe Ratzinger the title.

Have you read Mathew Fox's The Pope's War? It is not unbiased, he was a Dominican that Ratty personally booted from the church, but is supposed to be spot on regarding the inner workings and corruption in the Vatican.

My apologies in advance if I offend any Catholics here, but I really do not like that man!

[Witsec7]

I'm 67 and I'm with you. John XXIII really did more for social justice than any Pope since. I was so hopeful when John Paul I was elected. I cried when he died. I'm not a conspiracy person but I still have questions about his untimely death. Ratzinger, in my opinion, was the worse possible choice for Pope.

The RCC is a top down religious organization made by men. To expect it to be something different is delusional. The RCC will continue lure the mindless sheeple who keep following their pie in the sky in spite of it's corruption and abuses.

The RCC abandoned it's social justice issues decades ago when they stopped supporting the unions and the working folks in their communities. The last vestiges of these concepts of social justice are preserved in the the Catholic Worker Movement. Naturally in order to maintain the smallest of hand holds among that community they are fast tracking Dorothy Day to sainthood and doing an incredible whitewash of her life and philosophy at the same time.

[NurseNell]

Yep. So much so that I decline to give Joe Ratzinger the title.

Have you read Mathew Fox's The Pope's War? It is not unbiased, he was a Dominican that Ratty personally booted from the church, but is supposed to be spot on regarding the inner workings and corruption in the Vatican.

My apologies in advance if I offend any Catholics here, but I really do not like that man!

I've heard of Matthew Fox's book. I will look for it tomorrow at the library.

One of the Catholics I admire the most is the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. He was not afraid to speak the truth. The Vatican named him Archbishop because they considered him just an intellectual who hid out in his library reading books. But once he was awakened to what was going on in El Salvador he spoke up, and was assassinated because of it. I still think the Vatican was involved in his death. He should be nominated for sainthood but it will never happen with Ratzinger in charge.

Once again, we've gotten way off topic of the thread but such is life.

[Palimpsest]

The RCC is a top down religious organization made by men. To expect it to be something different is delusional. The RCC will continue lure the mindless sheeple who keep following their pie in the sky in spite of it's corruption and abuses.

The RCC abandoned it's social justice issues decades ago when they stopped supporting the unions and the working folks in their communities. The last vestiges of these concepts of social justice are preserved in the the Catholic Worker Movement. Naturally in order to maintain the smallest of hand holds among that community they are fast tracking Dorothy Day to sainthood and doing an incredible whitewash of her life and philosophy at the same time.

I guess I wouldn't go quite that far. The institution, yes. Everything you said.

But, there are many Catholic individuals, orders, parishes, and dioceses and Archdioceses that maintain a commitment to social justice and are very active within the community. The Vatican just tries to suppress them.

I really think we are on the cusp of a major schism in the Catholic Church. There are many Catholics resisting Vatican decisions, especially in the US. If Ratzinger gets too much up on the bully pulpit with them I fully expect a mass exodus from the church. And I see that as a good thing.

As an atheist I've had this discussion many times with Catholics over the years. "If you disagree with the Church's position on women, contraception, abortion, sexual orientation, social justice, etc. etc. Why do you and how can you still identify as Catholic? At what point does it become hypocritical?"

Answers vary. I usually try to respect the reasons without fully understanding them.

ETA. Hope I fixed the more obvious riffles.

[Palimpsest]

Tried to correct the riffles above and double posted. Darn!

[Palimpsest]

I've heard of Matthew Fox's book. I will look for it tomorrow at the library.

One of the Catholics I admire the most is the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. He was not afraid to speak the truth. The Vatican named him Archbishop because they considered him just an intellectual who hid out in his library reading books. But once he was awakened to what was going on in El Salvador he spoke up, and was assassinated because of it. I still think the Vatican was involved in his death. He should be nominated for sainthood but it will never happen with Ratzinger in charge.

Once again, we've gotten way off topic of the thread but such is life.

Yes. I agree with your take on the deaths of both JP I and Romero. Hard to prove, but very suspicious in both cases.

Isn't going totally off topic one of FJ's specialities? :lol:

[charizbarb]

Reasoning like this is exactly why nurses aren't paid shit. There's always somebody willing to dole out the emotional blackmail ("Oh but isn't your calling worth more than mere money?", etc.) and there's always somebody willing to eat it up.

So it's OK to let people die for better pay but not OK to let people die because you don't believe in abortion.

[charizbarb]

Sogba put this much better than I could, and yes, they are scabs. If you take the job of a striking worker, you are a scab. You're actively working against their jobs, rights, pay, conditions and pensions. You're harming the cause of your fellow workers for a wee bittie take home pay and yes, you were bought. It's like the punchline to the old (and sexist, unfortunately) joke - "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling about the price."

You're missing my point. Does that not mean that the strikers have been bought for the price of human lives? The point I'm making is that there are some jobs so indispensible that if nobody does them then people die and to me it is not acceptable for strikes to get in the way of this - those who take over these jobs when people are striking are never just taking home pay, they are saving lives. Why is that not the priority?

[emmiedahl]

It's a complicated issue. Hospitals are certainly required to keep staff and if a scab saved my baby, I would not hold it against her.

Collective bargaining is the only real thing that nurses have. It is the reason they have gone from being a much abused and maligned profession to a relatively well-paid and well-respected one. I don't think they deserve to have that taken away from them. I don't think it is safe for the public to have nursing be anything less than a well-paid and well-respected profession. We need trained professionals in those emergency rooms and operating theaters.

There was a dispute in a local hospital between nurses and the administration that looked like it was leading up to a strike. Luckily that was averted. Interestingly, a lot of the dispute was over the hospital administration wanting to make changes that were bad for patients. The nurses were standing up and demanding that they be allowed to continue delivering excellent patient care. They weren't asking for a raise, they were asking for things that helped patients. I have had some shitty nurses but it seems to be an overall altruistic profession and I doubt they would abandon the floors without very good reason.

[NurseNell]

Recent nurse strikes, at least in MN, have been less about pay and more about patient safety due to insufficient staffing. During a strike elective surgery and care can be delayed. But you can't delay ruptured aortic aneurysms, heart attacks, OB deliveries, OB emergencies, serious injuries from accidents. So what do you do? There are no easy answers.

[charizbarb]

It's a complicated issue. Hospitals are certainly required to keep staff and if a scab saved my baby, I would not hold it against her.

Collective bargaining is the only real thing that nurses have. It is the reason they have gone from being a much abused and maligned profession to a relatively well-paid and well-respected one. I don't think they deserve to have that taken away from them. I don't think it is safe for the public to have nursing be anything less than a well-paid and well-respected profession. We need trained professionals in those emergency rooms and operating theaters.

There was a dispute in a local hospital between nurses and the administration that looked like it was leading up to a strike. Luckily that was averted. Interestingly, a lot of the dispute was over the hospital administration wanting to make changes that were bad for patients. The nurses were standing up and demanding that they be allowed to continue delivering excellent patient care. They weren't asking for a raise, they were asking for things that helped patients. I have had some shitty nurses but it seems to be an overall altruistic profession and I doubt they would abandon the floors without very good reason.

I absolutely support the right of workers to strike/collectively bargain and think that nurses certainly deserve better pay, conditions, pensions etc. My problem is just with the idea that scabs = evil no matter how much good they're doing. I can see the point with a place of work like a factory, but nurses or firefighters? Lives being at risk will always be too much risk for me. I know over here the main nurses' union have said that they will not strike for this reason.

[NurseNell]

There was a dispute in a local hospital between nurses and the administration that looked like it was leading up to a strike. Luckily that was averted. Interestingly, a lot of the dispute was over the hospital administration wanting to make changes that were bad for patients. The nurses were standing up and demanding that they be allowed to continue delivering excellent patient care. They weren't asking for a raise, they were asking for things that helped patients. I have had some shitty nurses but it seems to be an overall altruistic profession and I doubt they would abandon the floors without very good reason.

It was the same in MN except the strike did happen. Nurses do care about patient safety and they will speak up despite the attempts by administration to shut them up.

[emmiedahl]

Don't get me wrong, I think scabs are a necessary evil in hospitals and fire departments. But I would not do it unless it really was a matter of feeding children and I respect the right of others to judge.

I mean, I have no principles whatsoever when it comes to feeding my children. But food stamps.

[Guest Anonymous]

You're missing my point. Does that not mean that the strikers have been bought for the price of human lives? The point I'm making is that there are some jobs so indispensible that if nobody does them then people die and to me it is not acceptable for strikes to get in the way of this - those who take over these jobs when people are striking are never just taking home pay, they are saving lives. Why is that not the priority?

When nurses and other 'indispensable' professions strike, people act as if they are holding human life to ransom. They're not. If they wanted to do that, if they could do that, wouldn't they be driving around in Lamborghinis and sucking back endless bottles of bolly by now? Nurses are overworked and underpaid because the scam works in exactly the opposite direction. We (non-nurses, potential consumers of medical care) use the human lives that would be at stake if nurses struck to keep them in their place. We guilt nurses into putting off strike action, we encourage and endorse scab-like behaviour when nurses do strike, with endless refrains of "Ooh! You're putting lives at risk!".

If we cared, if we really cared about those lives, we would not let it get to the stage of strike action. We would not underpay or overwork people whose jobs are supposedly so 'indispensable' to us. We would treat nurses more fairly. Instead, we rely on the idea that, 99% of the time, nurses will care more about their patients than their own well-being.

[charizbarb]

When nurses and other 'indispensable' professions strike, people act as if they are holding human life to ransom. They're not. If they wanted to do that, if they could do that, wouldn't they be driving around in Lamborghinis and sucking back endless bottles of bolly by now? Nurses are overworked and underpaid because the scam works in exactly the opposite direction. We (non-nurses, potential consumers of medical care) use the human lives that would be at stake if nurses struck to keep them in their place. We guilt nurses into putting off strike action, we encourage and endorse scab-like behaviour when nurses do strike, with endless refrains of "Ooh! You're putting lives at risk!".

If we cared, if we really cared about those lives, we would not let it get to the stage of strike action. We would not underpay or overwork people whose jobs are supposedly so 'indispensable' to us. We would treat nurses more fairly. Instead, we rely on the idea that, 99% of the time, nurses will care more about their patients than their own well-being.

I absolutely think that it shouldn't get to the stage of strike action and nurses should be paid and treated fairly - but since I'm not in government I can't exactly do anything about that. However if nurses are on strike and I suddenly get a ruptured appendix and my treatment is delayed because of said strike, my life WILL be at risk. I can't do anything about that either. You talk about us as consumers of medical care using those lives as if we have a choice - what would the alternative be? Not living or at least not seeking medical care in order to support striking nurses? That would be madness. The fact that nurses generally will care more about their patients than their own well-being is why they are in nursing in the first place.

[deelaem]

Anectdotally, there was a hospital strike in LA many years ago. The death rate actually went down during the strike. Less elective surgeries was the reason given for the drop, but it does kinda make you go "hmm".

[Guest Anonymous]

Sorry, yes. I used the words 'consumers of medical care' to differentiate between how people see themselves. Do you see yourself as the striking worker or the person who is affected by the strike? I did not mean to imply that we get to choose whether or not we need healthcare.

Honestly, I don't really know how to explain what I mean. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to die when nurses strike. What I'm trying to say is that the system that exists now is fucked up. It might even be too fucked up to be fixed. It isn't fair for patients to be denied healthcare but it isn't fair for nurses to be trapped in shitty conditions because they cannot, in good conscience, stop working.

I think we take advantage of them.

[JesusFightClub]

You're missing my point. Does that not mean that the strikers have been bought for the price of human lives? The point I'm making is that there are some jobs so indispensible that if nobody does them then people die and to me it is not acceptable for strikes to get in the way of this - those who take over these jobs when people are striking are never just taking home pay, they are saving lives. Why is that not the priority?

Again, what Sogba said. With a couple of extra points.

1. Slippery slope argument, that one. We've seen it develop over here. Of course, the army don't strike (that's what we call prerevolutionary conditions ;) ) The police were banned from striking back in the 1920s. Then prison guards couldn't strike. Every single time they can get away with it, the State chips away at the rights of the workers to collective bargaining and even basic rights for union officials such as facilities time, so we'll be handling members' personal cases and the business of running the union not at work, as we should do, but in the little spare time we have. And every single time it's the same justification. "It'll kill/harm/hurt/upset/annoy patients/the public/people who would have otherwise supported you/the British taxpayer..." It's a ploy. The State relies on people saying "Oh wow, I'm sorry. I don't want to look too militant. I don't want to upset anyone or make a nuisance of myself. You're right, I'm lucky to have a job at all."

2. It is *highly* unlikely that lives will be lost as a result of these actions. There was a recent doctors' strike over here. What this meant in practice wasn't that doctors refused to deal with emergency cases. Those were still handled. What they refused to do were nonemergency operations.

So Ms Patel's ingrowing toenail and Mr McDonnell’s hip replacement were going to have to wait a few days. However, Mr Krzywoszyja's cardiac arrest and Mrs Jamieson's serious car crash injuries, nope. Doctors out the wazoo for those two.

Nobody died as a result of the strike.

I imagine groups of nurses could be called out by their union at different times and in different ways to maximise disruption but avoid deid fowk becoming a countrywide plague.

[charizbarb]

Sorry, yes. I used the words 'consumers of medical care' to differentiate between how people see themselves. Do you see yourself as the striking worker or the person who is affected by the strike? I did not mean to imply that we get to choose whether or not we need healthcare.

Honestly, I don't really know how to explain what I mean. I'm not saying that people should be allowed to die when nurses strike. What I'm trying to say is that the system that exists now is fucked up. It might even be too fucked up to be fixed. It isn't fair for patients to be denied healthcare but it isn't fair for nurses to be trapped in shitty conditions because they cannot, in good conscience, stop working.

I think we take advantage of them.

I agree, but I don't think we have any choice. Illnesses don't limit themselves to times when medical staff work in good conditions, and unfortunately I think it's just one of those 'life is unfair' things. That's not to say I don't think medical staff shouldn't get decent pay and conditions, of course they should, and they should be able to collectively bargain for that, but emergency medical care is not available in any other way (as opposed to say a car manufacturer on strike where the consumer could buy a car from another manufacturer). Someone who has a ruptured appendix might be taking advantage of overworked and underpaid medical staff who treat them but the person in question can hardly help their condition, and are not taking advantage on purpose.

Also, what about a medical worker on strike who needs medical care themselves?

[charizbarb]

Again, what Sogba said. With a couple of extra points.

1. Slippery slope argument, that one. We've seen it develop over here. Of course, the army don't strike (that's what we call prerevolutionary conditions ;) ) The police were banned from striking back in the 1920s. Then prison guards couldn't strike. Every single time they can get away with it, the State chips away at the rights of the workers to collective bargaining and even basic rights for union officials such as facilities time, so we'll be handling members' personal cases and the business of running the union not at work, as we should do, but in the little spare time we have. And every single time it's the same justification. "It'll kill/harm/hurt/upset/annoy patients/the public/people who would have otherwise supported you/the British taxpayer..." It's a ploy. The State relies on people saying "Oh wow, I'm sorry. I don't want to look too militant. I don't want to upset anyone or make a nuisance of myself. You're right, I'm lucky to have a job at all."

2. It is *highly* unlikely that lives will be lost as a result of these actions. There was a recent doctors' strike over here. What this meant in practice wasn't that doctors refused to deal with emergency cases. Those were still handled. What they refused to do were nonemergency operations.

So Ms Patel's ingrowing toenail and Mr McDonnell’s hip replacement were going to have to wait a few days. However, Mr Krzywoszyja's cardiac arrest and Mrs Jamieson's serious car crash injuries, nope. Doctors out the wazoo for those two.

Nobody died as a result of the strike.

I imagine groups of nurses could be called out by their union at different times and in different ways to maximise disruption but avoid deid fowk becoming a countrywide plague.

It still seems to come down to the pay of one group being more important to the wellbeing of another (which doesn't really seem very communist to me either). I'm in the UK too and was opposed to the doctors' strike, although that was mostly because it seemed galling for an extremely well-paid group of people to complain about their huge pensions not being good enough.

[alaeangelorum]

It still seems to come down to the pay of one group being more important to the wellbeing of another (which doesn't really seem very communist to me either). I'm in the UK too and was opposed to the doctors' strike, although that was mostly because it seemed galling for an extremely well-paid group of people to complain about their huge pensions not being good enough.

It was more that the pensions were negotiated just a couple of years ago and suddenly it was decided that they must! be! changed! despite the fact that the system actually is in credit. In addition, I think a lot of doctors were somewhat irritated that their pensions had to be changed but those of people holding management positions in the NHS on similar salaries were unaffected, or at least that is what I've been told.

[Guest Anonymous]

I agree, but I don't think we have any choice. Illnesses don't limit themselves to times when medical staff work in good conditions, and unfortunately I think it's just one of those 'life is unfair' things. That's not to say I don't think medical staff shouldn't get decent pay and conditions, of course they should, and they should be able to collectively bargain for that, but emergency medical care is not available in any other way (as opposed to say a car manufacturer on strike where the consumer could buy a car from another manufacturer). Someone who has a ruptured appendix might be taking advantage of overworked and underpaid medical staff who treat them but the person in question can hardly help their condition, and are not taking advantage on purpose.

Also, what about a medical worker on strike who needs medical care themselves?

I find myself a little adrift here. I think we've lost any potential points of agreement. I'm finding it difficult to refute your arguments because I don't understand exactly how they are arguments. Maybe when our hypothetical patient goes into hospital with their ruptured appendix, their overworked and underpaid medical staff can tell them 'life is unfair'. It would make about as much sense, and be about as reasonable, as it was in the context you used it.

I don't think it's reasonable, or even inevitable, to fuck people over just because they're too nice to fuck you back. As far as I can see, that's all you are suggesting.

[emmiedahl]

Out of curiousity, what do doctors earn in the UK? Do they work similar hours for their pay as American doctors? One idea that is thrown around in the US quite a bit is that doctors in socialized medicine earn a poor living and thus we will not be attracting the same caliber of person.

I would be a doctor if it paid the same as a teacher, fwiw. I want to contribute to my family's financial well-being certainly, but I have tried other lines of work and I know this is the one meant for me. I think a lot of young pre-med students feel the same way.

[Guest Anonymous]

Out of curiousity, what do doctors earn in the UK? Do they work similar hours for their pay as American doctors? One idea that is thrown around in the US quite a bit is that doctors in socialized medicine earn a poor living and thus we will not be attracting the same caliber of person.

I would be a doctor if it paid the same as a teacher, fwiw. I want to contribute to my family's financial well-being certainly, but I have tried other lines of work and I know this is the one meant for me. I think a lot of young pre-med students feel the same way.

I don't know how much American doctors earn so I can't compare. This is the NHS breakdown of doctors' salaries:

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/pay-for-doctors/