Ship of Fools: Traumatizing tattoos in hospitals

Thread: Traumatizing tattoos in hospitals Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030084

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

This woman is complaining because a nurse's tattoo of a skull caused extreme emotional disturbance during a period when she was already fearing for her very life. She apparently wants such tattoos disallowed in hospitals.

The complainant is being subjected to the expected on-line vitriol about how she shouldn't be so sensitive, etc. Normally, I think I'd join in the mockery, but in this case, I can acknowledge that being in the hospital for a serious illness is a rather traumatizing affair, and that skulls do indeed have some fairly morbid cultural connotations.

[ 06. April 2016, 19:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Our trust simply requires anything vivid or distracting is covered at work. This is relatively easy to achieve, without banning folk from specific professions.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Why not handle the thing as a one-off? I doubt there is any good way to set a policy to cover every possible upsetting tattoo.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Yeah, I'd basically just say that a provocative tattoo should be covered up.

Though the devil is in the details. You'd probably get into arguments about which tattoos are and are not inappropriate, with staff aren't going to like being told that some piece of skin art that they are particularly fond of needs to be hidden from view. Especially if it's only one patient complaining.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

It is part of our dress code, basic expectations are set, certain characteristics protected, and the line manager's discretion invoked.

As far as I know it has not caused major problems any time in the last eight years.

(The phrase used covering hemlines, close fit etc is that "clothes should maintain the wearer's dignity". - I believe we also specify that the midriff should be covered.)

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Time was, if you were a monk/scholar/pirate/Prince of Denmark an actual skull was a must-have accessory. You either drank wine out of it or used it as an aid to contemplating your latter end and the vanity of human existence.

I'm maybe being a tad unsympathetic here, but listen, dearie, you're going to die. Get used to the idea and then spit in its eye and get on with living.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I would think that anything that is inappropriate for the situation - which would include skull tattoos - should be covered. That does not seem unreasonable. I think anyone who has tattoos of their surgery (yes, I do know someone) would also be included.

The problem is, it might be flowers that someone finds traumatising. Or hearts. It might be almost anything. You can't ban everything that might be a problem for anyone.

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

From the linked account, she was receiving ketamine at the time, which can have marked dysphoric effects on mood and alter perception. That may not have helped. Yes the skull tattoo acted as a focus but she may well have felt just as frightened and disoriented without or with those feelings focussed around something else. I've had patients recover from periods of delirium or sedation with the oddest memories, often recognisable but distorted perceptions of quite ordinary things.

My workplace has similar rules to Doublethink's and that seems reasonable. I'm not sure this story has much bearing either way on what the rules should be and certainly I don't think there's any mileage in trying to define which tattoos are inappropriate or scary. There will be obviously offensive ones (visible swear words, sexual imagery) but most others are going to be very much down to subjective judgement.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

(The phrase used covering hemlines, close fit etc is that "clothes should maintain the wearer's dignity"....)

Presumably, if the wearer thought it was undignified, they wouldn't be wearing it. I suspect that, despite what is written, what the dress code really means is "clothes should appear dignified to the supervisor..."

Although the phrase is vague enough to sound a lot like the language that appears as the final item in most church staff job descriptions: "...anything that furthers the cause of Christ..."

[Ultra confused]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I guess part of the aim is not to have to rewrite the policy every time social mores shift.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

You are not allowed to even apply to become crew for some airlines if you have a tattoo anywhere on your body, seen or unseen, covered or not.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

This strikes me as both stupid and offensive - and a total failure to understand what tattoos mean for people.

[ 06. April 2016, 21:51: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Boogie: You are not allowed to even apply to become crew for some airlines if you have a tattoo anywhere on your body, seen or unseen, covered or not.

Dp they check that?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Well I suppose there are picture of skulls, and then there are other pictures of skulls.

If it has a black hood and a scythe nearby then the average hospital patient is most likely going to be worried. OTOH if it's an X-ray image of something each of us has on top of our shoulders then there shouldn't be much problem.

[ 06. April 2016, 21:57: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

The complainant is being subjected to the expected on-line vitriol about how she shouldn't be so sensitive, etc. Normally, I think I'd join in the mockery, but in this case, I can acknowledge that being in the hospital for a serious illness is a rather traumatizing affair, and that skulls do indeed have some fairly morbid cultural connotations.

I do not think she should be the target of mockery. Nor do I think her fears should receive special attention. Skulls so have morbid connotations to parts of some cultures, but then so do certain colours and varieties of flowers, certain animal species, numbers, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Not:
I don't think there's any mileage in trying to define which tattoos are inappropriate or scary. There will be obviously offensive ones (visible swear words, sexual imagery) but most others are going to be very much down to subjective judgement.

This.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Boogie: You are not allowed to even apply to become crew for some airlines if you have a tattoo anywhere on your body, seen or unseen, covered or not.
Dp they check that?

They ask at interview and would be seen at the medical exam.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Boogie: They ask at interview and would be seen at the medical exam.

Hmm, how does this match with medical confidentiality?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I don't think the woman should be mocked, because that isn't a nice thing to do, but I do think she is being absurd.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Boogie: They ask at interview and would be seen at the medical exam.
Hmm, how does this match with medical confidentiality?

Well, I wouuld assume that if the medical exam is for a job, the doctors are allowed to tell the potential employer about any problems they noticed. Maybe the employees sign a waiver?

Not wrote:

quote:
There will be obviously offensive ones (visible swear words, sexual imagery) but most others are going to be very much down to subjective judgement.

A few weeks back I mentioned the Canadian pop artist ManWoman, whose body was covered in swastika tattoos as part of his crusade to rehabilitate what he ccnsidered a beautiful religious symbol defiled by the Nazis. I'd imagine he might have had some trouble getting a job in a hosptial(or anywhere else serving the public), no matter how patienly he explained his noble endeavour.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Well, I wouuld assume that if the medical exam is for a job, the doctors are allowed to tell the potential employer about any problems they noticed. Maybe the employees sign a waiver?

I don't think so. I change jobs often, and this often involves undergoing a medical exams. This is even more relevant because all of my jobs involve living in, or regularly travelling to, the tropics. Most employers hire an external examination clinic for this, but one of the organisations I've worked for is so big that it had its own medical department.

In my experience, before I start such an exam, the clinic will inform me what they are obliged to tell to my employer, and what my rights to confidentiality are. This is even true for the internal medical staff. In all exams I've been through, the medical staff is only allowed to tell my employer whether I'm medically fit to do the job or not.

I've often signed waivers where I indicated that I've understood what they told me about confidentiality; never one that allowed them to tell about non-medical things like tattoos.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think in this case the medical examination would include a statement that tattoos were relevant and the employer needed to know. Candidates refusing to agree would probably be out.

What I don't understand is why it matters. Why does the airline think it matters if someone has a tattoo on their back where no customer will ever see it?

I also note reports that birthmarks and scars might be a problem. I wonder if any of this has ever been or could be challenged in court as unfair?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Well I suppose there are picture of skulls, and then there are other pictures of skulls.

If it has a black hood and a scythe nearby then the average hospital patient is most likely going to be worried. OTOH if it's an X-ray image of something each of us has on top of our shoulders then there shouldn't be much problem.

I'd find a sugar skull tattoo rather comforting.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't think the woman should be mocked, because that isn't a nice thing to do, but I do think she is being absurd.

None of us who have been responding would have been upset at seeing the skull. But a frightened patient, facing the outcome of surgery, ill at ease by being in the unfamiliar hospital environment (not that we know she was, just visualising) could well find it un-nerving.

GG

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have a work dress code that doesn't allow visible tattoos and limits jewellery to one keeper or stud earring in each ear for piercings. That's not unusual for customer facing work - a current entry level English exam I'm using has something similar in an exercise, much to the surprise of students I work with.

(My work dress code also bans jeans, trainers, tracksuit bottoms, shorts, short skirts, low cut and/or strappy tops. I'd have to dig it out to check what else I've missed.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It is worth noting that ketamine does weird things to your brain.

In a sense one can never exclude everything that might be a substrate for a dysphoric reaction by patients with drugs, delirium, dementia, anxiety and various other challenges to their perceptions. On the other hand images like skulls, snakes, dragons and the like seem particularly concerning and I think it would be reasonable to ask for them to be covered up. Not in a "this is the rule and the following images are banned" sort of way, but rather to communicate to staff that they should think about the images on display and show good judgement in covering those that they think might be a problem.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

(The phrase used covering hemlines, close fit etc is that "clothes should maintain the wearer's dignity"....)
Presumably, if the wearer thought it was undignified, they wouldn't be wearing it. I suspect that, despite what is written, what the dress code really means is "clothes should appear dignified to the supervisor..."

Although the phrase is vague enough to sound a lot like the language that appears as the final item in most church staff job descriptions: "...anything that furthers the cause of Christ..."

It always remind me of those signs which say "should be left as you would like to find it". What they mean is "should be left as the person who puts up notices to tell people things would wish to find it".

I don't think this lady should be mocked, because that is cruel. She is sensitive, was on strong medication in a frightening situation, and one particular thing triggered her. Fine. But it should be dealt with as a problem with her environment, not with the nurse.

If she raises issues - however trivial - while in the hospital, it may be possible to get her a different nurse. But once finished, let it drop.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There might be something for the hospital to think about more widely - whether they want to protect vulnerable patients from seeing images that some will predictably find distressing. The question is whether this is an idiosyncratic reaction or more widely predictable.

I think there probably is a case that a minority of dysphoric, delirious and scared patients will predictably find certain images distressing and therefore staff should consider whether it would be kind to cover such images up.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mdijon: I think in this case the medical examination would include a statement that tattoos were relevant and the employer needed to know. Candidates refusing to agree would probably be out.

I would still find this very weird. I can't imagine a medical clinic or its staff going along with this either. I have some friends who are doctors; the medical world takes its confidentiality very seriously. I can't see it wanting to take up a role as informer.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

You are right LeRoc. The doctor isn't obliged to tell the airline anything (which, sadly, led to a depressed pilot flying his plane and passengers into a hill)

But, my point was, that they are asked at the interview and they have a choice to lie or not get past the first stage. The idea that a medical would show up the lie (even 'tho not reported) would make some feel uncomfortable.

Here is some stuff about it.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think there are several different scenarios.

a) An employer tells an employee that they need to be medically fit to take a job, and tells them to see their doctor to ascertain that. There would be an expectation of confidentiality here and the doctor would either write a note saying they were fit or not, but wouldn't snitch about tattoos.

b) An employer hires a doctor as an occupational physician. They instruct them to clear employees for certain requirements. There would be zero expectation of confidentiality in terms of the company as a whole although only certain employees of the company who "needed to know" (i.e. the occupation health records would be available to some HR staff and senior management but not to others).

c) If a doctor uncovers something where there is a public health issue, danger to a third party or serious criminal activity then they are required to break confidentiality. Minor depression wouldn't count (and airlines would not be able to act on this information in any case) but serious depression without insight indicating a danger to the lives of passengers and crew would definitely count. So, for instance, does paedophilia or serious transmissible infections such as TB or HIV.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm really unsure whether your scenario b) exists.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

By the way here's a link that has some helpful information.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

I have a mild phobia of tattoos. I think they set off something in my brain that would normally respond to infected wounds. They set off a feeling of fear and disgust. That's not a judgement of people who get them: I fully accept that the problem is with me. I've had to deal with the fact, though, that I don't have any right to not have to see tattoos.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm really unsure whether your scenario b) exists.

I should qualify that the applicant needs to be told that a report will go to the employer. The applicant remains free to withdraw their consent at any stage, in which case the only report the occupational physician can make is "I can't make a report due to withdrawal of consent." At which point you don't get the job either.

It is ethically very complex working in occupational health.

You have to balance the needs and rights of employers and employees/patients. Most doctors and nurses have a primary duty of care to the patient.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mdijon: It is ethically very complex working in occupational health.

I agree. I don't have time to read through that now, but I'll try to do so later.

Perhaps my situation is different. I am Dutch, but I usually work for an employer in another European country B, which sends me to live and work in an African or Latin American country C. (I try not to be too identifiable here.)

I don't have Dutch health insurance, and in most cases this means that my employer will offer me a solution for this (this is also in their interest, since normally they have a number of employees in the same situation as me).

So, my employer has a contract with a health clinic. This clinic does the periodic medical exams that my employer requires of me. But as long as I work for this employer, I'm also allowed to use the services of this clinic for free (I guess there's an insurance company involved somewhere).

So, when I am in country C, working for my employer, I can call or e-mail this clinic if I have a medical problem, and if I don't trust the health services in country C to be good enough. I can even visit this clinic if I happen to be in country B for a while.

This very much includes that I may say confidential things to this clinic, like "I'm stressed because of my boss". It would be very strange to combine these things if at another time, this same clinic acts as my employers' informer.

[ 07. April 2016, 10:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It would be very strange to combine these things if at another time, this same clinic acts as my employers' informer.

Indeed it is strange, but this is the balancing act occupational health physicians manage. If they are seeing you to look after your health needs on behalf of the employer then you have an expectation of confidentiality. They could only break this if what you said gave real cause for concern - e.g. "I'm so stressed by my boss and so I take a knife to work in case I need it".

If they start a meeting by saying that they are reviewing your fitness to work and will need to write a report to the employer you don't have an expectation of confidentiality. But they can't import what they know from other meetings with you into that consultation. However they can only pass on information that materially impacts your fitness to work and with your consent. However you can't selectively withdraw consent for specific items.

The doctor's duty of confidentiality is not like a priest's.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there probably is a case that a minority of dysphoric, delirious and scared patients will predictably find certain images distressing and therefore staff should consider whether it would be kind to cover such images up.

A few months ago I was in the hospital suffering from pneumonia and severe sepsis. If I had noticed that a nurse had a skull tattoo, it would have upset me very much. On the other hand, I might not have noticed.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The nurse should cover the tattoos. Period. Self expression and related rights do not trump patient care. The right response is for this to be a learning situation, and for the nurse to understand the impact of their persona on others. Patients come first. The role of nurse is to serve others. Tattoos are not a human right.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
... to communicate to staff that they should think about the images on display and show good judgement in covering those that they think might be a problem.

But the judgement of a 25-year-old nurse about what tattoos might be a problem is almost certainly different than that of a 55-year-old nurse. The 25-year-old might well be of a group that found tattoos normal and unremarkable to the point of being totally unconscious that they were anything other than perfectly ordinary and to be expected. The 55-year-old might, reasonably enough, be of the opinion that any tattoo visible at work was evidence of a lack of professionalism at best, and of a sea of unnamed perversions at worst.

FWIW, I'm pushing 70 and find it very difficult to get used to the expectation that arms and upper bodies (as I see them on younger men at the gym) will automatically be covered with so much ink that the original skin colour has vanished. My problem, obviously, but assumptions and practices about what is normal or acceptable have changed radically in the last 10-15 years, and not everyone is on the same page -- by a long shot.

John

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

True the 25-year-old nurse may feel the tattoo is normal, but nevertheless he/she will understand that delirious, confused and nervous patients might have an adverse reaction to certain images. If they don't a line manager would hopefully notice and say something.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

On the UCC thread in Hell, I posted a link to that denomination's magazine. Coincidenatlly enough, they have an article about clerical tatoos.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

Personally, I find all tattoos to be repugnant, but that's purely personal. However, in a hospital it's not unusual for patients to experience distressing hallucinations as a side effect of certain pain relievers and drug interactions (happened to me). The hallucinations can be affected by visual images that the patient has seen before or during these episodes, so while I would have to accept anyone's right to have tattoos, it makes sense to me to ask nursing staff to cover them.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

It seems to me that there is another issue here: that of patient care.

If a patient, particularly one in a life-threatening situation, gets upset or distressed at a particular nurse, shouldn't the hospital do something to alleviate that distress, such as assigning another nurse to the case? Is it considered good medical practice to knowingly upset your patient?

There wouldn't be a need for a general policy, but, on a case-by-case basis for the benefit of patient care, some staff may need to be reassigned (or cover up tattoos) for that particular patient once the hospital is made aware of a problem.

Of course, in some situations that might not be possible. The patient may be in such a mental state that any nurse (or doctor) would not meet with approval. This would be part of the case-by-case analysis. But if a simple ad hoc step could be taken, why wouldn't a medical provider consider the best interest of the patient? The way I read the article, if the hospital had taken some action to cover up the tat for this one patient, she might not be complaining now. I base this on the following bit from the article:

quote:
It depicted a skull, was prominently displayed on the arm of a nurse treating her and looked “terrifying,” says Molloy.

Two weeks of nightmares ensued, but hospital administrators in British Columbia refused to take action when she complained...

Two weeks. It terrified her from day one and for two weeks the hospital decided that upsetting a recovering surgical patient was of less concern than asking the nurse to cover up when he was in her room?

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

No. Read the story again. She saw the tattoo once, when she was in emergency, and had nightmares about it for two weeks thereafter.

Posted by Chill (# 13643) on :

I watched a tattoo 'documentary' program on British TV. A former solider turned civilian paramedic had his grim reaper covered up with a dragon! He had had the reaper done during his time as a solider along with the other lads in the unit! That was back when his job involved shuffling people in the opposite direction on our mortal coil. He said he didn't feel it was the best image to have on his arm while performing c.p.r!

[Killing me]

I don't know what bearing it has on the wider questions. [Big Grin]

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
No. Read the story again. She saw the tattoo once, when she was in emergency, and had nightmares about it for two weeks thereafter.

Thank you. Fair point.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

The last time my bestie had surgery, she called me from her hospital room to tell me she had been kidnapped by ISIS and needed to be rescued. Fortunately, she doesn't remember a thing.

Distress is part of life. Hospitals are scary places, with or without tattooed staff. Deal, honey.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The last time my bestie had surgery, she called me from her hospital room to tell me she had been kidnapped by ISIS and needed to be rescued. Fortunately, she doesn't remember a thing.

Distress is part of life. Hospitals are scary places, with or without tattooed staff. Deal, honey.

I've been in hospital many times for various purposes, including in A&E on the verge of dying.
There are many more things to freak one out than ink on skin. Especially once drugs kick in.
................
And why should the sensibilities of older people outweigh those of younger? It is not as if they were beamed from the time of their youth to the present, the have lived through to the times where variation in one's outwards presentation is more acceptable. That they have not moved with the times is not justification in itself to warrant policy to cater to them.
And hospital staff have lives outside of work, how they adorn themselves is part of this.
Consideration should be balanced. The woman in question is doing no such thing.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And why should the sensibilities of older people outweigh those of younger?

Because we are talking about an old vulnerable sick person and a young carer. If it was a young vulnerable sick person the sensibilities would be considered differently.

People who work as nurses or doctors or other hospital staff shouldn't really be thinking "deal, honey" as the basis for their approach. Particularly when someone is being given a psychotropic substance like ketamine.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The last time my bestie had surgery, she called me from her hospital room to tell me she had been kidnapped by ISIS and needed to be rescued. Fortunately, she doesn't remember a thing.

Distress is part of life. Hospitals are scary places, with or without tattooed staff. Deal, honey.

I don't think you can have experienced the kind of hallucinations that are being discussed here. The effects can last for years.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I don't think the woman should be mocked, because that isn't a nice thing to do, but I do think she is being absurd.

I would flip flop that. No way do I think an entire policy should be reconfigured for this situation, but damn, someone who knows they are dying really doesn't need much excuse to be generally sensitive. Especially given what was said above about possible medicinal side effects.

I think it would be a kindness for the nurse in question to consider putting makeup over the skull for the duration of treating this woman, but no way would I require it.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I got ahold of the prescribing information about ketamine (generic version). It says in the "black box warning" that 12% of people have significant psychological reactions including hallucinations, anxiety and agitation. It also says that the drug can be given with other sedative medications in combination which helps to avoid some of the psychological reactions.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Because we are talking about an old vulnerable sick person and a young carer. If it was a young vulnerable sick person the sensibilities would be considered differently.

The sensitivities of everyone who will possibly go through a hospital cannot all be catered to.
from the linked article:

quote:
The right of patients is to have quality and safe care. A tattoo has no influence on quality and safe care,” she added. “You can dig deep on this one and it gets into very dangerous territory. What about a seven-foot male nurse looking after a newborn? … Or what if you look ‘too young?’

or black, Muslim or gay?
What she has is an irrational prejudice which, unfortunately, seems to have been exacerbated by the ketamine.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

People who work as nurses or doctors or other hospital staff shouldn't really be thinking "deal, honey" as the basis for their approach. Particularly when someone is being given a psychotropic substance like ketamine.

First, I did not say that, what I did say was this:

quote:
Consideration should be balanced. The woman in question is doing no such thing.

Second, when on a psychotropic drug, there is no easily available predictor of what the taker will experience and what will cause them trauma.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I would say that a skull tattoo is not the same as being black or gay. It's true that not everything that scares people will be predictable, but it seems to me that certain images might well be predicted to be a problem and could be covered up.

Things that can't be predicted can't be covered up, and prejudices regarding protected characteristics (i.e. disabilities, sexual orientation etc) shouldn't be accommodated.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider whether patients might get disturbed by certain images.

[ 09. April 2016, 03:59: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

mdijon wrote:

quote:
It's true that not everything that scares people will be predictable, but it seems to me that certain images might well be predicted to be a problem and could be covered up.

The fact that skeletons are widely displayed at halloween and in horror films for the direct purpose of scaring people(albeit mildly), might provide some guidance as to how, or if, they should be displayed in a clinical setting.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would say that a skull tattoo is not the same as being black or gay.

In that the former is a choice and the latter are not. But the fear of any of those is irrational.
And what of a hijab? This is also a voluntary object which can cause fear in some individuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
mdijon wrote:

quote:
It's true that not everything that scares people will be predictable, but it seems to me that certain images might well be predicted to be a problem and could be covered up.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would say that a skull tattoo is not the same as being black or gay.
Only in that the former is a choice and the latter are not. But the fear of any of those is irrational.
And what of a hijab? This is also a voluntary object which can cause fear in some individuals.
The fact that skeletons are widely displayed at halloween and in horror films for the direct purpose of scaring people(albeit mildly), might provide some guidance as to how, or if, they should be displayed in a clinical setting.

The purpose of Halloween decorations is entertainment. The same decoration might be seen as scary or amusing, depending on the viewer.
As to horror movies, there are many objects used to frighten that are also present in hospital to save lives. Hospitals themselves have been used in horror movies.
And the ubiquity of skull images lends more to them being ordinary and thus weakens the case against them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Regardless of the ubiquity of skulls and normalization of that in some sections of our society it isn't a normal image for many elderly patients and I think a consensus view among the elderly is quite likely to be that it is a disquieting image. If you are delirious and confused it could be a very distressing image.

The fact that one could pick other things that would be found distressing which wouldn't be appropriate to cover up (hijabs is a good example I have to admit) doesn't mean that one shouldn't cover up some things. That would be allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The point about being gay or black (or wearing a hijab for that matter) is not that they aren't choices, but that they are protected characteristics. Skull tattoos aren't.

Gay people, Black people and Muslims have a right to be gay or black or Muslim (or all three) without discrimination. Being told to cover up or avoid looking after certain patients is discrimination.

Tattoo wearers don't have a right to display their tattoos in all places at all times.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Buddha wrote:

quote:
The purpose of Halloween decorations is entertainment. The same decoration might be seen as scary or amusing, depending on the viewer.
As to horror movies, there are many objects used to frighten that are also present in hospital to save lives. Hospitals themselves have been used in horror movies.
And the ubiquity of skull images lends more to them being ordinary and thus weakens the case against them.

Well, right now, I'm trying to come up with an example of skulls, outside of medical education, being displayed in a style that is not meant to be scary, or at least eerie. Can't say I'm having a lot of luck on that score.

I guess there is Hamlet with the skull of Horatio, and its adoption as the recognized shorthand for the acting profession. But even there, the original context was as a prop in a speech about the inevitability of death. Not exactly a psychologically tranquilizing theme.

[ 09. April 2016, 17:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And why should the sensibilities of older people outweigh those of younger? It is not as if they were beamed from the time of their youth to the present, the have lived through to the times where variation in one's outwards presentation is more acceptable. That they have not moved with the times is not justification in itself to warrant policy to cater to them.
And hospital staff have lives outside of work, how they adorn themselves is part of this.
Consideration should be balanced. The woman in question is doing no such thing.

I researched the local health region policy. The policy states that "The Dress Code policy is not intended to infringe on individual rights, but rather to promote a professional style of dress appropriate for the delivery of professional nursing service. The style of dress described by this policy will foster the respect, trust and confidence of patient/client and public expectations. "

It goes on to state that staff have to dress properly, cover tattoos, and also not have certain types of piercings. This seems continuous with the policy that all health care staff shall have flu vaccinations.

The health of patients is first priority. It is unfortunate that arguments like lilBuddha's have any traction at all.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Well, right now, I'm trying to come up with an example of skulls, outside of medical education, being displayed in a style that is not meant to be scary, or at least eerie. Can't say I'm having a lot of luck on that score.

Something like this?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Or this, of course.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Stetson: Well, right now, I'm trying to come up with an example of skulls, outside of medical education, being displayed in a style that is not meant to be scary, or at least eerie. Can't say I'm having a lot of luck on that score.
Something like this?

Well, that seems like it's meant as a humourous parody. IOW, it derives its effect from the fact that many people consider skulls unsettling in the first place.

And note that it's in the form of the Jolly Roger, which is definitely associated with dark and menacing things.

[ 09. April 2016, 18:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I can't resist it any longer - the woman is ugly and would give ME nightmares - so how dare she moan about someone eho saved her life but who happened to have tatoos?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I can't resist it any longer - the woman is ugly and would give ME nightmares - so how dare she moan about someone eho saved her life but who happened to have tatoos?

Umm, because people can't help it if their physical appearance doesn't live up to someone else's standards, whereas a hospital worker can choose which bodily adornments to display and which not to?

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

A nurse is by definition, a carer. When was the last time anyone saw a nurse smoking over a patient? Caring for a person in a vulnerable state may involve some small, temporary sacrifice. Covering a potentially distressing image, whether it's a skull or David Cameron's face, is not much to ask. Is it any more complicated than that?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Gay people, Black people and Muslims have a right to be gay or black or Muslim (or all three) without discrimination. Being told to cover up or avoid looking after certain patients is discrimination.

Tattoo wearers don't have a right to display their tattoos in all places at all times.

Being required to cover a tattoo is discrimination, just not illegal discrimination.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

I guess there is Hamlet with the skull of Horatio, and its adoption as the recognized shorthand for the acting profession. But even there, the original context was as a prop in a speech about the inevitability of death. Not exactly a psychologically tranquilizing theme.

Yes, the inevitability of death, not necessarily the fear of its symbols. Death symbols were much more common in art when death was more frequent. ISTM, this is still common in poorer cultures where early death is more prevalent.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

It goes on to state that staff have to dress properly, cover tattoos, and also not have certain types of piercings. This seems continuous with the policy that all health care staff shall have flu vaccinations.

The health of patients is first priority. It is unfortunate that arguments like lilBuddha's have any traction at all.

I think it is unfortunate that people feel their prejudices should rule other people. Proper court dress in the 1750's would get one chemically castrated in the 1950's. What is "acceptable" is subjective.
BTW, it is idiotic to compare tattoos and flu vaccinations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would say that a skull tattoo is not the same as being black or gay. It's true that not everything that scares people will be predictable, but it seems to me that certain images might well be predicted to be a problem and could be covered up.

Things that can't be predicted can't be covered up, and prejudices regarding protected characteristics (i.e. disabilities, sexual orientation etc) shouldn't be accommodated.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider whether patients might get disturbed by certain images.

I accept that skin colour and some (but not all) disabilities are unavoidably visible, but do any of us either want or need to know what a doctor or nurse's sexual orientation is, or anything else about his or her life away from the ward, for that matter.

If the courts have told us that hospitals can legitimately tell nurses that they cannot wear religious symbols at work, then presumably they should likewise not be projecting their personalities, private lives, political opinions etc at us either.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Incidentally, what does "deal honey" mean? It's an expression I've never encountered, can't guess and can't find in any urban dictionary type site.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Yes, the inevitability of death, not necessarily the fear of its symbols. Death symbols were much more common in art when death was more frequent. ISTM, this is still common in poorer cultures where early death is more prevalent.

My point was not that the scene in Hamlet is trying to impart a fear of skulls. It was just meant to illustrate the near universality of the negative association, as even a relatively innocuous use of a skull is still connected with the theme of dying.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Incidentally, what does "deal honey" mean? It's an expression I've never encountered, can't guess and can't find in any urban dictionary type site.

I'm not really aware of "deal honey", in its entirety, as a phrase. I think it was probably used here as a combination of the common usgae of "deal"(as short for "deal with it"), with "honey"(ie. the common term of affection, but in this context used flippantly).

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There was a time when skulls and images of the Grim Reaper were acceptable on grave stones, (often seen on slates erected in the 18th Century). Such images are nolonger acceptable to Western sensitivities, in addition to the fact they were often used to denote contagions that thankfully are not now widespread.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it is unfortunate that people feel their prejudices should rule other people. Proper court dress in the 1750's would get one chemically castrated in the 1950's. What is "acceptable" is subjective.

No that is not it at all. This is has nothing to do with prejudices. It has to do with professional standards for both nurses and for the institution in which nurses work. Indeed what may have been acceptable in 1750 is not today, but there are generally standards that most sensible people accept. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is what is accepted by the average person that is the test.

In this case, the person who has the tattoos is secondary. I have difficulty understanding how it isn't clear, that patients come first in the hierarchy of rights and responsibilities in this situation.

quote:
lilBuddha:
BTW, it is idiotic to compare tattoos and flu vaccinations.

No it isn't. Flu vaccinations are required (or they have to mask themselves) so as protect vulnerable people from possible infection. Mostly the people without vaccinations will be over-protecting by masking, but because the risk exists, it is required. Most of the people covering over tattoos will also be over-protecting members of the public from psychological upset, but it is also required.

I get that the self centredness aspect of this, that everyone is the centre of their universe and wants to avoid being oppressed - a trend that has accelerated in my lifetime of supervising interns and students, and teaching medical and allied professionals. This is why we cannot expect decorum, manners and good judgement any more. We have to teach health professionals how to talk to members of the public and patients in waiting areas and on the telephone these days. And that they may not expose their midriff and belly button piercings, mustn't wear crocs, spandex pants, etc

This is also instructive:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A nurse is by definition, a carer. When was the last time anyone saw a nurse smoking over a patient? Caring for a person in a vulnerable state may involve some small, temporary sacrifice. Covering a potentially distressing image, whether it's a skull or David Cameron's face, is not much to ask. Is it any more complicated than that?

[ 09. April 2016, 23:26: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

Gay people, Black people and Muslims have a right to be gay or black or Muslim (or all three) without discrimination. Being told to cover up or avoid looking after certain patients is discrimination.

Tattoo wearers don't have a right to display their tattoos in all places at all times.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Being required to cover a tattoo is discrimination, just not illegal

Well yes OK. Just as the non-immune to Hepatitis B are discriminated against by being given a vaccine or those that fail their nursing exams are discriminated against by not being allowed to practice. There are some characteristics that are not protected by law and having a tattoo is one of those. Personally I think it is justifiable that the law puts certain characteristics in a different category. It is usually those who want to take protection of those characteristics less seriously who argue they shouldn't be treated differently.

Rights are usually in conflict. My right to hold and express various opinions about inter-racial marriage is subordinate to someone else's right not to experience racial discrimination.

However in the case of a skull tattoo I'm struggling to feel that my right to self expression ought to have priority over a patient's right not to be exposed to a disquieting symbol at a moment in their lives when they are vulnerable.

I would accept that a patient doesn't have a right to express a free-wheeling set of opinions about their carer's hair style, shape of their nose and height, but here we are talking about an image that many patients will find has unhelpful associations and many hospitals already anticipate this and would ask carers to cover it up.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is has nothing to do with prejudices.

It has everything to do with prejudice. That is absolutely what such 'standards' are. Pre judging someone's fit for a job because of what they are wearing. Whether or not you think the prejudice is acceptable in certain cases doesn't change that it is, in fact, prejudice.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

In this case, the person who has the tattoos is secondary. I have difficulty understanding how it isn't clear, that patients come first in the hierarchy of rights and responsibilities in this situation.

We have one patient complaining in this discussion. One patient's experience is not unimportant, but does not justify creating a policy.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

In education I have a dress code that does not allow me to have visible tattoos and limits the number of earrings in piercings to one stud or keeper in each ear. There are other requirements including no trainers, jeans, tracksuit bottoms or shorts, unless teaching PE, no low cut or strappy tops, no bare midriffs, no short skirts, plus, no doubt, more I've forgotten.

As I said earlier on this thread this is really common in customer facing roles. It is so common that a current English comprehension exam I'm using has a dress code for someone working in a shop that specifies no visible tattoos. It really surprises the teenagers I am asking to sit the paper, so much so that all of them have looked up and asked me if this is real when they've got to that point.

This is not banning tattoos, it's requiring that they can be covered for work. For piercings it's not saying an employee cannot have as many piercings as they want, but that in work time metal cannot be worn in all of them. That one is a safety issue in many places as you don't sensibly wear metal that can be caught if you're having to physically handle people or large machinery and equipment.

My daughter wears her hair braided. Her PhD supervisor requires that she doesn't have extreme colours (blue, red, purple) when presenting to funding bodies, but when working behind the scenes, it's fine.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A nurse is by definition, a carer. When was the last time anyone saw a nurse smoking over a patient? Caring for a person in a vulnerable state may involve some small, temporary sacrifice. Covering a potentially distressing image, whether it's a skull or David Cameron's face, is not much to ask. Is it any more complicated than that?

It is a bit more complicated than that. Many people take it upon themselves to be very offended at the sight of any tattoo, anywhere on anybody's skin. Some, because of their religious views. Any image is potentially distressing to any particular person.

What if I saw a nurse's My Little Pony tatt during my treatment and subsequently had dreadful nightmares of being chased into hell by a mind-numbingly cute fluffy horse? Would anyone seriously consider my complaint?

Or what if, having a tattoo myself, I was still traumatized by an image tattooed on a nurse treating me? Am I to complain that a clearly tattooed person was allowed to treat me - a clearly tattooed person? Or am I to complain that the nurse had the 'wrong' image?

I can see the sense of an argument that obviously controversial tatts should be covered - eg, swatiskas, dripping blood, sexually explicit images etc - but who's going to compile the catelogue for this? Bad artwork offends me so can I sue if I'm woken in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because of an inaccurately executed rose, or a slightly wonky celtic cross I spotted on my treatment nurse before I went under?

Two minds about this.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We have one patient complaining in this discussion. One patient's experience is not unimportant, but does not justify creating a policy.

Policies exist already about tattoos and dress codes for staff because this sort of trouble has arisen before. The only thing correct in your post is that one patient having a bad experience isn't sufficient.

And it is only about regulating the behaviour of staff after hiring. Not about who is hired, which is based on qualifications.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but they've strenghtened the self regulation of all of our professions in Canada. While we won't hear publicly unless the conduct is severe, the regulatory environment is such that the provincial registered nurses association which licenses nurses will inquire, request explanation and issue a conduct directive to the nurse. More likely than not. The mantra of such licensing bodies is "protection of the public" which means doing something wrong (which is what we'd expect misconduct to be) or something that reflects negatively on the public perception of the profession (which can be heavy handed). Avoidance of the stress of investigation about a newstory means that nurses and others will be more careful in the future.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Policies exist already about tattoos and dress codes for staff because this sort of trouble has arisen before.

Rubbish. Some policies are adopted after incidents, but the majority are developed before the first staff are employed and are based upon what the writers think is acceptable.
And that is what most of the arguments here are about. What the posters think is acceptable.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

What if I saw a nurse's My Little Pony tatt

That is one of the most horrific tattoo ideas I've ever heard. You've a truly disturbed mind to even generate such an example. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Two minds about this.

As am I, truthfully. I am inked, but the placement was deliberately chosen to be able to reveal or conceal easily.
I am judgemental on others' ink. Quality and placement will cause reflexive assessments.
And, if a nurse walked in covered in ink, it would cause little concern. However, if a doctor did the same, it would cause a bit of concern.
This is considerably more conformist, classist and conservative than I am comfortable with.
However, this should make me reevaluate myself, not the doctor.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Were that ill people, with compromises in their cognitive function, had this level of open mindedness. 12% of people on this medication have psych reactions. More than 1 in 10. But the rights of staff should exceed thosrbof the vulnerable patients? And yes, when tattooing became a fashion in the 1980s, policies began to be developed. About 35 years ago. They were added to the dress codes developed 20 years previously.

[tangential] I have always been curious how it is people feel they are expressing personal meaning and individuality by adopting practices of the crowd. And how it is in contradistinction somehow a very self focussed action. [/ end tan]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What if I saw a nurse's My Little Pony tatt during my treatment and subsequently had dreadful nightmares of being chased into hell by a mind-numbingly cute fluffy horse? Would anyone seriously consider my complaint?

Probably not. Does that mean that no symbol should be ever considered a problem? The fact that one can't develop a neat rule that divines disquieting symbols from OK symbols doesn't mean that one shouldn't encourage nurses and doctors to think about the symbols on display and cover up symbols that might be a problem.

It may well be that this particular complaint is from someone who has an axe to grind over tattoos and was looking for an excuse. Who can tell. Nevertheless it seems extraordinary not to allow for the possibility that some images might be predictably distressing and not a good idea to display to delirious, confused and fearful patients. The fact that one can't come up with a perfect rule doesn't mean one shouldn't do something and encourage carers to show common sense. I would say it needs to be a guideline rather than a rule.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

So, after rereading the article, l'm getting the sense that the request to cover the tattoo was delivered in a less than respectful way. ( e.g., I presume the anesthesia has worn off by now, but she is still equating tattoo wearing with chain-- swinging bike gangs.) If so, maybe that has something to do with how the staff responded.

Not saying that it still wouldn't be a kindness to cover, but I can invision a scenario in which a patient might demand accomodation in a way that forces the staff to protect the nurse's rights.( yelling, shaming, namecalling.)

If that was the case-- and I admit, I am only going by what seems to be a harsh tone in the patient's quotes in the article, I have no guess as to whether she addressed the staff that way-- then I can see a normally patient nurse getting firm.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some policies are adopted after incidents, but the majority are developed before the first staff are employed and are based upon what the writers think is acceptable.

How do you know this?

Moo

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( yelling, shaming, namecalling.)

Scared people with low oxygen levels on ketamine might do that and get cut some slack. On the other hand if such behaviour manifested in the few days of lucidity before discharge that might justifiably be treated differently.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I imagine bare below the elbow policies for infection control worsen the issue somewhat, because tats that folk got originally thinking they could be covered by sleeves (possibly before going into healthcare) won't be. And make up will be ineffective, if people are washing their hands and forearms before and after every patient.

Elbow length surgical gloves maybe ?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Were that ill people, with compromises in their cognitive function, had this level of open mindedness. 12% of people on this medication have psych reactions. More than 1 in 10. But the rights of staff should exceed thosrbof the vulnerable patients? And yes, when tattooing became a fashion in the 1980s, policies began to be developed. About 35 years ago. They were added to the dress codes developed 20 years previously.

[tangential] I have always been curious how it is people feel they are expressing personal meaning and individuality by adopting practices of the crowd. And how it is in contradistinction somehow a very self focussed action. [/ end tan]

Isn't this all a bit judgementalist?

Is it really impossible - or at any rate, so unusual - for those who have had illnesses/medication which have occasionally impaired cognitive function to exercise a sufficient 'level of open-mindedness' to assess a controversial subject in a number of different, even opposing ways? I'm willing to bet there are some posting here who would qualify as your 1 in 10, but who have views on both sides of this argument.

I think it is fair to bend to the side of the vulnerable, however, and I'll credit you with concern for them, rather than disdain for those who inadvertently cause them distress.

And I don't see anyone suggesting that the rights of carers are more important than the rights of the cared-for. Not in that black-and-white kind of way you suggest.

Finally, the tangential swipe at people who choose to have a tattoo is revealing. Personally, I don't know, as you seem to presume you do, that everyone who gets inked does so for the reasons you state, though no doubt some do.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
( yelling, shaming, namecalling.)
Scared people with low oxygen levels on ketamine might do that and get cut some slack. On the other hand if such behaviour manifested in the few days of lucidity before discharge that might justifiably be treated differently.

I can see " cut slack" -- hell, ER nurses have to put up with people taking swings at them, a few snarky comments is nothing-- but "cutting someone slack" doesn't necessarily mean "accomodating them."

So, I am saying, if the patient privately asked someone to talk to the nurse about the tat, the obvious thing to me would be to make an accomodation, out of kindness. If the nurse was commanded to do something about the tat in a publicly humiliating way, that might compel the staff to back up the nurse.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

By "Cut slack" I meant believing that they really do find the tattoos distressing - not just using it as an excuse to pursue a prejudice against tattoo-wearers.

Perhaps a patient might be rude and inappropriate in the way they communicate regarding their fear. While in normal life it might be reasonable to respond to that by not being accommodating until someone learns some manners, in hospital with a patient who is stuck with their vulnerable situation it is a bit different.

Sometimes one encounters this problem where obvious prejudice is concerned - for instance where a distressed vulnerable patient declares that they don't want a black doctor. This gets complicated and is considered is a somewhat controversial area within the caring professions.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

How people treat each other really matters, whether on the receiving end of care or the care-giving end.

It matters in everyday exchanges, all the time. People who generally believe the best of folk rarely other find people's reactions too difficult to deal with.

Those who get their backs up over something and nothing will (unsurprisingly) find folks less amenable.

If drugs are clouding or confusing their minds then I'd expect the nurses/caregivers to understand this and act accordingly - within reason.

In my job (teaching) we put up with behaviours from some children which would be totally unacceptable in most. Maybe they are on the autism spectrum or similar. This also, obviously, needs to be within reason - and with a concerted effort to be sure no-one is hurt by the behaviours.

It's a difficult balancing act and nobody gets it right all the time, nor should they be expected to.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the rights of staff should exceed thosrbof the vulnerable patients?

No one has said this.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[tangential] I have always been curious how it is people feel they are expressing personal meaning and individuality by adopting practices of the crowd. And how it is in contradistinction somehow a very self focussed action. [/ end tan] [/QB]

This is actually not a tangent, but indeed relevant.. You are making a judgement based on your preconceptions. One may have/wear/do something that other people have/wear/do without having done it for the same reasons others have.
And, even amongst individuals who do follow the guidelines of a particular trend or subculture, the non-conformity is against the mainstream, not towards the idea of complete individuality.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I would say it needs to be a guideline rather than a rule.

Not unreasonable in concept, but tricky in application.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some policies are adopted after incidents, but the majority are developed before the first staff are employed and are based upon what the writers think is acceptable.
How do you know this?

Moo

Because that is the way business work. Even small business which grow will most often pull from established templates rather than let policies appear as needed.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What if I saw a nurse's My Little Pony tatt during my treatment and subsequently had dreadful nightmares of being chased into hell by a mind-numbingly cute fluffy horse? Would anyone seriously consider my complaint?
Probably not. Does that mean that no symbol should be ever considered a problem?

By no means. In my first post I referred to swastikas, dripping blood, sexually explicit images as examples of images likely to be most inappropriate, and most worthy of concealment.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Some policies are adopted after incidents, but the majority are developed before the first staff are employed and are based upon what the writers think is acceptable.
How do you know this?

Moo
Because that is the way business work. Even small business which grow will most often pull from established templates rather than let policies appear as needed.

Do you believe that hospitals in general function the way all other businesses do?

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How people treat each other really matters, whether on the receiving end of care or the care-giving end.

It matters in everyday exchanges, all the time. People who generally believe the best of folk rarely other find people's reactions too difficult to deal with.

Those who get their backs up over something and nothing will (unsurprisingly) find folks less amenable.

If drugs are clouding or confusing their minds then I'd expect the nurses/caregivers to understand this and act accordingly - within reason.

In my job (teaching) we put up with behaviours from some children which would be totally unacceptable in most. Maybe they are on the autism spectrum or similar. This also, obviously, needs to be within reason - and with a concerted effort to be sure no-one is hurt by the behaviours.

It's a difficult balancing act and nobody gets it right all the time, nor should they be expected to.

"Within reason" seems to be the key phrase. I guess my prejudice is that most people in caregiving professions are flexible and accomodating by default, and it would take a lot to push them to a place where they would dig their heels in. ISTM making minor accomodations would make everybody's lives easier-- caregivers included-- so what would make someone say no?

And the only two reasons I could think of were, the tat is in a location where it would be hard to cover-- face? Neck?-- or the circumstances surrounding the request made it difficult to comply.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Do you believe that hospitals in general function the way all other businesses do?

Moo

Of course they do. Even in civilised systems with national health care, an operations policy will be established, or take from established practice. Some of this will have evolved over time, but much is determined by what is considered "professional" or cost saving or efficient before any evidence pro or con.
If you doubt me ask any medium to long term health care worker about administrative policies which were completely daft, and obviously so, but had to be implemented anyway until proven ridiculous in practice.
and other rules which are rubbish and have stayed in long term use.
There are various reasons rules and practices are implemented. Experience is only one of those reasons.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
A nurse is by definition, a carer. When was the last time anyone saw a nurse smoking over a patient? Caring for a person in a vulnerable state may involve some small, temporary sacrifice. Covering a potentially distressing image, whether it's a skull or David Cameron's face, is not much to ask. Is it any more complicated than that?
It is a bit more complicated than that. Many people take it upon themselves to be very offended at the sight of any tattoo, anywhere on anybody's skin. Some, because of their religious views. Any image is potentially distressing to any particular person.

What if I saw a nurse's My Little Pony tatt during my treatment and subsequently had dreadful nightmares of being chased into hell by a mind-numbingly cute fluffy horse? Would anyone seriously consider my complaint?

Or what if, having a tattoo myself, I was still traumatized by an image tattooed on a nurse treating me? Am I to complain that a clearly tattooed person was allowed to treat me - a clearly tattooed person? Or am I to complain that the nurse had the 'wrong' image?

I can see the sense of an argument that obviously controversial tatts should be covered - eg, swatiskas, dripping blood, sexually explicit images etc - but who's going to compile the catelogue for this? Bad artwork offends me so can I sue if I'm woken in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because of an inaccurately executed rose, or a slightly wonky celtic cross I spotted on my treatment nurse before I went under?

Two minds about this.

I can only speak from experience, which doesn't count for much here. Better to consult a more scholarly source on hallucinations, like Oliver Sacks.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I can only speak from experience, which doesn't count for much here. Better to consult a more scholarly source on hallucinations, like Oliver Sacks.

So...we're supposed to purchase the book in order to continue the discussion about hallucinations?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I can only speak from experience, which doesn't count for much here. Better to consult a more scholarly source on hallucinations, like Oliver Sacks.
So...we're supposed to purchase the book in order to continue the discussion about hallucinations?

Or you could just see a bad tattoo of the cover while on anesthesia, and hallucinate it.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
I can only speak from experience, which doesn't count for much here. Better to consult a more scholarly source on hallucinations, like Oliver Sacks.
So...we're supposed to purchase the book in order to continue the discussion about hallucinations?

Your local public library will probably be happy to help you. I don't have any advice about dealing with tattooed librarians, however - you'll have to take your chances on that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Your local public library will probably be happy to help you. I don't have any advice about dealing with tattooed librarians, however - you'll have to take your chances on that.

Thank you everso for the homework! It is quite a refreshing change from discussing a topic on a discussion board.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
By no means. In my first post I referred to swastikas, dripping blood, sexually explicit images as examples of images likely to be most inappropriate, and most worthy of concealment.

Yes, fair enough. Although in those cases I would expect the line manager to ask more questions about what led the tattooed staff to choose such images rather than simply as for them to be covered up.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Your local public library will probably be happy to help you. I don't have any advice about dealing with tattooed librarians, however - you'll have to take your chances on that.
Thank you everso for the homework! It is quite a refreshing change from discussing a topic on a discussion board.

It was just a suggestion - don't let it worry you. Once in a while I find it's good to tear myself away from the computer to read a book that will use facts to give a little depth to a discussion.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By "Cut slack" I meant believing that they really do find the tattoos distressing - not just using it as an excuse to pursue a prejudice against tattoo-wearers.

Perhaps a patient might be rude and inappropriate in the way they communicate regarding their fear. While in normal life it might be reasonable to respond to that by not being accommodating until someone learns some manners, in hospital with a patient who is stuck with their vulnerable situation it is a bit different.

Sometimes one encounters this problem where obvious prejudice is concerned - for instance where a distressed vulnerable patient declares that they don't want a black doctor. This gets complicated and is considered is a somewhat controversial area within the caring professions.

Been thinking of this. This conclusion from the article:

quote:
Although institutions should not accommodate, for individual physicians the decision to accommodate may be sound when the accommodating physician is comfortable with the decision, employment rights are protected, and the decision does not compromise good medical care.

This feel right, and it also seems to reflect what we' ve been talking about, regarding a personal decision to accomodate in deference to best practice versus a policy rewrite.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I agree to some extent but there is a difference - the article is about race which is a protected characteristic. Tattoos aren't. One could discuss whether that is reasonable or not but I think that the principle of having some characteristics that are protected and some that aren't is a sound one.

That supports more of a role for the institution in determining the outcome.

Nevertheless I still think it is a balance and one that line managers should get involved in discussing. I would favour a guideline that line managers and their staff should discuss potentially distressing images and take a decision based on how prominent the tattoo is, how likely it is to be distressing and how easy it is to cover up. That probably is what happens in many hospitals already.

These sorts of situations are much better handled by a discussion of values in a guideline than a rule book with a list of blanket criteria.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Oh, totally agreed. About discussion of guidelines.
Maybe part if what frames my perspective is that, in a lot of metro areas in the US, there are nursing shortages. Bad ones. Decades old. So administrations might hold back on demanding accomodation from nurses as they can't afford to either lose staff or bounce people around from patient to patient.

[ 11. April 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Kelley -- so in the situation you describe, either way the sensitive patient (remember him/her) is screwed. Either no treatment at all, because no health-care staff available to provide it, or health-care only available in a way that is repugnant and stressful.

John

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I guess I am saying I can see how a hospital admin would feel kind of screwed either way.

And it's Kelly.

And I don't what I said that implied "No Treatment at all." What I did say is that you might have a very short staff serving a ton of people in an ER room. Actually, no maybe about it, if you live in New York, San Francisco, LA, or any large metro area, that is what will happen. An ER nurse might simply not have enough time, running from patient to patient, to doctor up a tattoo.

[ 12. April 2016, 01:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Kelley -- so in the situation you describe, either way the sensitive patient (remember him/her) is screwed. Either no treatment at all, because no health-care staff available to provide it, or health-care only available in a way that is repugnant and stressful.

John

The problem with the sensitive patient argument is that they are their own barrier. Their sensitivity is the result of their own prejudice.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying then patients' concerns are inconsequential.
If the woman in the article had been a 20 year old man, would we be having this conversation I wonder?

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Kelley -- so in the situation you describe, either way the sensitive patient (remember him/her) is screwed. Either no treatment at all, because no health-care staff available to provide it, or health-care only available in a way that is repugnant and stressful.

John

I think it`s often more than simply a sensitive patient. Extreme intolerance to certain anaesthetics and pain relievers, and combinations thereof, is well known, especially to the nurses who have to deal with the effects when a patient is recovering after surgery. There`s a good reason why some of them, like Percocet, have a high value on the street as hallucinogens.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
There`s a good reason why some of them, like Percocet, have a high value on the street as hallucinogens.

Opioids often have a greater recreational effect when one is not in pain. Who might have a strong sensitivity despite the pain and what they will experience is not apparent before administration. But it has street value, in part, because it is easier for many to obtain than heroin or other opioids.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Kelley -- so in the situation you describe, either way the sensitive patient (remember him/her) is screwed. Either no treatment at all, because no health-care staff available to provide it, or health-care only available in a way that is repugnant and stressful.

John
The problem with the sensitive patient argument is that they are their own barrier. Their sensitivity is the result of their own prejudice.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying then patients' concerns are inconsequential.
If the woman in the article had been a 20 year old man, would we be having this conversation I wonder?

Or to put it another way, "the problem with the insensitive nurse is that they are their own barrier. They refuse to wear clothing which adequately covers a tattoo they have chosen to wear".

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm going to ask again-- other have made this request and been respected about it. If you are going to refer to me, can you use the correct spelling of my name?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Um. That was Gee D and others quoting John Holding's original post. John Holding has not been back to correct himself. The quoters just didn't correct his mistake.

If you have asked John Holding to correct himself another time, I apologize for butting in.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think it is reasonable for me to ask that it not continue.

And for the record, that was a plural, "you."

[ 12. April 2016, 04:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or to put it another way, "the problem with the insensitive nurse is that they are their own barrier. They refuse to wear clothing which adequately covers a tattoo they have chosen to wear".

Every story has two sides, but they are not always equal. The woman in the article brought her prejudice into the hospital.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think it is reasonable for me to ask that it not continue.

And for the record, that was a plural, "you."

Absolutely reasonable. And now I do apologize.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think it is reasonable for me to ask that it not continue.

And for the record, that was a plural, "you."

Leaving misspelled words in a quote bothers me. But so does changing them, because the quote is then no longer accurate.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The woman in the article brought her prejudice into the hospital.

I think we can't necessarily say prejudice. (Except in the sense that any view is a form of prejudice in the old sense of the word - but usually it implies unjustifiable prejudice). She reports being freaked out by an image of a skull while on ketamine. She doesn't report general disapproval of tattoos or of people who choose to have them. I don't think "prejudice" is necessarily the right diagnosis.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Actually that is what kind of made me question my original position-- which was "why make a fuss? the person is sick, cover it up." When I reread the article, in her interview, which I presume was given when she was lucid, she was equating people who wear tattoos to biker gang thugs.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Yep, prejudice in every sense of the word.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The last sentence is unfortunate and not defendable. However

quote:
She says she actually appreciates tattoos as an art form generally, but feels some images — like the skull emblem that made her think and dream of outlaw bikers — are simply inappropriate in a health-care setting.

seems more reasonable. I wouldn't agree with it personally but I think there's a learning point for a health worker here - that a skull emblem might not be the best tattoo to have on display, whatever judgement one makes of this particular woman's attitudes in objecting to it.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I share the concern about the shortage of nurses, coupled with fact that approximately 1 in 5 UK adults has a tattoo - I think it is almost 40% of under 40s.

I also wish to repeat my point that covering up a hand/forearm tattoo may be difficult with a bare below the elbows infection control regime, together with frequent hand/forearm washing.

It is certainly not an option to just wear long sleeves.

(My impression from the article, is that the patient had one encounter with this nurse, and raised a complaint after her recovery - rather than raising complaints during her care. She then says the hospital didn't listen, I guess that may depend on the form of the complaint. If she said, this nurse shouldn't be allowed to work, because of his tattoo, I am not surprised the hospital would decline to fire him.)

[ 12. April 2016, 06:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(My impression from the article, is that the patient had one encounter with this nurse, and raised a complaint after her recovery - rather than raising complaints during her care. She then says the hospital didn't listen, I guess that may depend on the form of the complaint. If she said, this nurse shouldn't be allowed to work, because of his tattoo, I am not surprised the hospital would decline to fire him.)

tangent alert ... do you know how hard it is to make a complaint whilst a patient is still being treated? Yes the policy and procedures are there but there is the very justifiable fear/concern that somehow the patient will be treated differently if they complain, especially if no one else does.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think it is reasonable for me to ask that it not continue.

And for the record, that was a plural, "you."

In my case, it was exactly as Lyda*Rose says - I clicked on the quote button etc and as always the original appeared.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

This matter appears to have been settled. If anybody wants to discuss the etiquette of correcting mistakes in quoted posts, please do so in the Styx, not here.

/hosting

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(My impression from the article, is that the patient had one encounter with this nurse, and raised a complaint after her recovery - rather than raising complaints during her care. She then says the hospital didn't listen, I guess that may depend on the form of the complaint. If she said, this nurse shouldn't be allowed to work, because of his tattoo, I am not surprised the hospital would decline to fire him.)
tangent alert ... do you know how hard it is to make a complaint whilst a patient is still being treated? Yes the policy and procedures are there but there is the very justifiable fear/concern that somehow the patient will be treated differently if they complain, especially if no one else does.

Yes, but people have given the impression on this thread that she had at some point said - I don't want my care delivered by nurse x and the hospital had said tough, you'll just have to lump it. Which is not what I think happened.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm going to ask again-- other have made this request and been respected about it. If you are going to refer to me, can you use the correct spelling of my name?

Sorry Kelly -- it was an innocent typo.

I shall try to avoid referring to you or anyone else again, in case my fingers slipt again.

As a Host, I try to avoid fussing when others accidentally make typos, since I am usually typing so fast that my name is mis-spelled as JOhn in my own posts.

John (got it htat time)

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Oops. Sorry Eutychus -- I was reading down the thread and responded to the original issue before I got to your ruling.

John

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors. Anyone else having them should NOT be given a job in the first place if they are visible whilst wearing normal clothes as defined by a Conservative councillor.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

But at the same time we want people to work for a living ...

(And scrubs are not 'normal' clothes.)

Come to that do you not when veteran military medical staff to be able to work as paramedics after they complete their service in the forces ?

[ 12. April 2016, 20:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

As a gay health worker with a visible tattoo... I've never had a comment on it. I've had to suck up homophobic comments by the bucketfull. Not because I was obvious, just because it's so normal for many people. I let it ride because I'm there to help them. I have once asked to be taken off a case, which was ok with my boss, who explained to the family why.

My personal life is just that, personal, and I don't want my clients being distracted by it.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But at the same time we want people to work for a living ...

(And scrubs are not 'normal' clothes.)

Come to that do you not when veteran military medical staff to be able to work as paramedics after they complete their service in the forces ?

Scrubs are normal in hospitals. End of...

Do you want to add some punctuation to your last paragraph so we may be able to understand it?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
As a gay health worker with a visible tattoo... I've never had a comment on it. I've had to suck up homophobic comments by the bucketfull. Not because I was obvious, just because it's so normal for many people. I let it ride because I'm there to help them. I have once asked to be taken off a case, which was ok with my boss, who explained to the family why.

My personal life is just that, personal, and I don't want my clients being distracted by it.

Gay is fne. I don't have an issue with that, anyhthing that brings a little more live into the world is a good thing.

Tattoos are not a good thing unless they are part of your culture. Being a footballer or a hipster is not a culture.

Okay I am biased here. My uncle was a para and had the tats to prove it on his forearm. No complaints from me. He had earned his tattoos the hard way and good luck. But getting tattoos like a premiership footballer is just "chav" and I for one find them repellent.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Doesn't at all describe prejudice, does it? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doesn't at all describe prejudice, does it?

It describes mine.

A few others are here...

Posh or Chav

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
But at the same time we want people to work for a living ...

(And scrubs are not 'normal' clothes.)

Come to that do you not when veteran military medical staff to be able to work as paramedics after they complete their service in the forces ?
Scrubs are normal in hospitals. End of...

Do you want to add some punctuation to your last paragraph so we may be able to understand it?

Sorry that should read, "Come to that do you not want veteran military medical staff to be able to work as paramedics, after they complete their service in the forces ?"

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doesn't at all describe prejudice, does it?
It describes mine.

A few others are here...

Posh or Chav

The practical problem with that piece of class prejudice, leaving aside the ethics of it, is that low paid health care assistant posts - and to lesser extent qualified nursing posts - tend not to be filled by people from mostly middle class backgrounds.

Like it or not many of these jobs will have to be filled by "chavs" or *gasp* immigrants - or we will not have enough staff. Perhaps not judging people by appearance would be more helpful than massively reducing the recruitment pool.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Class prejudice, ethically unsound, practically flawed... it's hard to imagine this is a seriously thought-out position rather than just a fun thing to say.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Class prejudice, ethically unsound, practically flawed... it's hard to imagine this is a seriously thought-out position rather than just a fun thing to say.

Almost impossible to imagine, even.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors. Anyone else having them should NOT be given a job in the first place if they are visible whilst wearing normal clothes as defined by a Conservative councillor.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors. Anyone else having them should NOT be given a job in the first place if they are visible whilst wearing normal clothes as defined by a Conservative councillor.

Deano, you do realise that this is rather a Euro-centric perspective. Arabella is from NZ, Polynesia, where tatoos originated, and the cultural connotations (for both Pakeha and Maori) are rather different. Sailors appropriated Polynesia custom. Does this put a different slant on the debate?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Presumably not in this conservative counselor's judgement.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marama:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors. Anyone else having them should NOT be given a job in the first place if they are visible whilst wearing normal clothes as defined by a Conservative councillor.
Deano, you do realise that this is rather a Euro-centric perspective. Arabella is from NZ, Polynesia, where tatoos originated, and the cultural connotations (for both Pakeha and Maori) are rather different. Sailors appropriated Polynesia custom. Does this put a different slant on the debate?

Nope. Not for me. Sorry. I hate the damned things on people who have them as "fun" things to get. I blame footballers. I'm sure there are less pleasant sites but when I see British people with arms, legs and torsos filled with tattoos, then I do find it quite repellant.

And those with celtic or chinese wording are pretentious as well.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Marama:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors. Anyone else having them should NOT be given a job in the first place if they are visible whilst wearing normal clothes as defined by a Conservative councillor.
Deano, you do realise that this is rather a Euro-centric perspective. Arabella is from NZ, Polynesia, where tatoos originated, and the cultural connotations (for both Pakeha and Maori) are rather different. Sailors appropriated Polynesia custom. Does this put a different slant on the debate?
Nope. Not for me. Sorry. I hate the damned things on people who have them as "fun" things to get. I blame footballers. I'm sure there are less pleasant sites but when I see British people with arms, legs and torsos filled with tattoos, then I do find it quite repellant.

And those with celtic or chinese wording are pretentious as well.

It's interesting to know what the celtic or chines words might mean .... wouldn't be ironic if it read "Ha more money made!"

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Mamacita:

quote:
Arabella is from NZ, Polynesia, where tattoos originated, and the cultural connotations (for both Pakeha and Maori) are rather different.

The modern fashion for tattoos may have originated in Polynesia, but our ancestors in Europe tattooed themselves as well. People all over the world have been doing it for thousands of years. Historically, elaborate tattoos were a sign of high status. This may be why many members of the upper classes, including the Royal Family (not just those who have served in the Navy) have been tattooed.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

We none of us have an untrammelled right to insist that others accept us when we express our personalities. We all have to accept that we need to fit in with the expectations of those who move in the same circles as we do. If there is a dress code where we work, then provided it isn't glaringly unreasonable or expensive (with out money rather than our employer's) to comply with, we have no reason to complain about being expected to follow it.

The fact that shipmates, in apparently approximately equal numbers are saying that they do or do not like tattoos means that if a person has got one, it's difficult to regard it as unreasonable if their employer tells them to keep it covered when at work.

It does mean that if you look like the chap half way down this page on the left some people may choose not to employ you. But, can he grumble? It's not a disability. He wasn't born like that.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
... It does mean that if you look like the chap half way down this page on the left some people may choose not to employ you. But, can he grumble? It's not a disability. He wasn't born like that.

I live in a neighbourhood that reeks of self-expression and mustache wax. I can assure you there are businesses that would hire that dude. Definitely not the women's second-hand clothing store or the Money Mart, but he'd be welcome at skateboard shops, breweries, bike shops, and the place that sells bizarro costume items.

<tangent> I once ate at a restaurant where my server had ridiculously long nails with beads and crystals glued on. All I could think of during my entire meal was, "When was the last time you really washed your hands properly?" </tangent>

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Were they definitely real? Either way it doesn't seem ideal with food.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

We had a nurse with very long nails of that sort in the NICU (newborn intensive care). I winced every time I saw her touch a baby, particularly when it looked like she was nicking their skin. Ouch. And, germs.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Sorry, and I may be old fashioned here, but tattoos are okay on soldiers and sailors.

Old fashioned? Progressive - you mean! I showed your post to some of my mates in the services (army and navy) and they were delighted you approved of their ink. Paula's neck swallow, and Kathy's half-sleeve celtic swirl thing are indeed very fine to look at. Not my thing, personally, but they're so happy YOU like them!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We had a nurse with very long nails of that sort in the NICU (newborn intensive care). I winced every time I saw her touch a baby, particularly when it looked like she was nicking their skin. Ouch. And, germs.

Not allowed in the NHS - nor is nail varnish.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I rather doubt most hospitals do here, either.

In fact, I suspect it was a new thing and her supervisor hadn't noticed yet. It's a pretty obvious "don't."

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0