Chaplaincy services in hospitals
Should hospital chaplains be phased out?
I usually have fairly mixed feelings about such matters. I was raised in what I consider, overall, to be a pretty good religion (in that it takes a sensible attitude to life and doesn't propagate bigotry), Reform/Liberal Judaism. I eventually left a few years ago upon realising that I was an atheist. But Jewishness is still part of my identity, and there are still ways in which I think, or am able to think, like a person of faith. I recognise that whether or not God exists is not the only issue, even though it proved to be a key one for me, and that religions are human institutions, capable of both good and evil. Denying human rights to people because they're gay or female is wrong (I'd rather not use "evil", though I'm still working with that idea of opposed concepts); providing comfort to the ill and bereaved is undoubtedly a good thing, an act of humanity, a mitzvah.
Unfortunately, the NHS is terribly strapped for cash. While there is still a high incidence of patients not getting enough to eat in hospitals, of people dying or deteriorating seriously on waiting lists, basic care needs have to take priority. I don't get enough medical care because the patient transport system is too poor, and there are no provisions made for patients who are made worse by being in hospital (e.g. providing a resting area and making sure they're in hospital for the minimal time required), nor are my dietary needs met in the hospitals I've encountered, so I wouldn't even get far enough to access chaplaincy services.
I can see the importance of a chaplaincy service despite being an atheist, though. Even if you disregard the spiritual aspect (and I don't think my opinion on the validity of religious faith is hugely the point there: if people of faith find comfort and meaning in their religion, then good for them, there's little enough of that in this world and particularly in hospitals), the service is evidently beneficial for patients' mental health. On the other hand, what of the non-religious people who would benefit from someone to talk to, perhaps a counselling service? The burial of babies shows up this problem even more strongly. It seems a very important service to provide, and if it's provided at all, it should be provided to everyone. People grieve for the death of a baby whether they follow a religion or not. In addition, I doubt that every single hospital has a chaplain for every single faith. If the only available chaplain is Christian, say, then a Jewish patient might be perfectly happy to have a chat and even compare theology, but they will not want that chaplain to perform a religious burial service for their child.
Anyway, my point was yes, this seems a very important service, though I still wouldn't place it above making sure patients get enough to eat. Should the NHS pay for it? Well, why shouldn't the religious organisations pay for it? Because while it might not be the highest on the list of priorities in healthcare, I'd put it right at the top of the list of priorities within a religious context. I was rather surprised that the National Secularist Society didn't suggest that, but on turning to their website, I've found that this is in fact exactly what they were suggesting, the BBC reporting just left that out. The BBC footage does have a slight air of "here's an essential service and those heartless secularists want it taken away", when in actual fact it's an issue of shifting the funding, followed by the question of providing equivalent secular-based services. I'm not sure how a dual provision scheme would work. Would you have the religious services paid for by the religions, and the secular ones funded by the NHS? Would you tell people that they can speak to the chaplain *or* the counsellor, but not both?
This problem doesn't just occur with hospital chaplains. There are a number of religious-based charities that provide services only to members of their own faith. (There are also charities which were founded in a religious context but are now secular, such as Barnardo's and Oxfam.) I probably wouldn't be getting any provision at all from social services were it not for a worker from Jewish Care who stepped in years ago and got things moving, when I was too ill to pursue social services myself. I wouldn't be comfortable using Jewish Care today, and were I living in an area they deal with directly (I got a couple of visits on outreach; their principle service is in Glasgow), I would be faced with the choice of accessing services, perhaps essential ones, only if I did so as a religious claimant. It shouldn't be this way.
I usually have fairly mixed feelings about such matters. I was raised in what I consider, overall, to be a pretty good religion (in that it takes a sensible attitude to life and doesn't propagate bigotry), Reform/Liberal Judaism. I eventually left a few years ago upon realising that I was an atheist. But Jewishness is still part of my identity, and there are still ways in which I think, or am able to think, like a person of faith. I recognise that whether or not God exists is not the only issue, even though it proved to be a key one for me, and that religions are human institutions, capable of both good and evil. Denying human rights to people because they're gay or female is wrong (I'd rather not use "evil", though I'm still working with that idea of opposed concepts); providing comfort to the ill and bereaved is undoubtedly a good thing, an act of humanity, a mitzvah.
Unfortunately, the NHS is terribly strapped for cash. While there is still a high incidence of patients not getting enough to eat in hospitals, of people dying or deteriorating seriously on waiting lists, basic care needs have to take priority. I don't get enough medical care because the patient transport system is too poor, and there are no provisions made for patients who are made worse by being in hospital (e.g. providing a resting area and making sure they're in hospital for the minimal time required), nor are my dietary needs met in the hospitals I've encountered, so I wouldn't even get far enough to access chaplaincy services.
I can see the importance of a chaplaincy service despite being an atheist, though. Even if you disregard the spiritual aspect (and I don't think my opinion on the validity of religious faith is hugely the point there: if people of faith find comfort and meaning in their religion, then good for them, there's little enough of that in this world and particularly in hospitals), the service is evidently beneficial for patients' mental health. On the other hand, what of the non-religious people who would benefit from someone to talk to, perhaps a counselling service? The burial of babies shows up this problem even more strongly. It seems a very important service to provide, and if it's provided at all, it should be provided to everyone. People grieve for the death of a baby whether they follow a religion or not. In addition, I doubt that every single hospital has a chaplain for every single faith. If the only available chaplain is Christian, say, then a Jewish patient might be perfectly happy to have a chat and even compare theology, but they will not want that chaplain to perform a religious burial service for their child.
Anyway, my point was yes, this seems a very important service, though I still wouldn't place it above making sure patients get enough to eat. Should the NHS pay for it? Well, why shouldn't the religious organisations pay for it? Because while it might not be the highest on the list of priorities in healthcare, I'd put it right at the top of the list of priorities within a religious context. I was rather surprised that the National Secularist Society didn't suggest that, but on turning to their website, I've found that this is in fact exactly what they were suggesting, the BBC reporting just left that out. The BBC footage does have a slight air of "here's an essential service and those heartless secularists want it taken away", when in actual fact it's an issue of shifting the funding, followed by the question of providing equivalent secular-based services. I'm not sure how a dual provision scheme would work. Would you have the religious services paid for by the religions, and the secular ones funded by the NHS? Would you tell people that they can speak to the chaplain *or* the counsellor, but not both?
This problem doesn't just occur with hospital chaplains. There are a number of religious-based charities that provide services only to members of their own faith. (There are also charities which were founded in a religious context but are now secular, such as Barnardo's and Oxfam.) I probably wouldn't be getting any provision at all from social services were it not for a worker from Jewish Care who stepped in years ago and got things moving, when I was too ill to pursue social services myself. I wouldn't be comfortable using Jewish Care today, and were I living in an area they deal with directly (I got a couple of visits on outreach; their principle service is in Glasgow), I would be faced with the choice of accessing services, perhaps essential ones, only if I did so as a religious claimant. It shouldn't be this way.