Does my adult patient have a right to look at pornography?

[I'mTheFather]

It's a personal computer, not a big screen TV across the room! Tell those nurses to ask him to turn the sound off when someone enters the room. As for the visual, don't look.

 

[justalayman]

ecmst12;3083676]And, the nurse could be fired for refusing to care for a patient even when he is NOT watching porn, and if he is following the boundaries set down by management.

Huh? We are talking about being exposed to sexual harassment. If there is no porn, then there is no sexual harassment and the question is moot.

If a nurse is fired for refusing to attend to him while he is watching porn and s/he is fired, well, let's say there are suits on record to show it would not be a good idea to fire them.

A nurse does not have to put up with sexual behavior from a patient, but she also can't pick and choose who to care for, and this patient has not actually harassed anyone.

Yes, he has. He has had porn on his computer when the nurses were attending to him.

If he rings his call bell and a nurse refuses to answer it just because he likes his private time, that's misconduct in a serious way, she could actually be disciplined by the nursing board for that.

if he is observing porn, they can refuse to attend him. On top of that, unless there is valid medical reason for the nurse to attend to him, refusing to enter the room is not misconduct.

It's not the nurse's job to judge a patient's lifestyle.

but it is a nurses, or any employees, right to not be exposed to sexual harassment.

And seriously, the guy is stuck in a nursing home, the little pleasures of life for him are probably pretty few and far between. If a nurse walks into his room for something routine and he's doing that, she can walk out, or she can tell him she'll be back in 10 minutes when he's finished. If she walks in because he's in distress, and it happens to be on, she should pay no attention to it and care for her patient, because that's her job. But the patient's needs and safety is far far above the nurse's comfort in priorities. That's part of what it means to be a nurse.

You've never worked in a nursing home, have you? I guess if he pinches your ass, well, that just one of his little pleasures as well, right? Many people find exposure to porn no less offensive than being pinched on the ass.

so, we have this:

The other nurses say that No he cannot look at any porn on his computer because the nurses find it offensive.

since he only way the nurses would know he watches porn would be to have been exposed to it, obviously he does do it while the nurses are in attendance.



So, the first thing the nurses do, all those that are aggrieved by this, is notify the employer of the situation. The employer is then on notice and is required to remedy the situation. If they do not or there is retaliatory action because of this, whomever is aggrieved should file a complaint with the EEOC and proceed from there.

 

[justalayman]

It's a personal computer, not a big screen TV across the room! Tell those nurses to ask him to turn the sound off when someone enters the room. As for the visual, don't look.

There is case from Florida where there were some women workers that, on their way to their workstation, went by some other work station where some guys had nudie pics from magazines hanging up. During the work day, the women were nowhere close to that workstation so they were only exposed to the pictures as walking by to or from their workstation. The women filed a sexual harassment suit and won. A person does not have to "look the other way". It is simply a matter of whether they are unwillingly being exposed to it or not.


so, to the original question:

Does my adult patient have a right to look at pornography?

If he did not agree to some rule in the home that forbids it, yes.

that does not diminish the rights of others to not be exposed to it and as we should all know, your rights are infinite, unless they infringe upon another's rights.

 

[xylene]

The women filed a sexual harassment suit and won. A person does not have to "look the other way". It is simply a matter of whether they are unwillingly being exposed to it or not.

The employer's failure to discipline a coworker for sexual harassment is the problem in the case you speak, hence why the employer not the co-worker was sued.

The patient is not grabbing unwilling people's backsides. He is engaging in private sexual conduct in his residence. There is plenty of case law on that.

that does not diminish the rights of others to not be exposed to it and as we should all know, your rights are infinite, unless they infringe upon another's rights.

Someone who is not prepared to deal with human sexuality is not prepared to work as a caregiver.

While I see your point, it would seem that lead to a slippery slope that could abrogate many of a patients civil and human rights on the grounds that a carer finds it offensive

Would you state that an alzheimers patient screaming racial abuse at a carer is racial discrimination?

 

[ecmst12]

Those lawsuits involved OTHER EMPLOYEES, not customers/patients.

I haven't done my long term care clinical rotation yet, but my classmates have experienced inappropriate behavior from a patient during clinical. We had a long discussion about how to handle such things in post conference. It's part of the training process. It is NOT actually a valid reason to refuse to provide care. The nurse should know how to defuse the situation and let the patient know what behavior will not be tolerated. It's not appropriate for a patient to touch a nurse in a sexual manner, and she does not just have to take it if someone pinches her butt etc. But she also can't just walk out of the room when the patient needs care and refuse to walk back in. If she doesn't know how to appropriately deal with that type of shenanigans, that's a training issue that she needs to look to her supervisors to help her with. AFTER the patient's needs are seen to. The only time it would be appropriate for a nurse to walk out without taking care of the patient's needs would be if she felt her safety was actually threatened (as opposed to just her sense of morality or her personal comfort zone). But it would be a decision she would have to defend. And if she compromised patient care without a very valid safety reason, she could lose her license. Nursing is a unique line of work and it requires, very often, putting up with unpleasant things you probably would rather not deal with, but it's part of the deal. If you can't handle that, then nursing is not your calling.

 

[justalayman]

xylene;3083690]The employer's failure to discipline a coworker for sexual harassment is the problem in the case you speak, hence why the employer not the co-worker was sued.

wrong. It's because the employer is liable to remedy a situation of sexual harassment. It does not demand discipline. It demand correction.

The patient is not grabbing unwilling people's backsides. He is engaging in private sexual conduct in his residence. There is plenty of case law on that.

First, there is no difference as each of them are sexual harassment. Then, he is not engaging in PRIVATE sexual conduct. That is the problem. If he were, then the nurses would not know what he is watching and would have no complaint/

Someone who is not prepared to deal with human sexuality is not prepared to work as a caregiver.

irrelevant

W

hile I see your point, it would seem that lead to a slippery slope that could abrogate many of a patients civil and human rights on the grounds that a carer finds it offensive

no, it doesn't. It leads to the patients respecting the employees rights or getting the Hell out of Dodge.

Would you state that an alzheimers patient screaming racial abuse at a carer is racial discrimination?

does the patient at hand have alzheimer's? is this a racial issue?

 

[justalayman]

ecmst12;3083692]Those lawsuits involved OTHER EMPLOYEES, not customers/patients.

and? This suit would involve the emplyee (the nurses) and the employer (whoever that is). An employer cannot require an employee to be exposed to sexual harassment. It is that simple.

I haven't done my long term care clinical rotation yet, but my classmates have experienced inappropriate behavior from a patient during clinical. We had a long discussion about how to handle such things in post conference. It's part of the training process. It is NOT actually a valid reason to refuse to provide care.

it is a reason for the home to evict the patient. I have seen it done.

The nurse should know how to defuse the situation and let the patient know what behavior will not be tolerated.

again, you are mixing up the patient nurse relationship with the employer employee relationship.

It's not appropriate for a patient to touch a nurse in a sexual manner, and she does not just have to take it if someone pinches her butt etc

. and that is sexual harassment just as exposing the nurse to unwanted porn is. As such, they do not have to take the unwanted exposure to the porn either.

But she also can't just walk out of the room when the patient needs care and refuse to walk back in.

seriously? Is this as a nurse or an employee? As an employee; yes, they can. as a nurse; unless there is a medical necessity at the time that if delayed could cause injury, yes, they can. Of course they would have to defend the actions. That is what this is all about. Nobody is going to just let you be derelict in your duties while at work without reason.

If she doesn't know how to appropriately deal with that type of shenanigans, that's a training issue that she needs to look to her supervisors to help her with.

No. That is an issue their employer is legally required to remedy.

Nursing is a unique line of work and it requires, very often, putting up with unpleasant things you probably would rather not deal with, but it's part of the deal. If you can't handle that, then nursing is not your calling.

so I guess you won't have any problem going into the room of a guy you know pinches you and grabs your breasts and then his crotch and says; it's time to my sponge bath. Start here.

enjoy. I've seen just about that bad by a resident in a nursing home.

 

[xylene]

First, there is no difference as each of them are sexual harassment.

No, it is your CONTENTION that a care home patient viewing pornography is sexual harassment.

Then, he is not engaging in PRIVATE sexual conduct. That is the problem. If he were, then the nurses would not know what he is watching and would have no complaint/

Depending on the intensity of medical monitoring required for this patient, they might well have no way of avoiding what he is watching. Or they may not be properly respecting the patient.

It leads to the patients respecting the employees rights or getting the Hell out of Dodge.

Employees rights are subordinate to the patient. Sexuality is a human right. And if the patient is so sick that his privacy is permanently compromised?

does the patient at hand have alzheimer's? is this a racial issue?

I don't know, I sort of thought the patient had some significant functional / cognitive impairment, given the context.

Racial discrimination is another area of employment law. Your line of reasoning seems to lead to some "interesting" conclusions.

 

[justalayman]

xylene;3083696]No, it is your CONTENTION that a care home patient viewing pornography is sexual harassment.

No, I'm not. MY contention is that the employees being exposed to unwanted porn is sexual harassment. It doesn't matter who provides the unwanted porn. The only thing that matters is it is unwanted porn. The employer has an obligation to ensure an employee is not subject to sexual harassment.

Depending on the intensity of medical monitoring required for this patient, they might well have no way of avoiding what he is watching

. an excuse. The courts tend to not give a damn about excuses

Or they may not be properly respecting the patient.

properly respecting the patient? It appears it is just the opposite and yes, the nurses have a right to be respected, at least regarding the issue at hand/

Employees rights are subordinate to the patient

.No, they absolutely are not, at least regarding the employer/employee relationship.

Sexuality is a human right.

So? That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Again, you are confusing the nurse/patient relationship and the employer/employee relationship

And if the patient is so sick that his privacy is permanently compromised?

Huh?

I don't know, I sort of thought the patient had some significant functional / cognitive impairment, given the context.

didn't see anything myself. If he is that impaired, then how is he choosing to view the babes?

Racial discrimination is another area of employment law. Your line of reasoning seems to lead to some "interesting" conclusions

there is a huge difference between an intentional act that can be altered and some utterance by an incoherent person.

 

[ecmst12]

There are appropriate ways to deal with inappropriateness from patients that do NOT compromise their care. Evicting a patient from the facility is in fact NOT always possible, and even when it is, that would be an absolute last resort, for cases of violence and threats to the safety of caregivers or other patients. MOST situations involving minor misbehavior by patients can be dealt with by maintaining professional demeanor and redirecting the patient. Again, that is a training issue. Is dealing with that kind of patient something that I look forward to as the pinnacle of my career? Of course not. Long term care is not an area I intend to specialize in, but I do expect to have to deal with that kind of stuff from time to time, and I hope I handle it with grace and professionalism and while putting the patient's needs first. Being halfway through my schooling, I can tell you that nursing school is all about learning to appropriately prioritize your actions based on safety and patient needs. And yes, some patients are unable or unwilling to respect boundaries, and there are policies in place at each facility to dictate how to handle those situations when they arise. Your theorizing about the nurse being able to expect to never come across an offensive situation in the course of her duties is absurd, and your ideas about how she can legally handle the situations are ridiculously simplistic, because you don't seem to understand the obligations of a nurse and what it means to hold a license.

 

[justalayman]

Being halfway through my schooling, I can tell you that nursing school is all about learning to appropriately prioritize your actions based on safety and patient needs. And yes, some patients are unable or unwilling to respect boundaries, and there are policies in place at each facility to dictate how to handle those situations when they arise. Your theorizing about the nurse being able to expect to never come across an offensive situation in the course of her duties is absurd, and your ideas about how she can legally handle the situations are ridiculously simplistic, because you don't seem to understand the obligations of a nurse and what it means to hold a license.

but with all respect to everything you said; It means nothing to the employer/employee relationship where an employer has the duty to remedy a situation where an employee is subject to sexual harassment. Once the employer is on notice, it is up to them to remedy the situation. If they are not allowed to limit the viewing habits of a resident, then they must find some other remedy. Possibly swapping what nurse attends to that patient with one that doesn't care or anything else they can come up with but an employee, whether it be a nurse or a ditch digger has a right to be free from sexual harassment in their place of work.


from the EEOC:

Sexual Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

 

[xylene]

but with all respect to everything you said; It means nothing to the employer/employee relationship where an employer has the duty to remedy a situation where an employee is subject to sexual harassment.

I'm still not convinced by your assertion that the resident watching porn constitutes sexual harassment.

You can say it is akin to groping breasts or feeling buttocks... but I guess we're gonna disagree.

 

[justalayman]

xylene;3083707]I'm still not convinced by your assertion that the resident watching porn constitutes sexual harassment.

I have never said it was. In fact, I said, many posts ago, that as long as there is not a rule at the business that he cannot watch it, there is nothing improper about him watching it. What is improper is the nurses being exposed to it.

I don't care if they guy watches porn, bangs a sex doll and shoves an umbrella up his ass, as long as he does not expose the people that object to it to it. That is where the employer has to step in and remedy the problem. Do they have to pull the umbrella out? No but they do have to prevent their employees from being exposed to it. The obligation of an employer is to remedy a situation where the employee is exposed to unwanted sexual harassment, regardless where it come from.

You can say it is akin to groping breasts or feeling buttocks... but I guess we're gonna disagree

they are all sexual harassment. The touching also is a battery as well but they are still all sexual harassment.

 

[violas]

Thanks to all for your comments

Very interesting discussion. I just wanted to add that the patient does not have the volume on when he is looking at the porn on his personal computer. The volume is off. I personally do not feel that I am being "sexually harrassed" because the patient chooses to look at porn but that's just me. He has never tried to act out inappropriately by trying to grab breasts or butts etc.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

MY contention is that the employees being exposed to unwanted porn is sexual harassment.

I don't agree that mere exposure constitutes harassment. I believe something more is required. If the old coot is watching the porn on his laptop and continuously moves the screen so it is facing the nurse, that would constitute harassment. But if the old coot is simply watching, and not directing anything towards the nurse, I don't think that's harassment.

Let's say someone is hired to deliver beer to the local bars. One of the bars is a nudie club. Does the beer distributor have a duty to prevent the employee from having to see the nude dancers?

My opinion is that the offensive behavior must be directed at the employee to be considered harassment.