Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Axe funding for hospital chaplains and spend cash on healthcare'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 April 2009
CHAPLAINCY services in Scottish hospitals cost the NHS more than £3 million a year and should be funded by churches, it was claimed yesterday.
The National Secular Society (NSS) said that data obtained from health trusts under the Freedom of Information Act showed the NHS spending millions of pounds on religious services each year.

The NSS estimates that UK-wide, the health service
spends more than £32 million, cash the society claimed could be used to fund 1,300 nurses or 2,500 cleaning staff.

Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, said: "We are not asking for an end to chaplaincy services, but we are asking that the taxpayer not be made responsible for them. In these times of financial stringency, hospitals are going to have to think very carefully about how they spend their budgets.

"Hospital chaplains are not on most people's list of essential services in a healthcare setting."

Mr Sanderson said that if the churches and religious bodies considered these services so vital, they should be prepared to fund them themselves.

Scottish figures showed that a total of 68 full-time chaplains and 152 part-time clerics were employed by the 14 NHS boards, at a total cost of £3,250,005.

The cost of employing a chaplain varies greatly between boards. NHS Dumfries and Galloway said that one full-time chaplain was employed, at an annual cost of £73,193, while NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said the average cost of employing a chaplain was £26,603.

However, Glasgow spent the most on chaplaincy in absolute terms, investing £617,190, and had the most full-time staff, with a total of 23 chaplains, followed by NHS Lothian and NHS Grampian, both of which employed 12 chaplains.

Last night, the Church of Scotland, the main provider of chaplancy services in Scotland, attacked the NSS report as "inaccurate" and "misleading".

Reverend Graham Finch, the convener of the Church of Scotland's Ministries Council, said:

"Chaplains seek to help people in their time of need and strive to maintain hope and purpose when lives are affected by illness or injury. This is available to all, regardless of religious persuasion.

"It is quite misleading to suggest that spiritual care is exclusively provided for people of faith. Chaplains do not proselytise and, on the contrary, would seek to protect patients from unwanted visits by representatives of faith and belief groups."

He added that health boards aimed to care for people as "whole persons" and chaplaincy services helped to ensure that the care available was "holistic".

A Scottish Government spokeswoman defended the services. She said: "We know that having a friend or family member who is seriously ill can be an incredibly difficult time and that these challenges faced by the people who are cared for by the NHS often raise the need for spiritual or religious care.

"That's why we ask NHS boards to support people in their hour of need by ensuring that their chaplaincy service is resourced to provide the necessary service throughout the year on a 24-hour basis."

'A RICH AREA OF THE MINISTRY'

THE Right Rev David Chillingworth, Bishop for the diocese of St Andrews, worked as a hospital chaplain at Craigavon Area Hospital in Northern Ireland for 19 years.

"I would say that it was one of the richest areas of ministry I was involved in because when somebody is in hospital, even if it is a minor thing, it still represents a significant event in their life.

"If it is to do with a sudden and serious illness involving a family member, it is a major shock and the function of chaplaincy was to be with people at a point when their sense of what life was about was being shaken. The hospital deals with those in clinical care, but chaplains have a vital role in dealing with the patient and family in helping them to come terms with what has happened."







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 April 2009 9:53 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

08/04/2009 00:29:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

PICU Doctor,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 00:49:56
Today we withdrew care on the only child of a delightful couple who took comfort in their boy's christening before his death. Proper hospital care should encompass physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing. Chaplains, rabbis and imams are an essential part of the team and deserve our thanks and respect.

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 01:43:28

PICU Doctor ~2,

Your real life comment, brought a tear, how tragic!

I also agree with you comment after the loss of a loved one, "mental and spiritual well-being", is all part of Health Care, that quite frankly we should be proud off, and support, as we have the best Health Care in the World.

To demise or not support all our Health-care, services is a cold attitude, and not one of loving and caring, for the ones that need us most!

4

Canada,

Canada 08/04/2009 03:12:14
The narrow minded aethiest founders of the universe will no doubt enjoy this, until they inhabit the terminally ill ward. They're are no aethiests in fox holes. Get a reality check and soften your inflated egos while there is still time. "The fool in his heart says, there is no God." Spirituality is for those who have been there (me) the only comfort as life slips away.
5

Forward not Back,

08/04/2009 03:41:36
£3 million a year is buttons given the overall budget of the Health Service. In fact, it is probably less than 6 chief executives of trusts earn. At least chaplains provide something of value to patients.
6

Astonished,

08/04/2009 04:26:12
PICU Doctor @2 - A poignant comment expressing exactly why it is worth £3million. My thoughts are with the parents and the child.


7

Astonished,

08/04/2009 04:29:18
Futhermore I would like to add how much I detest religious and non-religious zealots.



The NSS appear to be the most intolerant of faiths.
8

Los Angeles,

08/04/2009 07:39:47
At least chaplains provide something of value to patients. (Forwards Backward)

And that is what, precisely?

9

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 08/04/2009 07:43:17
Hmmm, tricky this. When a loved one of mine was dying of cancer some years ago, I spoke to a hospital chaplian who gave me considerable words of comfort at a time when I was fairly emotionally charged. Indeed, my loved one alos spoke to the chaplian (to make peace I'm guessing) and was like a form of salve.

I suppose you could speak to a brain doctor or counsellor just the same but the chaplancy offer an open door policy (no appointment necessary) and a quiet place to gather ones thoughts.

I would like to see a survey or study done on the cost benefits of this before they decide to axe it.
10

DementedDaughter,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 07:54:52
From my reading of the article I think the suggestion was that the funding should be sourced by the churches themselves rather than the NHS. Seems totally sensible to me. I've nothing against any religion being represented in hospitals, nust don't think the NHS should fund it.
11

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 08/04/2009 07:58:35
10

That's a fair point.
12

paulr,

edinburgh 08/04/2009 08:10:00
'A RICH AREA OF THE MINISTRY'
TOO TRUE with the likes of
NHS Dumfries and Galloway one full-time chaplain was employed at £73,193 very rich.
13

blackley,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 08:39:10
Quite right. Less simpering chaplains and more smoking sections in hospitals. It's a scandal that patients and visitors should have to stand out in the cold.
14

Tracker,

08/04/2009 08:41:21
I do not think the National Secular Society (NSS) are calling for chaplains to be kept out of hospitals, but are asking for the religious groups to fund it themselves.

Perhaps, care services could be provided to people without the need for the person providing the care to be religious. I would like to see more pay given to nurses and cleaning staff.

15

Balliol II,

Dunbar 08/04/2009 08:59:49
Although I do not seem to believe in anything spiritual very much (and I am 80) I do believe the chaplaincy services are an important part of the NHS. In particular the mental health services are very much helped by chaplains. So the secularists should keep quiet.
16

Neil R,

Falkirk 08/04/2009 09:02:47
It's only logical isn't it? In the society in which we live secular humanism is the only ethic allowed and the high priests of liberalism will tolerate no dissent. Churches should therefore withdraw their services from the community in response and provide no weddings, funerals or christenings to non-attending non-believers who wish "religion" to rubber-stamp their Godless lives. As it happens I think the Church should fund it because when the State pays for something they can't keep their prejudices out of it. Chaplains would then have more freedom to preach the Gospel.
17

Here Today HBOS Tomorrow,

08/04/2009 09:03:29
#7 "The NSS appear to be the most intolerant of faiths."

You seem to have totally missed the point, the NSS is not a faith. It campaigns for an end to religious preference (i.e. my faith is better than year so I need some laws to pretect me), and for that matter brainwashing people about athiesm. Also they are not saying Chaplains etc should stop but are saying that the local churches etc should pay for it. It seems quite fair to me.
18

Los Angeles,

08/04/2009 09:04:02
Chaplains would then have more freedom to preach the Gospel. (Neil)

You mean, to folk pinned in a hospital bed, unable to move?
19

Brodric,

08/04/2009 09:04:24
PICU Doctor - entirely agree. It is absolutely necessary to cover all aspects of the wellbeing of patients.

Chaplains and chapels in hospitals offer a resource even for those who are not religious or Christians. When you are very worried about your loved one, you sometimes need a place of peace to stop and hope for their recovery, even if you don't pray as such.

I don't know who should pay for this. As chaplains don't have settled congregations, there isn't a church and congregation to support his/her salary. At the same time, it would worry me if we had to have a chaplain from every denominaton or every religion in the UK - all paid for by the NHS. I think its enough if there is a chaplain and administrator who can coordinate any other religious requirements from nearby churches or from the church/religious place of any other religion.
20

Kate,

Zurich 08/04/2009 09:15:29
#13 Dumfries and Galloway has higher costs for their chaplain because he has to travel much further to visit the hospitals, whereas Glasgow (Greater or otherwise)has a much smaller geographical area and also better public transport options...

I absolutely agree with the well put comment by #2 PICU, when my brother was dying in 2002, it was incredibly comforting just to talk to someone or go to the little chapel attached to the hospital. It takes you out of the hospital atmosphere and helps to maintain some faith in life itself!

£3 million is money well spent!
21

Liz,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 09:35:24
If the NSS are so worried about the plight of nurses and cleaners in hospitals why do they not make comment on the ever increasing numbers of adminstrators and managers the NHS employ?

If the NSS succeed in getting the Church to fund these posts I would forsee within a few years they will be demanding that anyone not employed by the NHS directly can no longer work in a hospital and thus ending religious based Chaplaincy services.

I am not religious but find the passion that many atheists have against religion slightly bizarre. It is almost as if they operate a religion of their own the purpose of which is simply to oppose those of other faiths.
22

hertscot,

08/04/2009 09:51:44
As an atheist I hold no belief in a supernatural god, and like DementedDaughter, I have no objection to people seeking comfort from whatever source, however surely that comfort, if spiritual, should be provided by the local churches and not paid for from the budget of a hospital.
Liz,

The NSS is only, correctly IMO, that the state should not fund religious bodies, individuals are free to believe what they wish, that's wooly minded liberals for you, supporting the rights of the individual, and ensuring that no one is favoured/discriminated against because of what they believe.
Why should any of us be in favour of that?
23

danbob,

08/04/2009 10:02:29
17# Quite correct in your observations Neil.
24

albanman,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 10:06:01
A few points from someone who isn't exacly religious (i.e. me)

- Chaplains access appropriate data on patients so they know whom to visit, or who has requested a visit. They do not, as some suggest, force religion down the throats of non-believers.
- Many patients who have little/no faith find that when they enter hospital for a serious issue they begin to think about facing death/an afterlife/family estrangements/making amends etc and are very willing to discuss such a thing with a chaplain.
- As good medical practioners will affirm, medicine is not simply about the physical well-being of a person, but encompasses all aspects of what it means to be human.
- The chaplain in Dumfries is, to my mind, over paid.
- Fundamenatlist atheists such as those in the NSS are as closed minded and bigotted as any fundamentalist Jew/Christian/Muslim.
25

danbob,

08/04/2009 10:09:10
23# The problem is this. The state wants to be involved because it wants a controlling influence in the churches.
Example is this, They employ army chaplains so they can twist the scriptures of Christ to justify their wars. Christ condemed wars.
By paying it keeps that control. The churches do not preach the bible truths. they are in bed with politics. When the politicians finaly get fed up with the churches the churches will die away.
26

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 08/04/2009 10:16:16
#22 Liz

Very good points - especially about administrators. I recently attended a clinic at Raigmore and there are now two "receptionists" at each desk. The first takes patients' names and checks them off a list and she then gives the details to a second receptionist who recovers the patient's file from one pile and puts it on another pile. The previous time I was there (admittedly some years ago), this entire process was carried out by just one person. Added up across all the clinics in the hospital, every day of the year, the cost of doubling up reception staff must draw a lot of resources away from front-line treatment and care - and this is just one tiny example!



27

hertscot,

08/04/2009 10:21:00
#25,albanman.
There is no such thing as a fundamental athiest, they have no written creed, no established dogma, almost every athiest I have met reached the decision, to reject god, as an individual. They are never likely to agree a constitution never mind a set of rules.
And to borrow from Dawkins, 'trying to get a group of atheists to agree, is like trying to herd cats'
#26 Danbob, couldn't agree more, I believe in the disestablishment of the church, and it's subsequent removal from all publicly funded bodies, but if someone wants to believe - then let them.
28

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 08/04/2009 10:45:17
Canada: There are plenty of atheists in foxholes http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/.

If a religious patient wants a religious person to visit them in hospital, why should the NHS pay for it?
29

danbob,

08/04/2009 11:11:13
A true christian minister or servant would not want paying to visit a parishioner in hospital to give them support or comfort. They would give their time freely. This is the issue. It's about money.

(Matthew 10 verse 8) you received free, give free. Do not procure gold or silver or copper for your girdle purses,

30

danbob,

08/04/2009 11:39:19
33# Why is it naive James? I would use the term hypocritical. They either love and belive in their role as a minister or they love their pay cheque. If iot's the latter then they are hypocrites who are going against what their bible teaches.

(Matthew 6 verse 24) No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. you cannot slave for God and for Riches
31

greenhill,

08/04/2009 11:40:14
RE PICU Doctor,Edinburgh 08/04/2009 00:49:56

You are being evasive by putting up a straw man argument. The question is whether the taxpayer should pay for this? I did not know that the NHS paid for this. I find the very idea to be unconscionable.

Does the NHS pay for conventional Christenings? The answer is no: so why should it fund the same ceremony on hospital grounds? Religious organisations should fund themselves and the State should play no part. What about the lives that could be saved by the extra funding that would be released?

Shame on the Church organisations who ponce off the NHS and exploit the vulnerable.
32

danbob,

08/04/2009 11:50:20
35# Has it crossed your narrow mind that a majority of people who pay for the NHS may not mind the idea of hospital chapels and support it. Reading the views on here it seems you and the rest of the athiests are in the minority. Or is it a case of only your views matter as always?
33

greenhill,

08/04/2009 11:57:49
RE danbob,08/04/2009 11:50:20

You have just repeated the Straw man stance. I do not have a narrow mind and I have no objections to chaplains. The question is the source of funding.

You really ought to read more carefully and think before you tap out the contents of your shallow mind.

34

Tracker,

08/04/2009 12:00:27
I think it is inconsistent that religious groups point out the dangers of assisted suicide on the one hand, but argue that they should get taxpayers' money to "comfort" the dying. Both scenarios are open to abuse.

A sinister individual could seek to divest a vulnerable relative of his or her wealth, but so could a preacher. In the first case it would be for direct gain, but in the latter it would be for the religious group's gain. Vulnerable people who are dying in hospital could change their wills and leave money to a particular religious organisation.
35

danbob,

08/04/2009 12:00:45
37# Shame on the Church organisations who ponce off the NHS and exploit the vulnerable.

It seems pretty clear what you meant to me.
36

Liz,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 12:01:03
#36
I do find it interesting how often atheists I have come across are determined press their views about religion (or their lack of it) onto people, yet that is one of the very things that they tell you they dislike about mainstream religions.
37

awantapassport,

sunnysoothcoast 08/04/2009 12:01:47
33# Why should hospitals have chapels in the first place? We live in a secular society, chappels and priests/ministers are an irrelevance to an increasing majority of the country.

If the various denominations wish to have representation within hospitals to spread the word of their god - let them do it at their own expense. Not at the expense of the tax payer.
38

danbob,

08/04/2009 12:04:41
38# Dont be so ridiculous. Amazing how the seculists will use any argument they can. Notice also that when challenged they will get even more venomous
39

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:04:48
RE danbob,08/04/2009 12:00:45

You are being obscure. What is clear to you?
40

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:07:54
RE Liz,Edinburgh 08/04/2009 12:01:03


You are not addressing the issue which is over funding.

In fact you seem to be saying that anyone who objects to this should not comment?
41

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 12:10:08
Where is Gary Otton then ? He was on the Radio this morning discussing this. He made it perfectly clear it was not the presence of Chaplains he objected to, but the state funding of same out of the NHS budget. I agree with him. The Kirk have resources they can use to maintain their presence in Hospitsls it is inappropriate for the state to subsidise this service, the majority of people are now secular.
42

awantapassport,

08/04/2009 12:11:10
#45 The service provided by chaplains is not free. It is paid for by us, the tax payer.
43

danbob,

08/04/2009 12:11:26
41# The reason why they have chapels is because although you may find it hard to belive when people are faced with their own mortaliy they become more believing. It's the same as what I have witnessed recently when a mother who critisised the church mercilously for years had her ten year old die in a car accident. Guess where here first port of call was when arranging the funeral. The local priest. Hypocrites to the last.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 12:13:23
As an atheist I usually find myself in complete agreement with Terry Sanderson, but in this case I think he is wrong. Chaplaincy services are not evangelical or proselytising, and are an essential part of NHS care.

#4 Canada, your arrogance betrays you. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is not an argument against atheism - it is an argument against foxholes.
45

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:14:21
RE danbob,08/04/2009 12:11:26

Funding! In fact I shall put it in big letters so you can comprehend.

THE ISSUE IS OVER FUNDING.

What part of that do you not understand?
46

awantapassport,

08/04/2009 12:15:12
#48. I don't doubt that some people get desperate when faced with the inevitability of death. One answer could be the hope of an after life. People seek many crutches in their hour of need. I still don't see what relevance a minority of 'born again' before death christians has to whether the tax payer should pay!
47

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 12:16:30
50 Your argument would only make sense if the state also paid for humanist ''chaplains''. They don't.
48

danbob,

08/04/2009 12:19:09
45# Costs to what though. It cost nothing to offer comfort and support. It costs a lot to run a cathedral. Does God reside in the cathedrals. Not if you read what the bible says he dosn't. The thing is this. The modern church is an industry. Nothing more. But what gets me going on a subject like this is the humanist/athiest types who criticise everything religious but offer nothing in return.
49

hertscot,

08/04/2009 12:27:24
#46,

Why ruin a good thread by pointing out what the story was about?
It is indeed inappropriate that tax payers have to pay for these chaplaincies.
Church and State need to be separated ASAP.

James,

Are all hospitals outside of established parishes? Then I would understand why you may consider paying for a religious presence in a hospital. Just so long as it goes out to tender, and all spiritual advisers are allowed to compete for the money and the right to represent their respective god/s.

Re: your rather spurious analogy with a mechanic. The NHS provides medical teatment for those who need it, and it is funded by taxes, i.e the going rate for repair. If you want extra the individual has to pay for the extras, the point the NSS are making is that chaplaincies should not be state funded, i.e. included in the going rate, and that the money would be better spent improving the core business of the NHS, i.e. medical and healthcare.
Spiritual care should be provided appropriately with no interference from the NHS, unless there is an identified psychological problem with that provision. Individuals have every right to believe what they want, but we the taxpayers should not be funding their access to it
50

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:29:53
If you pay for one you should pay for all so what about paying the expenses of visiting:

Scientologist,Mormon,Nation of Islam,Jehovas Witness,Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,Branch Davidians,Moonie etc.(the list is endless) holy men and women .

Oh no! I have this terrible feeling that someone is going to tell me that provision is made for all.
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 12:32:52
#56 With respect, I disagree. Perhaps the name "chaplaincy" is inappropriate, but what taxpayers are funding here is not religion, but support services. These services should be, and generally are, delivered without reference to religion, and are absolutely vital for many hospital patients and their loved ones.

This is not an optional extra, but an essential part of NHS treatment. Let's rename it, perhaps, but pulling its funding would be to lessen the NHS provision markedly.
52

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:37:18
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 12:32:52

You are an evasive obscurantist. This is about the funding of religion.
53

awantapassport,

08/04/2009 12:41:49
#58... "what taxpayers are funding here is not religion, but support services". They are obviously there for 'spiritual' reasons rather than a service. You must realise that persons in need of spiritual services are now in the vast minority. The question being debated is whether the tax payer should pay for this 'service'.
54

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 12:44:23
58 Duncan do you seriously suppose that they make no reference to religion ?
55

greenhill,

08/04/2009 12:47:57
RE "Oh no! I have this terrible feeling that someone is going to tell me that provision is made for all."

P.S. On the other hand, is it the case, that only selected State approved religions are paid for? What is the policy? We must have transparency and consistency?
56

danbob,

08/04/2009 12:51:00
57# The fact is this. The church is just a business nothing more. But at the moment it benefits the state to keep in with this business. The day is coming when the two parties will divorce. It's not long away.
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 13:15:42
#59 No, it isn't. I am 100% dead set against the funding of religion, including state funded religious schools of any denomination. But all I can say is that those who think that hospital chaplaincy services push religion have clearly never availed themselves of a hospital chaplaincy service.

#60 No, again, I disagree. They are there as a support service. There is no inherent spirituality in the services they provide. There used to be, grant you, but those days are long gone. The NHS funded chaplaincy services are an essential support element of NHS care.

#61 They are specifically trained to make as much, or as little, reference to religion as those seeking their help request.
58

hertscot,

08/04/2009 13:25:32
#64,
They are there as a spiritual and religious support service, and should be provided by local branches of the respective religions, free of charge to the NHS as a whole. If chapliancies do not intend to promote their own religion then why are they there, perhaps .....it is the money.
59

greenhill,

08/04/2009 13:25:36
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 13:15:42

Aye right, like no reference to religion in a Christening re #2?

What about "pay for one pay for all"?

Why not fund Scientologist,Mormon,Nation of Islam,Jehovas Witness,Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh,Branch Davidians,Moonie and so on and so forth, representatives to attend when needed?

Is it only a narrow range of State approved faiths that are paid for? Is that fair to patients who follow faiths that are not paid for? Or are all faiths funded?

60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 13:38:03
#65 Your argument is a dead-end. If they were there to promote their own religion then indeed they shouldn't be funded by the NHS. But given that they are specifically and contractually not there for that purpose, it is perfectly reasonable that they be funded to provide an essential service. I want public services funded by public taxation, not reliant on the good will of a religion based on belief in a sky god.
61

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 13:43:25
#66 In the awful circumstance of the death of a baby, a chaplain can provide either a religious or a non-religious service and they will do so entirely on the basis of the choice of those affected.

You have grasped entirely the wrong end of the stick as to what the chaplaincy is. It isn't religious representation, or pastoral care. If a patient or visitor wants a representative of their religion to assist them in hospital then that should indeed be the responsibility of that religion to fund it. And it IS.

Chaplaincy services are not pastoral care or religious representation; they are support services, available with or without the "god" option, and I maintain that they are a vital and under-appreciated part of the NHS.

I'm as rampantly anti-religion as anyone I know. This isn't an anti-religion issue. Please try to understand that.
62

awantapassport,

sunnysoothcoast 08/04/2009 13:48:47
#67.... of course they are their to promote their own religion - thinly veiled as it may be. their advice and counselling is bound to be tainted by their inherent beliefs.

If this is a service that we need in the NHS, and it cannot be covered by more caring staff / nurses etc, then surely it should be a service provided by a completely unbiased body and certainly not one associated with certain religious beliefs.
63

Phil1,

Edinburgh 08/04/2009 13:54:43
The national secular society will do anything, say anything to ridicule and spite religious people. I do not have the capability to have children but I am content for my taxpayers' money to be spent on maternity wards etc. I am not ill but I am willing to have my money spent on healing the sick.I do not neeed to use schools but I am willingly to pay for their upkeep. I am not looking for a job but I will pay to help those who are.

I do object to my money being spent on giving tax breaks to the secular society.They want everything just as they want it despite only having a few thousand members.

In a democracy the majority have some rights and if we want to spend some money on spiritual healing through faith schools and padres in hospitals then that is up to us.

In the 2001 census 85% of UK people specifically claimed a religious affiliation and 15% said no religious affiliation - that gives the legitimacy of both employing padres and denying the secular society any tax relief because it does not benefit all society only a small unrepresentative few.
64

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 13:55:04
#69 Yes the service can be provided by anyone with the appropriate skills; but the people involved today already have the skills and experience, so what is there to fix? Unless you have any evidence of proselytising or promotion of one religious viewpoint over another - do you?

I rarely find myself in the position of defending people with religious beliefs, but far worse in my book than being mistaken about the existence of god is indulging in illogical and unreasonable argumentation, and that is what too many people on this thread are doing in my opinion.

Religion is a crock - fair enough. But that doesn't mean all religious people are bad, or will attempt to convert, or whatever.
65

greenhill,

08/04/2009 13:55:40
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 13:38:03

So you endorse the State funding representatives of official Sky Gods. However you disapprove of the same particular Sky God merchants funding themselves. What abject nutbaggery.

On the other hand what about those creeds the State does not pay for? Or does the state fund other faiths? What provision should be made? Who decides which religions are paid for?
66

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 14:00:33
#72 Is it reading or understanding that you have such a profound problem with?

I do not endorse state funding for anyone representing a religious belief. I endorse state funding specifically for those NOT representing their beliefs in their work.

My view is that NO religions should be paid for. Do you understand that yet, or are you just going to ask the same stupid questions again?
67

awantapassport,

sunnysoothcoast 08/04/2009 14:03:29
#70 - "In the 2001 census 85% of UK people specifically claimed a religious affiliation"

That does not mean they practice or necessarily believe! For the majority of our Nation 'belonging' to a religion is something inherited - it's a chance of birth the same as being a Glaswegian or an Edinburger.

Selective religions have no place in the NHS unless they are funded by their own denominations as a charity. The tax payer should not pay.
68

greenhill,

08/04/2009 14:08:26
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 14:00:33

You are deluded. Chaplains are present for religious reasons. That is what their job is all about.

You are disingenuous to the extent that you could easily get a job as an NHS manager.
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 14:17:15
#75 Have you ever met a hospital chaplain? Or seen a contract of employment for somebody working in a hospital chaplaincy?

You would find that your preconceptions are false. Understandable, given the word "chaplain" and the connotations of religious pastoral care. But false. Religion is quite specifically not what their job is about.

It's not me being disingenuous. And now you're having a go at NHS managers? Good grief, I hate to think what vital public service you do for a living.
70

greenhill,

08/04/2009 14:19:32
RE awantapassport,sunnysoothcoast 08/04/2009 14:03:29

The fact is that government interprets ticked boxes on census forms as an endorsement of the very most conservative elements of those faiths. Then funding goes to such elements strengthening their position within their communities.

This situation has been going on for over 20 years (spearheaded by Ken Livingstone and eventually taken up enthusiastically by Tony Blair) and our society has become more and more fragmented. State should be separate from religion.
71

greenhill,

08/04/2009 14:23:01
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 14:17:15

If it is not about religion then the positions should be open to humanists and what about all the other faiths ?
72

hertscot,

08/04/2009 14:24:08
Duncan,

my argument is not a dead end, the NHS is paying a representative of a particular religion to minister to patients in a state hospital, there are many others who can provide counselling services, the chaplains, with the best will in the world, cannot leave their beliefs at the door and as pointed out by #75 this is their job, a job for which they are paid by their church and for which they solicit payment from hospitals.
And I take it you can provide evidence that a minister can counsel well just because he is a man of faith, just because you are of the cloth it does not mean that you have any particular skill or experience of dealing with a broad spectrum of people, in fact the converse would seem more likely.
73

greenhill,

08/04/2009 14:32:09
Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 14:17:15
75 Have you ever met a hospital chaplain?

Oh yes I know of one who is a rapist. He raped a good friend of mine. She is psychologically destroyed. He did this outside his hospital duties and his Church backed him all the way.

His particular faith is well known for that sort of thing.
74

JaE_in_Oz,

08/04/2009 15:13:55
Churches enjoy tax advantages because they are presumed to provide beneficial services to their adherents. I see no reason why NHS should pay again for these services already paid for by the taxpayer.
If NHS is to employ chaplains then the tax concessions to churches need to be removed and a study of the effectiveness of chaplains established
75

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 15:33:34
#78 I agree the positions should be open to humanists, atheists, religionists and anyone in between.
76

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 15:36:00
#79 Chaplains are not paid by their church! They are paid solely by the NHS. And I would strongly doubt that a minister can claim any superior counselling skills on the basis of being a minister, which is why the NHS appoints on the basis of person skills and qualifications, just as it does with any other job.
77

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 15:37:14
#80 Well that's a sensible basis on which to make a generalisation then. Perhaps men should be barred from being chaplains because I know a man who is a rapist? Stop being ridiculous.
78

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 15:38:17
#81 I say again, chaplains are only paid once, by the NHS. They don't receive any payment from the church, tax-free or otherwise. (Incidentally, I think it is outrageous that religious bodies have tax exemptions.)
79

greenhill,

08/04/2009 15:55:22
Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 15:37:14

You asked if I knew one so I told you about him.Then again we have all the other points which you have avoided and continue to avoid.

Your whole position is preposterous.
80

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 15:57:16
#86 My position may be at variance with yours but it is not by any sane definition "preposterous".

What are the points I have "avoided"?
81

greenhill,

08/04/2009 16:09:51
Go back and take a look you evasive nutbag
82

greenhill,

08/04/2009 16:14:55
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 15:57:16

This is your big delusion. It is complete and utter doublethink:

....................................................
"You would find that your preconceptions are false. Understandable, given the word "chaplain" and the connotations of religious pastoral care. But false. Religion is quite specifically not what their job is about."

...............................................
83

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 16:27:45
#89 It is you who is deluded. I wonder if your experience of hospital chaplains has been in England rather than Scotland? In England they can be essentially a branch of the CofE, but in Scotland the role of a chaplain is defined (under the Scottish Health Department Letter [NHS HDL (2002) 76] – Spiritual Care in NHS Scotland) as a ‘spiritual care giver’ into which the needs of the religious fit, not the other way around.

Chaplaincy in Scotland is obliged to offer an equal service to people whatever their faith or lack of. Similarly, jobs in chaplaincy are open to people whatever their faith or lack thereof.

Perhaps you weren't aware of that, which is why you resorted to calling me names.
84

greenhill,

08/04/2009 16:49:11
RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 16:27:45

Ha! I was in hospital recently and a Preist came around looking for Catholics and was not interested in anyone else.

However I have no objection to them as long as the state does not pay.

To quote me : "(under the Scottish Health Department Letter [NHS HDL (2002) 76]..blah blah and imagine that the situation is in any way decent or moral shows you to be willfully deluded.
85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 16:53:00
#91 Since the state does not pay for priests visiting hospitals, you should be quite happy then.

You are consistently conflating two issues. Priests, rabbis, imams or ministers who visit members of their faith are not paid by the NHS, and are not hospital chaplains in terms of what is being discussed here.

Do you understand? That priest who "came round looking for Catholics" was NOT an NHS chaplain. You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
86

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 17:44:49
From the NHS website:

'' Traditionally, the spiritual dimension of life has feequently been expressed through religious values and beliefs. Professional religious ministers are trained in pastoral care and it is from the faith community that most chaplains are currently recruited.

The majority are ministers of the Church of Scotland, while others are from the Roman Catholic, Free churches, or world faiths. They are recruited in proportion to the belief patterns of the local population''.

Entry requirements:

''You will usually need a professional qualification, a specific vocational degree or general degree or the equivalent. YOU WILL ALSO REQUIRE A SATISFACTORY RECOMMENDATION BY YOUR FAITH COMMUNITY'' (my emphasis).

So there is the assumption there that only the faith communities have the spirituality required to cope with death.

Not true.

87

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 17:48:09
#93 And that's a ridiculous, and offensive, assumption. I wouldn't begin to defend it. But I would defend the work done by NHS chaplains, because it is important, good, and necessary.
88

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 17:54:53
94 On what basis is it ridiculous ? Why are there no humanist chaplains ? Why don't undertakers have a list of humanists willing to take funeral services instead of always pushing the bereaved towards Ministers whether the deceased person was religious or not ?

These questions have to be asked.
89

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 17:57:03
94 Oh I'm sorry I think I misunderstood your post.

There may well be a need for spirirtual care in hospitals but I think we need to re-think how it is delivered in light of the changes in the belief systems of this country.
90

Bemused and above it all,

08/04/2009 17:59:56
Working in the NHS for 15years now.
Chaplaincy is important, if we are providing TRULY HOLISTIC care, which we claim to, then this must take account of apersons spiritual belief.
You cant measure the impact of someone having a minister/Rabbi/Iman/priest etc spending time with them at a period in their life which is extremely trying.
Just because you cant measure the impact does that mean we do away with it? well why not do away with sick kids hospitals (in which I work) as we can measure the impact on a child up to 10 but once they are teenagers the impact is negative, same with adult hospitals treating teenagers, so lets stop treating teenagers instead of looking at ways to develop services to meet what people need?
We may be a secular society, but surely that means we accept peoples right to believe what the will & as such support them in those beliefs when they are most vulnerable?
91

Bemused and above it all,

08/04/2009 18:03:13
#95
All faiths are represented, Humanist ministers are contacted if thats what the people want.
I'm a nurse, dont know how to get in touch with them but someone from a working faith background can & does so far more effectively.
i.e I contact chaplaincy, inform them pt A wants to speak to a Humanist, they contact the humanist who provides the spiritual care. Its actually a way of working which allows representation of all faiths without any bigotry or intolerance
92

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 18:04:57
98 are humanists salaried by the NHS ?
93

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 18:18:27
#99 I don't think there are any humanist chaplains on an NHS salary, no. I certainly don't think there ought to be a block on such appointments either. But the point is that the religious affiliation of those who work in hospital chaplaincy does not impact on the work they do in any offensive way. You might as well ask if there is the same proportion of black people, or gay people, or women or men, in the chaplaincy service as in the general population, and the answer is bound to be no; we must depend on the people in the service providing a non-biased support service. I believe they do that.
94

greenhill,

08/04/2009 18:35:32
Hello, let’s rewind, the issue is about NHS money being spent on religious chaplains. It is not about banning them.

Chaplains: OK. However state sponsorship of particular religions is immoral.
95

greenhill,

08/04/2009 18:41:29

RE Duncan in Edinburgh,08/04/2009 16:53:00

RE Priests. That is good. In addition the State should not pay for any other denomination.

The State should protect the right for them to visit but should not pay one penny even under some thin semi-legal excuse.


96

greenhill,

08/04/2009 19:03:57
RE Observer,,Glasgow 08/04/2009 17:57:03

It does not matter what changes there are in the belief systems of this country.

It is very simple: the state should not get involved other than to protect the right of chaplains of all faiths to visit. No money should be handed out to any of them.

Then we can have no end of changes but the principal should remain the same.
97

Anne,

Eaglesham 08/04/2009 19:10:39
Thirty plus years ago, when church-going was mare widespread than now, hospitals would inform the relevant minister or priest that a member of their congregation had been admitted and visits would follow.

thanks to "confidentiality", this no longer happens - it is up to the patient to initiate contact.

With regard to hospital chaplaincies, if a patient is transferred from a local hospital to a specialist department of a hospital in a major city at a great distance, the chaplain may well be the only visitor they will have during their stay.
98

greenhill,

08/04/2009 19:15:53
RE Anne,Eaglesham 08/04/2009 19:10:39

Ha! More avoidance.Who should pay for such ministers ? Church or State. That is the issue in this thread.
99

danbob,

08/04/2009 19:45:36
105# There should be no requirement for anyone to pay. It cost little for a minister to jump in a car and visit a patient. The ministers could form a roster for example where they take turns to do this work. But that would take compassion and genuine care and that's where it ends. Because the modern day churches don't do compassion. They are to tangled up with politics and money. The NHS certainly shouldn't pay.
100

Observer,,

Glasgow 08/04/2009 20:15:54
There is obviously a role for someone to play in Hospitals where people are facing their own mortality, but I don't think the state should be paying for people, and only people, from a faith background.
101

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/04/2009 20:54:03
#102 The state is not paying for any other denomination.

As #107 says, there is a role needed here - chaplaincy services are very heavily used, and users are very happy with the service they receive. It is an important part of the care of a hospital.

Of course the state shouldn't be funding religion. But the state *should* fund these essential support services. And if the state contracts with religious people to do so then frankly I don't see the harm, given that they are under contractual obligation not to proselytise or otherwise force their beliefs on anyone - in just the same way as the doctors and nurses are obliged to treat people equally no matter what creed, colour or nationality.
102

CRAGman,

08/04/2009 21:14:39
National Secular Society - the new Taliban?
103

charlie chaplain,

Scotland 08/04/2009 21:22:18
I've read with interest what has been said & have to say that Duncan is about the only one who has an inkling as to what we're all about. As whole-time chaplains we are employed by the NHS to provide spiritual care - without pre-condition & totally without judgement - to all who ACTIVELY seek it. It doesn't matter what faith-group, if any, such a patient (or staff member) belongs to, we are available, on a one to one basis, to give whatever spiritual support is necessary.

May I remind you that the WHO recognizes the spiritual dimension as being part of the holistic well-being of the patient and the Health Department of our Scottish Parliament is 100% behind the promotion of PROFESSIONAL spiritual care, which it sees as being of the greatest importance within the total care of the patient.

We do not "peddle religion" (under the terms of our contract, we forbidden to "sell" our brand of religion). Also, ask yourself, "Greenhill", why so many patients who are hospitalised(and who are not always "religious" in the conventional sense) who request folk like me and my colleagues because they are frightened, insecure, filled with doubt and needing comfort and reassurance.

And how would you like to sit daily at the bedside of someone dying, or be with a couple who have just had a still-born child, or listen to someone with mental-health problems for an hour or more at a time? And more

And, no, none of us is on a salary of £73K -I don't know where that figure comes from: I'm on Agenda for Change, Band 6 - look it up!
104

krusty the klown,

08/04/2009 22:41:38
Wotza PICU doctor for or mean?
105

hertscot,

09/04/2009 10:43:11
charlie chaplain,Scotland ,

No, Duncan is not the only one with an inkling of what is is you do, no none is decrying what you do.
But you are given the position in graet part due to your adherence to a faith, therefore the NHS is paying for religious input, you do not, I presume, leave your beliefs at the ward door.
Why does a counsellor need to have an established faith?
Why does a church get to suggest suitable persons?
Why are no non religious people in these positions?

You may well do a fantastic job, but that does not detract from the fact that the NHS is specifically funding the presence of certain faiths in hospital environments. That is where the NSS targeted their comments, not anywhere have they attempted to demean or undermine the chaplains who work in hospitals, they simply believe it should not be funded by the tax payer. What you actually see in these posts is a general agreemnt with that concept.
106

Garry Otton,

ScottishMediaMonitor.com 09/04/2009 12:09:18
http://www.scottishmediamonitor.com/features2.cfm?ID=35
107

Garry Otton,

Glasgow 09/04/2009 12:12:34
PRIVATISE RELIGION!
NHS spending £40m on clerics? You're having a laugh. I go to hospital for medical treatment.
108

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 09/04/2009 16:22:27
For a long thread, there are remarkably few people here who seem to have a clue about the subject - there are many remarkably uninformed comments though.

In simple terms, the religous beliefs of the hospital chaplain are no more relevant that the religous beliefs of the doctor, nurse or porter also caring for the patient.

The chaplain (employed by the NHS on normal NHS terms & conditions) provides a clinical service to some patients and relatives which is just as important as any other treatment (If you don't believe that emotional and spiritual factors affect health then you are frankly an idiot!)

Anyone can apply for the chaplains post if they can demonstrate appropriate qualifications and experience (being a priest or minister is not one of them).

If they refused to tend to a patient on the grounds of religion they would be in breach of contract and subject to dismissal.

In addition, no-one has mentioned the important role they have supporting their colleagues in very difficult and emotional situations as a NHS colleague with particular skills.

So, for Greenhill and the others who seem to have trouble with the concept: the NHS should pay for these services because these are NHS staff who provide a health service to patients, relatives, and staff which is both inportant and necessary and is entirely health related in its conception and purpose.

If, in the course of that work they can fulfill a religous purpose for a particular patient who has requested it ( ie sharing a prayer or performing a religous procedure), then so much the better for that patient but that has nothing to do with their wider role.

109

Dr Drikus van Panzerfest, Saffer Shrink,

11/04/2009 11:58:02
No! No! No!

There are a 32 million other ways to save £32m in the NHS before you axe the Chaplain.

Hospital Chaplains are effectively trained counsellors who are ordained. They offer support on the basis of Patient need, they are not targeted on death bed conversions like some kind of evangelical mission.

If strong believing secularists are really that offended by the prospect of speaking to someone of faith, then it strikes me that perhaps they should question their own prejudices rather than make a spurious claim of discrimination.

There's already a whole range of secular counselling and support available to them on the NHS.

The NSS has got it badly wrong on this one, and we need to start seeing this organisation for what it is - an ogre that wishes to tell us how to live our lives based on a belief.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.