US Adventist Blasts Andrews' Hospital Sex Policy .......

As a follow up to a previous post on this nonsense on stringent biblical rules on female employees especially concerning fornication a response has come to hand via the Gleaner penned by Erica Virtue. Thanks to her for bringing this one to light and exposing some of this pious outfits who think they can dictate how persons should live; this is not the 16th centuries or earlier where the church sought to monopolize sex and person-hood.

Andrews hospital on Hope Road

Blane Fitzgerald Stoddart, the president and chairman of the Better Living Centre in Pennsylvania, United States, has labelled the actions of Andrews Memorial Hospital "morally reprehensible" for its decision to take disciplinary action, including dismissal, against staffers it considers fornicators and adulterers.

Stoddart, who describes himself as "an activist in the Jamaican diaspora and active Adventist community service leader in Chester, Pennsylvania," said the hospital's decision to tell single pregnant women to use the back entrance of the hospital has no biblical basis.

"... The decision to actually punish employees for moral sins, rather than giving them a chance for redemption, is actually ill-conceived and has no biblical or church basis for action on several fronts," said Stoddart in a letter to The Gleaner as he reacted to a report in The Sunday Gleaner this week, under the headline 'Sex police'.

The hospital's now-retired chief executive officer, Dr Patric Rutherford, in March 2015 wrote to staffers outlining grounds on which individuals may be disciplined, including dismissal, which include fornication, adultery, sexual harassment, lewd and lascivious behaviour, theft and murder.

Stoddard, in his broadside, said the employees were not "officers of the Church" and the Bible should at least be used to give some credence to the newly implemented policy.

"I am hoping and praying for quick court action to declare this type of action discriminatory to women, who are now the major wage earners in Jamaica," he said.

"I am also hoping that the church in constituency and board meetings will vote out or fire these self-righteous leaders ... ," Stoddard stated in his letter.

According to him: "All have sinned, and the message of the cross is about redemption, not condemnation."

ANDREWS' RIGHTS

 

However, the hospital's position finds favour with at least one local attorney-at-law.

Mark-Paul Cowan, attorney at Nunes Scholefield and DeLeon, said the hospital has every right to insert "morality clauses into its terms and conditions of employment to protect its image, reputation and moral standing with the public".

According to Cowan, the hospital cannot effectively supervise fornication and adultery, "but if such conduct is specifically prohibited under agreed terms and conditions, the employer has every right to institute disciplinary proceedings upon the presentation of credible, actionable evidence of a breach".

"The hospital clearly wishes to operate in a way that can uphold its moral standing with its congregants and the public at large," he said.

"It has determined that to achieve this result, it will maintain a work policy mirroring the teachings of the church and we should not be so quick to attack this position in a free and democratic society," he concluded.

ENDS

So what would happen if a single woman seeks to access the institution or can we now conclude the hospital private or not which is serve the public will also vet its patients as to whether they are fornicators (by virtue of not being married with child(ren) out of wedlock); will they check?

It is amazing how some denominations seem to think they can impose all kinds of flawed rules. Attorney-at-law Bert Samuels speaking on Nationwide's Miss Kitty said among other things that the employment contract must be in line with public policy and the law does not recognize illegal contract. He also mentioned the principle of principle of freedom of contract with evidential rules for working conditions and so on.

If the terms in the contract are offensive then one could get the court to strike it down. Other attorneys may differ; it would be difficult to sustain such a contract at the hospital. Whether or not it was or is a church institution is immaterial effectively. The law also recognize common law unions especially if a man lives with woman for over five years she is entitled and if the woman got pregnant via artificial insemination is that fornication; in other words the rules are too rigid therefore to me it implies the church is behind.

There is the matter of the right to privacy in terms of the pregnancy what if a male nurse got a woman pregnant; it comes across in the hospital's policy as anti woman. A pregnancy is a private matter between the parties. There is the issue of private parallel rights as was espoused in a case or the television vs gay advocate matters; the labour relations act also can offer some protection and the tribunal can order the hospital if they fired anyone to reinstate such impacted persons.

My question is what about the very virgin birth of Mary Jesus' mother that denotes the life of Jesus and if mere pregnant woman without a man or husband in the eyes of the church; this is not early Hebrew holiness codes post departure from Egypt and strict rules on adultery or fornication.

I hope the folks impacted really decide to take some action and address this before it gets out of hand. As at the preparation of this post the Seventh Day Jamaica Conference website or Facebook page did not have a response or statement regarding the matter.

Peace & tolerance

H