We post an ethical or situational concern that has arisen in a facility where one of our readers works. It has no identifiers included. It gives you only the facts of the case. Then, you can respond to that concern. This is an ongoing dialogue, with comments added as they come in. In the following issue, assuming it has been resolved, we give you the outcome from the facility where the incident took place. Please send any cases that you would like considered for inclusion to: info@plainviews.org

We hope that this new addition will help to inform not only those who are dealing with the issue, but will enable all of our readers to learn from the experiences and perhaps mistakes of others.

PLEASE NOTE: Due to unanticipated continuing responses to both the case and the resolution of the case, added responses can be viewed in the archives. Click HERE.

Case Conference # 4 (see below for responses)

A child was involved in a highly visible accident where the media was immediately present and knew (from firsthand observation at the scene) what many of the members of the family looked like. Upon arrival at the hospital, the chaplain – a vital part of the trauma code team – accompanied the family to an area typically "safe" from outsiders including media and followed protocol by asking whether the family wanted to be seen by or conduct an interview with the media. The family's answer was an unequivocal "No! Not now," which was conveyed to the press corps spokesperson.

Because the media had been on the scene and followed the emergency vehicles to the hospital, dozens of reporters, camera crews and gawkers lined the perimeter of the hospital grounds – keeping the mandated 50' distance and waiting eagerly for word of the child's condition or an opportunity to "interview" the family. However, one ambitious young newswoman who was familiar with the hospital broke protocol by removing her press badge. She (and her un-badged cameraman) made their way to the family area, asking for the family by name.

The chaplain, who was sitting with the waiting, anxious family, noticed this well-dressed woman approaching and had the presence of mind to gracefully intercept and eventually divert the intruding media miscreant! The chaplain, having escorted the woman and cameraman away from the family unobtrusively, called security and turned over the offenders and returned to the family.

A short time later the chaplain learned that the intruding media team had been warned, asked to leave the building and released on their own without serious consequence. Seeing the news crew walking up the street away from the hospital, the chaplain made chase, running after and catching up to the departing crew in the middle of the street. Then and there the chaplain proceeded to mete a form of verbal justice that actually reduced the reporter to tears. Her lack of integrity, ethics and sensitivity were harshly-but-accurately noted, as well as her assault on the privacy of the distraught family and her shameful disrespect for the rules of engagement traditionally followed by media at the hospital. Motives and actions were publicly impugned.

The chaplain felt justified in this response because of the reprehensible nature of the media team's behavior and, in the mind of the chaplain, the insufficient consequences imposed by the hospital for said behavior. (In fact ,the chaplain noted that rather than being censured for their actions, the media crew would have probably received a heroes' welcome back at the station – especially had they successfully breached the family's circle!)

Ethical questions abound in this situation, but certainly most would be leveled at the conduct of the media team. However, our question revolves around the chaplain's response to the departing media team and how or whether it 'fits' the image of the chaplain – or should! As chaplains we are more often cast as 'peacemakers' than 'warriors', but occasionally we feel compelled to lash out at injustice, insensitivity and egregious wrongdoing. When feeling 'called to battle' we hope to be armed with passion, courage and opportunity and hope that our professional role includes room for such balance.

Was this such a time for the chaplain at this hospital under the circumstances set forth? If yes, why, and if no, why not?

Responses to CaseConference #4:

I think I would encourage the chaplain to do some inner reflection to see what “buttons” this case pushed in his/her soul. This case doesn’t bring to question the image of chaplains as being peacemakers as much as it brings to mind the humanity of this chaplain, and that sometimes all of us “lose our cool.” My question is this: what was the chaplain trying to accomplish by confronting and reprimanding the departing media? What good was it going to accomplish? What buttons were pushed? What could the chaplain have done differently?

Granted, it sounds like the media was being ghoulish. However, as we watch the scads of news each day, is this not the nature of the media? Not to excuse it, but, it seems that the media were in there doing their job as well. This reporter was probably going to be congratulated for breaking through, even if it was through unethical means of gaining entry. Is the chaplain going to be congratulated by the hospital for “going the extra mile” by publicly reprimanding reporter?

The main thing I observed is that this chaplain did, indeed, protect the family and fulfill their request to not have any contact with the media.

Rev. Amy Jo Jones, BM, MM, MDiv, BCC
Chaplain/Grief Support Center Coordinator
Big Sky Hospice
Billings, MT

Was this such a time? No. This scenario arises from a clash of ethical standards and as such some resolution needs to be achieved, however a highly emotional and public confrontation is a poor means to achieve the end. The risks far outweigh any possible benefits.

Unlike the parsons of colonial New England, chaplains are not charged with the responsibility of maintaining public morality. The news crew was operating within an ethical framework practiced in their profession. By taking personal affront at their behavior, the chaplain assumes a moral superiority that is inappropriate. This superior attitude may well have arisen out of the chaplain's close emotional identification with the family. Acting on an emotionally charged impulse, the chaplain may be trying to redirect the anger and fear evoked by the chaplain's grief response to the accident onto the 'miscreant' news crew. This projection puts the chaplain's professionalism at risk along with the hospital's credibility as a healthy public institution.

As an officer of the hospital organization, the chaplain's assault on the crew puts the hospital's relationship with the media in peril. One can almost picture the 6 O'clock news featuring this wild-eyed ranter spouting frothy moral indignations as a condemning finger slashes in the air. The footage would be irresistible, and the media will hardly be able to contain their eagerness to provoke it again. The next morning, the hospital's Director of Public Relations begins to polish the old resume as Human Resources begins adding notes from the Board to the chaplain's employment record, and security may not take the chaplain's judgments upon their actions with a light heart. The chaplain, in a fit of self-righteousness, has failed the hospital team.

By assailing the crew so forcefully, the chaplain also escalates the emotional violence already present in the exchange. The very experience the chaplain hated to see imposed on the family was inflicted upon the crew. The chaplain's actions fly right past justice and into vengeance.

That said, I do believe that additional action against the crew is appropriate. The chaplain could organize hospital leaders and plan a formal response that speaks to the violation without replicating it. As Gandhi and King demonstrated so elegantly, when battling injustice, we are far more likely to be successful if we gather our collective strength and move deliberately than to lash out impulsively.

Peace,
Keith Goheen
Chaplain
Beebe Medical Center
Lewes, DE. USA

The chaplain's chasing the media people up the street gave me pause. If the chaplain had, within the hospital, told the intruders in strong, clear language that their behavior was unethical and insensitive, i would see that as totally appropriate. To punish them later, outside of the hospital grounds, seems to be a reverse of the media breaking the boundary to get what they want-- the chaplain left the boundary of the hospital to express rage at injustice.

Chaplain Jonathan Scott
Day Kimball Hospital
Putnam, CT

I do not see this as a test of ethics or ethical behavior as much as I see it as a case of unprofessional behavior, mostly on the part of the chaplain. The media may not have acted too far out of bounds for their profession. However, the chaplain was way out of bounds professionally.

I wonder if anyone who might have witnessed the chaplain's public display would choose thereafter to have the chaplain listen at bedside to their story of personal failure and brokenness. Perhaps we can best have compassion upon other's failures and brokenness when we are first aware and humbled by our own. In my thinking, it is essential that chaplains see themselves and be perceived as being in process; rather than completed and finished, so as to have indignation over the behavior of another.

Thankfully, there is a new day, and we may start anew!

Stan Dunk, M.Div.,BCC
Director of Pastoral Care
Fort Hamilton Hospital
Hamilton,Ohio

The irony of what the chaplain did to the news crew being exactly what the news crew was about to do to the family would probably be lost on them. The chaplain's anger is justified and wish to act upon it
laudable. However, doing to others what you do not wish done to you and yours is not ethical or humane. It would have been better had she written an editorial or asked the media for time and space to share her views.

Ruth Brooks
Psychiatric Chaplain
Yale-New Haven Hospital

While the chaplain did seem to act appropriately in shielding the family inside the hospital, pursuing the reporter and camera person and reducing the reporter to tears hardly seems appropriate.

The case was very slanted against the media. The case reflects the negative attitude prevalent in our society these days. Yes, unethical journalists exist just as unethical people exist in every field. The case included a side comment from the chaplain in paragraph 5 that clearly illustrates the writer and chaplains distain for “the media.” The first sentence of the last paragraph assuming most of the ethical questions would involve the media further illustrates this negative slant. Did the case writer talk with the journalist to get that side of the story before writing the case?

This case has given me the opportunity to reflect on ways to respond to the people who assume members of the press should be treated with disdain.

Dorie L. Griggs, M. Div.
Producer,
Faith And The City Forum: Interfaith Dialogue on Public Issues

My contribution represents my own opinion and does not reflect views or policies of the department or hospital for which I work.

The case writer asks, whether the situation "called (the chaplain) to battle". My response, in keeping with the martial metaphor, is to ask two questions. My first question is, "Whose army are you enlisting in? Yours? The hospital's? The professional chaplains'?"

The Common Code of Ethics for Spiritual Care Professionals (refer to the APC website) adjures spiritual care professionals to "clearly distinguish between statements made or actions taken as a private
individual and those made as a member or representative of one of the cognate organizations" (Standard 4.12). Personally, I conclude that chaplain is "freelancing" by not consulting with other hospital staff before confronting the news crew. The hospital's response was to turn away the news crew and let the issue rest. The chaplain's subsequent intervention runs counter to the hospital's action, which I
view as a blurring of the distinction between personal action, and action taken by the agencies we represent. Therefore, the chaplain's intervention is questionable from an ethical standpoint.

Secondly I ask, "Have you thought out your tactical approach?

How we "do battle" is fraught with ethical questions as well.

Alternatives exist should one feel the need to further pursue the news crew's breach of the area protecting the family. Journalists are also professionals and abide by a code of ethics. The RTNDA (Radio Television News Directors Association) code of ethics highlights values of public trust and professional integrity and discourages newsgathering techniques that compromise respect for "subjects of news". The RTNDA code of ethics also advances the notion of public accountability. Therefore, the chaplain as a concerned private citizen might approach the news organization to lodge a complaint. The chaplain as a professional (ethically bound to respect other professions per the Common Code of Ethics Standard 4) might advocate that the hospital contact the news director or station manager to point out the blatant ethical wrongdoing on the part of the news team.

The statement that the media crew would receive a "heroes' welcome" when they returned to the station may or may not be valid. I sense within this statement the fallacy "you've seen one, you've seen 'em all". Such a fallacy cuts both ways. The journalist in question might infer that all chaplains are confrontational and reduce journalists to tears as a regular part of our work (a possibility one of our CPE residents identified). Another fallacy of generalization might be that the chaplain was speaking for the hospital and therefore the hospital's practice is to confront "harshly-but accurately". The chaplain's actions might engender such fallacious reasoning in the public's perception and therefore be deemed as doing harm.

Broadly speaking, was harm avoided when the chaplain "gave chase to the news team" and "meted out verbal justice"? The family appeared sufficiently protected with the chaplain's deft managing of the situation at the time the news reporter tried to approach the family.

Did any good come from the chaplain's confrontation of the reporter? Did the reporter benefit? We don't know whether the reporter's tears flow from contrition for her ethical failings or out of chagrin for being chastised in front of colleagues. The reporter may have learned her lesson. Or she might have resolved to be cleverer to avoid capture and censure next time. Who knows?

Did the chaplain's actions serve to advance the journalist's or the station's ethical observances? We don't have the details to speculate. Was the general public served? Frankly, I doubt it.
Thank you for posting this stimulating case for our consideration.

Speaking only for myself,
Bart Coleman, M.Div
Staff Chaplain
Boise, Idaho

Please check below for comments made about the last CaseConference.

Send your comments about CaseConference to info@PlainViews.org.