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 – Resolution

The news crew involved in Case Conference #4 received no further censure –either from the hospital or, to my knowledge from their station. The chaplain involved became an overnight celebrity with the emergency room staff and those in the security department who agreed that the news team had “gotten off too easily”by simply being asked to leave the premises. In fact, the chaplain was presented with an “unofficial”badge from security with “Media Buster”where the title “Chaplain”should have gone. Word of the confrontation in the street reached hospital administrators. They, too, seemed more concerned with the media breach than with the chaplain’s action, although the hospital liaison to the media took no further action.

The one dissenting voice was the chaplain’s immediate supervisor and department director. When word of the encounter reached the supervisor, the chaplain was asked whether a similar occurrence would produce a similar response –or, upon reflection, would a different choice be made. The chaplain responded that the actions would be repeated. The chaplain was asked if there might have been alternatives to the only chaplain on duty taking on an activity that was clearly outside the boundaries of the pastoral care role –such as going through media channels in the hospital. The answer was that, first, those proper channels would have done no good and second, the role of the chaplain should include “standing up to”wrong-doers. When asked whether the chaplain could see any conflict of interest involved in the confrontation the answer was no –again based on the fact that sometimes as chaplains we are called to stand up for principles not just “be nice”and let people ‘get away with’misbehavior. No alternative action or perspective could be found that the chaplain could accept.

The supervisor stated that the chaplain’s behavior was seen (by the supervisor) as a breach of protocol as well as a conflict of interest. In an attempt to illustrate, the supervisor posed the possibility that the news team –who left distraught and in tears (whether they were tears of contrition or embarrassment) –might have, in their distress, gotten involved in an accident and returned to the emergency room where the only chaplain available would have been the one who had just addressed them.

The chaplain was never convinced, based on the sincere belief that righteous anger can and should sometimes be justified. In the end, the supervisor and the chaplain both felt “justified.”However, it was made clear that the supervisor’s authority (in the absence of agreement or any apparent desire on the part of the administration to censure the chaplain’s actions) to determine what did or did not constitute pastoral protocol would dictate future encounters. The conversation continued for many years, as I trust it will among the readers.

Case Conference # 4 – Situation

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?

Please check below for comments made about the last CaseConference.

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