| Nurse Disobeys Hospital Orders to Remove Patient Under Arrest, Is Herself Removed For Insubordination |
| Nurse Says She Was Acting Under Her Ethical Duty as a Registered Nurse |
| Right of Conscience Protects Religious Beliefs, Not Ethical Concerns |
| Put the Patient In a Wheelchair and Leave Her In the Park |
Nurses often have to decide between calls of the conscience or the ethical duty to uphold the standards of nursing against the demands placed by the employer. Facts of a particular situation should guide the nurse as to the course of action she should take.
Plaintiff Frances Free, brought this action against the defendant, Holy Cross Hospital, for wrongful termination of her employment as a nurse.
Facts: Free's complaint contained the following allegations regarding the incident which resulted in her discharge On September 7, 1983, while on duty as the evening nurse supervisor.
Free was informed that a patient had been arrested for possession of a handgun and that an order had been given to transfer the patient to Cermak Hospital. However, the police officer guarding the patient told Free that because bond was being posted for the patient, she would not be accepted at Cermak Hospital and would be returned to Holy Cross Hospital for treatment.
Free relayed this information to the hospital's chief of security, who told her that the patient was to be removed from the hospital "even if removal required forcibly putting the patient in a wheelchair and leaving her in the park." Although Free objected to the removal of the patient, she gave the necessary orders to effect the transfer.
The complaint further alleged that Free discussed the matter by telephone with the hospital vice-president, who became agitated, shouted, and used profanity in telling Free that it was he who had given the order to remove the patient. Free alleged that before she could inform the vice-president that she had complied with the order, she terminated the conversation in accordance with a hospital policy of terminating abusive contacts.
Free further alleged that “pursuant to standing instructions and procedures,” she contacted her immediate supervisor, who ordered her to proceed to the patient's room and call the attending physician for instruction concerning the patient. Before she arrived at the patient's room, a security officer stopped Free and instructed her to go to the office of the hospital vice-president. However, she first followed the orders of her immediate supervisor and called the patient's attending physician, who stated that he opposed the transfer. The physician instructed Free not to touch the patient but to document his order that the patient should remain at the hospital if bond was posted.
Free then visited the patient's room, checked her condition, and attempted to calm her. While so occupied, Free received a telephone call ordering her to report to the office of the hospital vice-president. She accordingly proceeded to the office, where she was advised that her conduct was insubordinate and that her employment was immediately terminated.
Free's complaint alleged that the termination amounted to retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policy contained in the Illinois Right of Conscience Act.
Court Decision: The first issue to be considered is whether Free's complaint states a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based upon the Illinois Right of Conscience Act (Act). The tort of retaliatory discharge exists where an employee's discharge is "in contravention of a clearly mandated public policy." Free argues that she was wrongfully discharged by the hospital in violation of the public policy of Illinois which prohibits discrimination against hospital personnel to refuse to act contrary to their conscience. This public policy is expressed in the Illinois Right of Conscience Act, which states:
It is the public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right of conscience of all persons who are engaged in the delivery of medical services and medical care whether acting individually, corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept or deliver medical services and medical care.
'Conscience' means a sincerely held set of moral convictions arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so derived, obtains from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths.
Based upon the language of the Act, the public policy mandated is that hospital personnel will not be discriminated against for refusing to perform medical services as they relate to their religious beliefs. This contemplates morally controversial issues such as euthanasia, sterilization, or abortion.
Free alleges in her complaint that the hospital discharged her for insubordination because, as an act of conscience, she refused to provide a medical service ordered by the hospital, i.e., she refused to evict a bedridden patient from the hospital. Nowhere in Free's complaint is it alleged that a refusal to follow the hospital's orders would conflict with her moral convictions arising from what are traditionally characterized as religious beliefs.
Rather, Free's allegations relate to her ethical duty as a registered nurse not to engage in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct of a character likely to harm the public as mandated by the Illinois Nursing Act. We do not believe that the Act contemplates the protection of ethical concerns as opposed to sincerely held moral convictions arising from religious beliefs. For this reason, we conclude that Free failed to state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on the Act.
Free v. Holy Cross Hospital, 153 Ill. App. 3d 45; 505 N.E. 2d 1188; 106. Ill. Dec. 397
Next Chapter