UK hospital refuses £2,500 donation from men dressed as...

Moderator: biscuits

 

Postby Wayne » Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:39 am

...female nurses.

Hospital refuses £2,500 donation from men dressed as female nurses

Image

Hospital bosses have refused to accept a charitable donation raised by men dressed as female nurses, saying the fundraisers' costumes were "insulting".

Locals raised £2,500 for Ludlow Hospital, but administrators with the Shropshire Community Health NHS Trust turned down the money saying the fundraisers' dress was "highly-sexualised" and "demeaning".

The annual Ludlow Bed Push - which seems participants in fancy dress out collecting funds, these days without a hospital bed as modern ones are too valuable - has raised about £90,000 since 1987.

But in a letter to the Ludlow Hospital League of Friends this year, Jan Ditheridge, chief executive of the trust, said she was uncomfortable with how the event had portrayed medics.

Ms Ditheridge and the chair of the trust, Mike Ridley, said: "The presentation of men dressed as female nurses in a highly-sexualised and demeaning way is wrong, very outdated and insulting to the profession."

As a consequence, they said, they were refusing to accept the donation.

Image

Peter Corfield, chairman of the League of Friends of Ludlow Hospital, said he called the refusal of the cash "absolutely ridiculous".

"The event has always run with the full knowledge and support of the hospital and primary care trust management with participation by NHS staff.

"The whole thing is a light-hearted fundraiser which has raised between £2,500 and £6,500 each year and so over that period of time it's a very tidy sum."

Mr Corfield said all of those who took part in the bed push had the greatest respect for Ludlow Hospital and its staff, and many of the participants had firsthand experience of using the hospital's services.

"We will hold on to the £2,500, together with other funds we have got, and we will see how this pans out because we are just flabbergasted by [the trust's] decision," he said.

Image

Health boss Ms Ditheridge said: "It isn't okay to portray healthcare professionals in this way.

"We have previously asked that this doesn't happen and therefore don't think it's right to accept any money associated with this activity."

The fancy dress fundraisers were local residents Mark Hiles, Ricky Peers, 28, Simon Morgan, 37, Bill Wilson, 69, Mark Watkins, 46, Mick Griffiths, 62, Adam Griffiths, 46, and his six year old son George Griffiths.

They work as a mixture of lorry drivers, poultry farm workers, telecom engineers and builders in and around Ludlow.

Simon Morgan, 37, a telephone engineer, said: "I've done it several times over the years and we have a great crack each time.

"The biggest feeling for me is disappointment ... It was raised in good faith and to my knowledge we had no complaints."

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-08-23/heal ... ess-sense/
Political correctness gone wrong? Or a bold, brave action on the hospital's part?
User avatar
Wayne
Administrator
 
Posts: 47314
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Guru » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:49 am

It's a donation. It should be irrespective who donates it (let alone how they dress) :roll:
| Ciara | Beyoncé | Janet | Toni | Kelly R | Leona | Tinashe | Whitney | Brandy | Monica | Tevin | Mariah | Britney |
User avatar
Guru
Guru
 
Posts: 22762
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006
Location: On ukmix.org

Postby DnBLover » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:26 am

Guru wrote:It's a donation. It should be irrespective who donates it
No it shouldn't. Do you accept money of a criminal, for instance? That's extreme but often people who donate have opposing interests to the cause.
I am the maniac, I am the ghoul
I'm in the shadows in the corners of my room
User avatar
DnBLover
Legend
 
Posts: 12586
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009
Location: PT

Postby Wayne » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:28 am

^ But that's clearly not the case here though!
User avatar
Wayne
Administrator
 
Posts: 47314
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Biebz » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:47 pm

So dumb. That money could have really helped someone.
my reputation's never been worse so you must like me for me
User avatar
Biebz
Best Damn Member
 
Posts: 22304
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013
Location: UK

Postby Guru » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:14 pm

Wayne wrote:^ But that's clearly not the case here though!
Exactly may thoughts. Extreme example :lol:
| Ciara | Beyoncé | Janet | Toni | Kelly R | Leona | Tinashe | Whitney | Brandy | Monica | Tevin | Mariah | Britney |
User avatar
Guru
Guru
 
Posts: 22762
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006
Location: On ukmix.org

Postby jio » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:09 pm

I am against charity for anything other than situations of extraordinary urgency so I'd agree with the hospital's decision, albeit disagree with its reasoning.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 12926
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Postby MusicRecords » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:34 pm

Guru wrote:
Wayne wrote:^ But that's clearly not the case here though!
Exactly may thoughts. Extreme example :lol:
exactly, if someone wants to donate money and isn't a criminal I could care less what he/she wears, heck if they wanted to donate the money wearing a thong I wouldn't care :lol:
User avatar
MusicRecords
Legend
 
Posts: 10277
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012
Location: New York City & Vienna

Postby Serby » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:30 pm

jio wrote:I am against charity for anything other than situations of extraordinary urgency so I'd agree with the hospital's decision, albeit disagree with its reasoning.
Why? A rather unpopular opinion tbh.
User avatar
Serby
Dr. Serby
 
Posts: 34355
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011
Location: Halliwell Manor

Postby jio » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:13 am

I don't think it's that unpopular. I mean it's pretty absurd hospitals being relying partly on charity to take care of patients in a modern affluent society. I don't know what's the reason in the UK but the idea of cutting official funds to basic services and then making them more and more depended on charity (with all the consequences that brings) so the state budget looks better is happening in many countries (including mine) and is absurd IMO. In the third world also charity has not created the conditions for development in most countries, it just created generations living on (and not under) the poverty line thus preventing change and keeping useless regimes in place. It also creates dependency on donor countries which is essentially undemocratic.

I give to charity too because it feels good but we might be doing more damage in the long run that we may realize. Charity for helping people in sudden and severe needs (such as after a natural disaster) is without a doubt essential but charity for helping ongoing needs which should be the responsibility of state or other established national services with adequate and steady funding is just not great.
User avatar
jio
Legend
 
Posts: 12926
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009

Return to World News & Politics