It has happened. My wife confirmed it. I have officially become a grumpy old man.
My defence is simply that I was listening to the local news on the television and wanted to exercise my right to challenge the officialdom that has thought it wise to spend £300,000 on a new multi-faith space at my local hospital. OK, perhaps the fact that I nearly choked on my cup of tea when I heard it, and have gone on about the news for at least two days, bringing it to the attention of my massive Facebook and Twitter readership, dared to raise it last night with a group of Christians at a dinner party, and am now spending precious time blogging about it, may seem a bit extreme to some (”He’s becoming obsessive and grumpy in his dotage!”), but I reserve my right to say: “Hey! This emperor appears to have NO clothes on!”
Come on! £300,000 is a lot of money. As my wife, my son, and I have all had reason to have significant contact with the local hospital during the past 12 months, I couldn’t help but think what that money could have been spent on. It would have paid for at least one and a bit consultants, or a few doctors that might have contributed to reducing waiting times. It would have paid for a whole army of nurses that could have significantly increased the quality of patient care for some. To use it to pay for a room with religious texts in does seem a bit wasteful. When other services are being cut and staff made redundant, the multi-faith room does seem a bit of an absurdity.
Of course, the ‘multi-faith space’ is a bit of a misnomer. ’Single faith at different times and different days’ might be more appropriate. There is little chance of them coming together in any significant way. Doctrine and history and practice will ensure that, especially as they essentially believe that other faiths are wrong. (They would have to ignore key tenets of their faith and pretend that Jesus didn’t mean anything when he said: “I am the way …”, for example.)
If the multi-faiths believe that it is important to have a space in a public building, let them pay for it (though even here there are many arguments against it - the space could be more profitably used for other things, for example). I would love to be on the committee formed from the multi-faiths to see who would pay what. I bet it would take years of wrangling.
Discussions with friends have produced a range of points supporting the room.
Why don’t you monitor the situation, to see how much it is actually used?
My response to that is that I would object to it, even if it were used a lot. As far as I am aware, an institution such as a hospital, tries to promote services which are based on scientific evidence rather than heresay or quackery. The fact that people may want a service doesn’t make it right. Suppose the entire population of the hospital wanted a room for regular Morris Dancing, and because of the sub-groups within the dancing community, had to provide different dancing texts for each community that would share the multi-dancing space. I would argue it is absurd for a hospital to do so. If there was spare space (I doubt it), and if the dancing community wanted to pay for the room, then let them go ahead and provide their own space, but don’t expect the room to be funded (to the tune of £300,000) out of my taxes.
People who are sick often want spiritual help.
I would find this point more convincing if there was convincing evidence of either the reality of religion in the general population (significantly and rapidly declining) or of the reality of spiritual help. I suspect that when people are frightened and vulnerable they do come face to face with existential reality. Because religion has a tradition and an established place in our culture, people turn to that. But there are other ways of being spiritual other than through religion, and there are other ways of facing existential reality than talking to imaginary friends. If we lived in a culture where a belief in Morris Dancing had been powerful in the past it is understandable why years later people might want to turn to Morris Dancing in a time of crisis, and argue the case for a Morris Dancing room. I would much rather we didn’t use the money to keep adults as infants, and spent it on useful service or education, or spent it on non-religious existential counselling.
If people genuinely want religious support during times of crisis, let them call their religious leaders and communities (who are already publicly funded by various tax breaks), and let them provide that service for free, without my taxes having to contribute to it even more.
There is good evidence that people with a spiritual outlook get live longer than those without.
I need to find the research on this. However, it still assumes that having a ’spiritual outlook’ must mean having a religion. I know lots of atheists who would say they have a spiritual side and who have a coherent philosophy which gives meaning and purpose and direction to their lives. As a counsellor I can see how this would be life enhancing, but it doesn’t have to come with religious baggage. I also think that until religious spirituality is recognised as a valid treatment on the NHS, public money should not be spent on it.
[polldaddy poll=1392564]
A much better (and cheaper) alternative would have been a small garden somewhere away from noise and designated as a quiet space*. I could be used by patients and visitors for secular and religious purposes. And fresh air and a refuge from noise and hub-bub have measurable effects on wellbeing
*= and a “multifaith area” if so desired.
I second Pandora’s garden idea.
I totally agree with you..what a complete waste of money….money that could have been far better spent.
the money has probabley come from what they make on the over priced car parking .. but thats another story
I’m not sure I know enough to comment properly. Well, I’m sure you are not yet a Grumpy Old Man - I have enough information to answer that one!
The Multi-Faith Space is more difficult to decide upon. I find the idea a little offensive and it is not somewhere I would go and sit just because of the word “faith” in the title. But if it were just a room/garden/space that was there to be a place of reflection and it was well designed then maybe I would. Hospitals are not pleasant places - you feel like you have left real life - and anything that made you feel as if you had escaped the medical world for a short time would be welcome.
I suppose my questions would be - was this entirely publically funded (presumably it was subject to public consultation at the planning stage????), is it attractive architecturally (many wonderful buildings would not be here today if everyone had taken your point of view about the use of money - a doctor is great but money provided for that is easily taken away after one year, but you can’t really take away a physical structure (although the word “space” doesn’t make it sound terribly appealing), what exactly goes on in it? Will entry be restricted to certain religions at particular times?
I don’t approve but I don’t feel quite the same way about the use of money as you do. I think sometimes there is an argument to spend money on something where the benefit is not quite so clearcut. Otherwise the world would just be about servicing needs and nothing big and beautiful would ever happen.
Not that I suspect the multi-faith space falls into that category. Shame they couldn’t have thought of a word beginning in “i” really instead of space (interior) and then they could have rehashed a few MFI ads to promote it. I’m sure they once had a strapline “you dream it; we make it happen” which would be rather appropriate really.
I did try to disagree with you for once - but not terribly satisfactorily!
I voted against it in your poll!
Pandora Caitiff, the chaplain
What a wise suggestion. A quiet garden space would be a brilliant idea.
sally
Agreed the charges are scandalous. When my family members have had a week in hospital it has cost a small fortune in parking and telephone fees. And I always end up paying for the children too who haven’t got enough money of their own. It is immoral that they are fleecing people when they are in a vulnerable position.
Reluctant Blogger
I am glad you voted against it, and comforted in your conclusion that I am not yet a grumpy old man (though many would disagree with you).
I think I could go along with you in favour of the notion of a quiet space, but as soon as ‘faith’ gets involved, I have to resist it on principle if the hospital is paying. If MFI did get involved in promoting a multi-faith space (as opposed to your suggestion of an interior space), I would suggest the slogan: “You dream it and you make it happen in your head!”
I agree that building beautiful, non-functional things is great, but if religious people want religious buildings, let the faithful minority pay.
I am slightly heartened by the fact that you tried to disagree with me, and even more heartened that you felt you didn’t do so satisfactorily
Very well thought out post on all your reasons for opposing the place. I have never been in a hospital for a lengthy stay, but if I did, I would perhaps love to have a place where to sit and be quiet, away from the room.
But…300K? Please. There must be cheaper ways to do that, for goodness sake! What are they doing to the room? Adding stained glass and providing live piano music?
I don’t like the garden idea for two reasons: (1) it is more expensive to maintain than a room, and (2) where would people go on a rainy/snowy day?
As for your becoming a grumpy old man, I disagree. Grumpy people do not necessarily have a reason for their negative attitude, whereas you have very strong reasons to disagree.
I can understand the anguish you face on hearing that funds that can be diverted to productive use are being diverted for superflous benefits! On the one hand governments claim that there is no money to spend and on the other the little money that is available is spent on ancillary services instead of on mainstream/ hard-core infrastructure requirements. In India recently, crores of rupees were spent on erecting stautes when the money could have gone into development of open spaces!!! The officialdom all over the world is officially foolish.
Lorena
I agree with your points about having neutral space, and about the possible exposure to the elements in a garden. What about an area where there are easy to maintain plants and pleasant seating indoors? The problem with this space is that by defining it as ‘multi-faith’ it ceases to be neutral. I would rather go and sit in the coffee shop than sit in a space that was meant to be religious. Suppose someone I knew saw me there!!!
booksandmusings
Thanks for dropping by. It is hard to justify lavish expenditure when 1) cheaper, more effective solutions are available, and 2) when essential services are being cut.
Suppose someone I knew saw me there!!!
Hee, hee! ROFLOL
Well, if anybody sees you, I would pay lots of money to be there to watch.
I have looked at this long and hard before replying as this for me is a complex area of care. Why you say, it’s simple. £300.000 is simply too much to pay out for this area for faries at the bottom of the garden. so many people arguing about which fairy is the most important. Jesus, Mohammed etc?
In answer to that supposed question I do actually agree. £300,000 does seem excessive when there is so much health need: waiting lists, packed A/E and wards fighting bugs. We need front line care don’t we? Yes, we do, BUT there is one point, well perhaps two I would like to make.
You have missed one essential point for me, regardless of any faith position. You are a man who values evidence. In both the medical and nursing journals of academic worth and research, there is an overwhelming view that to acknowledge a spiritual dimension to one’s own being is crucial to effective and holistic care and managment of that person and their families.
I wholeheartly believe that hospitals do have a duty of care to provide spiritual and pastoral care and ministry, to those in need, both physically and psychologically. No more so than in a traumatic illness situation, sudden death or expected death or bereavement. People DO want it and NEED it, regardless of what athinkingman THINKS of it. To deny them this, at a vulnerable time, is as strong for me as denying someone’s basic human rights for warmth, shelter and love.
Where do we draw the line as to what the hospital should get funding for and when not, if it is a key part of care and compassion? And why not a multi-faith site? Surely, it is better to embrace people’s faith than deny its existance. Try to stop all the in-fighting and promote some kind of unity. Faith, religion, it’s not going to go away. I should also think the hospital may not have a choice, if it is a multi-cultural politically led position from central government to provide this kind of space.
I want to see the building for myself. I understand that it is like a prefab, build in some grounds and is quite beautiful with no statues, crosses but has a painting there of Christ. My husband has seen it, likes it very much but thinks £300.000 is a bit too steep a price.
As someone who studies and works in existential reality, I must discuss with you what your position is, as far as acknowleging a spiritual dimension to a person’s personality, an important facet and force to that person’s make up. I know spiritual and religious can be two separate forces but the line is a narrow one.
So in conclusion, yes, a lot of money agreed. Though the ministry given at this hospital is excellent and believe me it is used and a lot. There is more than one chaplain and what about the services it provides. They are always attended. I have seen the porters busy wheeling people in to the hospital chapel to receive communion.
Pastoral/spiritual care is key to care. I never want to see it go away. I am for a hospital chapel and its ministry, even as a very very “lame agnostic/ atheist, lapse Christain, not sure what I am anymore person.”
Great debate here, great blog. I will enjoy the feedback which I know will be forthcoming.
onethoughtfulwoman
Thanks for your thoughts. We are agreed that far too much money was spent on it.
There is a difference between correlation and causation. The fact that spiritual belief may correlate well with health doesn’t mean that the former causes the latter. If it did, and if there were scientific reasons for it, the NHS would prescribe it for patients. But there isn’t, and they don’t. Belief in imaginary friends may be helpful, but no-one is going to suggest that the taxpayer should encourage it or pay for it.
If the religious camp want this space, let them pay for it. If they want to put chaplains in hospitals to further their cause, let them pay for it.
Uhmmmm!
So you are saying that spiritual belief does not have any impact on health?
I haven’t looked at the research to come to your conclusions.
Where are the papers stating or suggesting this?
It would be a great study to do.
Did you visit the “space” when you had to go to the hospital the other day?
As I said to you, I have now been and think it is worth every penny, contary to what I said about the cost.
I don’t think you really touched on many of my discusion points.
I felt I raised some very good arguments why such a space was created and needed.
The Chapel or space whatever you want to call it is used more not less by ordinary folk clearly searching for meaning and comfort. If that is so and if it helps, then let them have their space. I see that as part of NHS money.
And yes, they are creating a garden too.
The Sacred Place is utterly beautiful, well built and not like a prefab at all. It is in the main section of the hospital.
I loved it and would happily sit there in quiet reflection.
And like I said, Two charties and organisations, one for stillbirth SANDS and the other for miscarriage CALM placed there in the form of books in glass cases for people experiencing this kind of loss. Very appropriate I thought.
onethoughtfulwoman
If it is a nice space, and the hospital can justify the expense, that’s fine by me. The real problem for me (apart from the amount of money which could have had better uses) comes as soon as you start talking about ’spiritual’ or ‘faith’
If you are saying people can benefit from having a space to think and be emotional and reflective in times of crisis, that’s ok by me. Why then muck it up by using a word with supernatural connotations and start talking about ’spiritual’ or ‘faith’.
If you are saying that faiths improve health:
1) I doubt that you can medically prove it. Correlation isn’t causation. Why spend NHS money on dubious science? Surely as a taxpayer I can object to limited resources being spent on dubious science?
2) Despite appearances, the unity is a sham. The multi-faiths want to mutually convert each other and historically have fought constant wars against each other. There are already stories from some parts of the UK where Muslims and Christians are fighting about the multi-faith space in chaplaincies. This is hardly condusive to peace.
3) If religions want a space, let them apply for permission and pay for it themselves.
Suppose I believed in fairies and wanted a space in the hospital because I believed that belief in fairies promoted well-being. And even suppose that millions of people were equally deluded. I hope that the scientific community in the hospital would tell me what to do with my application for them to fund my space in their cash-strapped hospital.
It may be that the hospital can justify a cheap space for reflection and emotion, and I’m cool about that. But I just can’t find any support for a £300,000 spend on dubious science and multi-faith. In any normal world, such a proposal would sound proposterous!
It is very sad to hear that Christians and Muslims are fighting over who has what space in these places. That is very sad and pathetic indeed.
I will go away and think about what you have said. Thanks for taking the time to reply and will ponder upon my final conclusions.
[...] Dec 11th, 2009 by athinkingman Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates.Powered by WP Greet BoxI have long thought that it seems ridiculous that hospital chaplains should be funded by the NHS - not least because all other NHS care is allowed because of its evidence base and scientific sense, and because the religious bodies should pay the wages of their own staff. I recently wrote a piece expressing my frustration that £300,000 of public money (i.e. taken from your taxes and mine) should be spent on providing a religious space in a hospital (see A Waste of Space and Money?). [...]
>If it is a nice space, and the hospital can justify the expense, that’s fine by me. The real problem for me (apart from the amount of money which could have had better uses) comes as soon as you start talking about ’spiritual’ or ‘faith’
I think that you perhaps do need to check the evidence/research.
As I understand it, the NHS has found that integrated Chaplaincy services are fully justified as part of medical care.
What would your position be if removal of these services resulted in higher overall costs for the NHS?