Online Poll:

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/poll.asp

I'm a pro-choice person, so I voted "No", ie I agree that Bibles should be available for those who want them. Whether or not individuals choose to read the Bible or not is up to them. I've never been offended at finding a Gideons Bible in a hotel room. Neither would I be offended at finding a copy of the Koran, for instance. It's unlikely that I would open either of them, but I appreciate having free choice.

Strangely worded question, actually. Perhaps it should be "Should public hospital authorities allow the placement of Gideons Bibles by patients' bedsides?". I would hate to think that the placement of such publications is funded to any level by taxpayers.

Having said that, I think that public hospitals should permit the provision of all kinds of reading materials, including the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad-Gita, Book of Mormon, Celestine Prophecies, Da Vinci Code, Lord of the Rings... etc etc - so long as they don't come from the hospital's budget.

What a contrived issue!

Possibly contrived, CJ, but maybe not. Gideon's bibles, as far as I'm aware, are funded by the Gideon's organisation, not by health authorities. The issue is the risk of infection by pathogenic organisms from patient to patient, (or from patient to health worker to patient). I'm not sure how you sterilise a bible to prevent it being a vector of infection. Am I being ridiculous?

See:http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1147

Personally I reckon there are probably much more sensible ways of reducing hospital acquired infections, e.g. getting health workers to wash their hands a bit more often.

Perhaps this is a storm in an inadequately washed hospital teacup. And who wants to drink hospital tea? Having more than my fair share of this noxious brew, I'd say, not me!

Thanks for that Snout - funny, I don't recall from the reportage at the time any mention of MRSA, which is actually a valid reason for removing the bibles if indeed there is a link. The media I recall focussed on the bogus PC/anti-discrimination angle. I guess that made a better story.

Snout is correct to ponder the hygiene of having Bibles next to hospital beds. Many pathogens survive on humidity trapped paper.

Bibles should be provided to the patient by the visitors of the particular patient. A hospital is a place for treating the ill and not a trap for organisations to push their products. If Bibles were supplied then we should allow Mc Donald’s and Coca-Cola place samples by every bed side.

Obviously equal weight should be given to every belief. Qurans, Torahs , Hindu and Buddhist scriptures , voodoo guides , satanic apocrypha’s, Tibetan and Egyptian books of the dead, Urns of ground ancestors, Sand mapping ect, should all be placed next to every bed.

Certainly it makes sense for volunteers to supply the above and relevant Bibles upon request to people with no friends or family or for whom visitors forget to bring a requested reading. They should not be placed next to every bed.

This society wastes too much paper as it is and the Bible in motels is a terrible waste of paper. Christians have their own Bible and non-cultists never read the Bible. From an environmental point of view placing the Bible next to every hospital bed is a decadent waste of resources not to mention the pollution printing the Bible causes

Are other organised religions permitted to place their material in the same places? My guess is they have mostly got better things to do.

On the health issue, maybe a stock left with the hospital which could be supplied on request (and disposed of after use by a patient at risk of transmitting something nasty).

I'm left wondering how some of our fundy friends would respond if the book beside their hospital bed was a New Age one, or some other religious belief that they don't like.

R0bert