November 1, 2015
Dr. Philip J. Fracica
3555 S. Val Vista Drive
Gilbert, Arizona 85297
Dear Dr. Bricker:
I am writing to you because the response I received with
regard to my very simple complaint clearly shows that Quality
Management has no grievance procedure. I realize that you may
wish to forward this to one of Dr. Fracica’s superiors who you
think might be more appropriately positioned in the chain of
command.
I first need to say that my complaint about Dr. Siebel has
been resolved to my complete satisfaction by Dr. Siebel’s
supervisor. It was a simple concern, the very first such
complaint of my life and one easily remedied. I now find
myself unhappily making the second complaint of my life—about
Dr. Fracica and Quality Management. It is disheartening and
unfortunate that I must do so and appear to be a prickly,
habitual complainer—but almost every part of what Dr. Fracica
has written me is troubling. I sincerely hope that this new
letter of complaint can be a service to the hospital and to
its patients.
Dr. Fracica writes, “Hospital policy requires that we respond
directly to you by certified mail in order to comply with
hospital requirements for our grievance process.”
Only there is no “grievance process.” An apologist for the
hospital simply “discusses” the matter with “appropriate
hospital staff,” decides in favor of the hospital and against
the patient, and sends his personal thoughts and casual
reflections in a letter in which he singlehandedly dismisses
the patient’s concerns outright.
Before retiring in 2010, I worked on the faculty at ASU for 29
years, eight years of which I was in administration, and I
know that this does not constitute a grievance procedure (with
or without the certified letter). In the letter I was sent by
Dr. Fracica, there is not even disclosure of who the
“appropriate hospital staff” were or any mention of what they
said. There’s no information on relevant hospital policy or
anything else—only his offhand viewpoints based on nothing
more than obscure conversations with selected coworkers.
Neither is there much of anything that responds to specifics
in my letter. Indeed, most often what is written has no
relevance to my complaint of any kind—and sadly a great deal
of what is written doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Incredibly, Dr. Fracica apparently didn’t even bother to call
or write the doctor involved as part of what he calls “the
investigation of these concerns.” I explained my very simple
and easy-to-address concern quite clearly in my original
complaint when I concluded:
“I would like to know that
others will not be asked to participate in their
anesthesiologist’s religious activities as I was.”
Dr.
Fracica’s answer is that evangelical anesthesiologists have
his blessing to try to involve sick and injured patients in
their religious observances just before surgery. This practice
he indicates is ethical because he calls it “respectful offer
of prayer.”
To have my concerns categorically dismissed by means of such a
sanctimonious-sounding sugarcoating is a grave discourtesy.
Dr. Fracica has dismissed my complaint of proselytizing
because he contends that the practice should get a default
free pass as “respectful offer of prayer.” I would like to ask
whether this is official hospital policy. I would like to ask
if the hospital is comfortable with this kind of thing being
sent to one of its patients in place of clear information on
hospital policy. Quality Management has mistakenly thought I
wished to receive opinion from a grievance committee-of-one
who seems to think his job is to close ranks with anyone and
anything religious no matter what he needs to write order to
do so.
Dr. Fracica’s letter is quite short indeed, but its content is
so rife with disturbing ideas and comments that one must
respond to them in a longer letter. Here are some of the
things that I find very troubling.
Dr. Fracica writes, “This is
a difficult situation in that some patients might actually
feel reassured by such action.” On the very face of
it, this “some-folks-might-actually-like-it” theory is plainly
untenable, to state it kindly. True, the very occasional
patient may just plain luck out and find that he shares the
same religious affiliation and fervent zeal as his
evangelizing anesthesiologist. Therefore, implies Dr. Fracica,
it is appropriate for the overly religious to approach all of
the rest of the patients with “such action.”
I’m sure many children would be terrified by a thoughtless
anesthesiologist who tried to lead them in prayer immediately
before surgery as it easily could be taken as some kind of
ghastly last rights ritual or as evidence that their condition
was near hopeless. But never mind; Mercy Gilbert’s spokesman
thinks that some of them “might actually be reassured by such
action.”
God alone knows what the “respectful” offerer’s prayer will
include—but in my case I’m fairly certain Dr. Siebel was going
to be evoking the name of Jesus not knowing or caring even in
the slightest whether I was Jewish or not. Dr. Fracica thinks
it’s “difficult” to decide whether patients should be asked to
run such a risk with a perfect stranger just before their
surgery. I only hope a doctor of a different faith never asks
one of his loved ones to run that risk—and the concomitant
risk run by refusing and thus miffing an obviously very
religious individual who will in minutes literally have his
loved one’s life in his hands.
Obviously this cannot be described as “a difficult
situation.” That Dr. Fracica presents this no-brainer as a
vexing head-scratcher is more than troubling.
Dr. Fracica writes,
“Additionally, chaplains are available to offer support when
indicated or requested.” True, hospitals employ
chaplains, but how is this in any conceivable way relevant to
the concern I had? Where in my complaint did I object to
chaplains? Chaplains don’t hold the life of the patient in
their hands and so the coercive element that I wrote about in
my complaint isn’t even an issue.
More importantly, when is it “indicated” that chaplains walk
up to perfect strangers in the hospital and try to get them to
pray with them? They wouldn’t be long employed if they did.
Dr. Fracica, just the same, seemingly holds that since the
hospital hires chaplains, its policy should also grant any and
all manner of amateur, self-ordained clergy free rein to act
in ways that no chaplain would ever dream of doing.
Dr. Fracica writes, “As a
Catholic Hospital, while we do not in any way compel
patients to participate in any religious activity, we do
start each day with a prayer transmitted through the
facility by means of overhead loudspeakers.” Because
of its extraordinary self-contradiction, one might at first
think that this sentence is an attempt at levity or irony on
the part of Dr. Fracica.
I am aware that the hospital is Catholic, but how does it
conceivably follow that protestant evangelists like Dr. Siebel
(or Muslim ones, or Mormon ones...) should be allowed to
disturb patients by trying to involve them in their own
personal religious activity under the most inappropriate and
coercive of situations?
I should rather have thought the very fact that Mercy Gilbert
is a Catholic hospital would presuppose that every extra
effort would be made to avoid the slightest hint of
proselytizing. One would think that this would be a prime
concern and the policy on it would be strict and crystal
clear.
Dr. Fracica writes, “l am not
aware of any hospital policies and procedures, Medical Staff
Rules and Regulations, professional standards of conduct
which would prohibit or preclude a respectful offer of
prayer.” Dr. Fracica argues here that any kind of
behavior at all should get hospital approval as long as he’s
“not aware of” its being specifically “prohibited or
precluded” in the Policies and Procedures Manual. If it stands
this test, it is thereby sanctioned—especially, one would
think, when Dr. Fracica himself has conveniently given it a de facto pass in the form
of the contrived and emetic label “respectful offer of
prayer.”
Item: Dr. Fracica
doesn’t say he has bothered to review these documents to see
if his statement is even true. What Dr. Fracica is “not aware
of,” of course, holds no weight in any case.
Dr. Fracica writes, “I apologize for any distress that this
has caused you, which was clearly not the intent.” Since Dr.
Fracica didn’t even deign to talk to Dr. Siebel, he cannot
possibly know his intent “clearly” or otherwise. Even I can’t,
and I was there. It is “clearly” apparent, however, whom Dr.
Fracica is “apologizing” for. Once again, he grants automatic
exculpation that he has absolutely no factual or logical basis
to grant.
The moments before surgery are key turning points in people’s
lives. No patient, child or adult, should ever be bothered by
evangelizing staff at such a time anymore than they should be
bothered with the anesthesiologist’s politics. This should be
a given. As hard as Dr. Fracica has tried to argue the
contrary, there is no defense for such behavior.
In the opinions and observations he has sent me, it is
abundantly clear that Dr. Fracica is indifferent to me and
simply tone deaf to the concern itself, which is the shared
concern of the vast majority of patients who do not wish to be
subjected to unwelcome advances of this kind. Accordingly, he
gives his certified letter’s seal of approval to pre-surgery
evangelizing by means of his made-up phrase “respectful offer
of prayer” and his “some-folks-might-actually-like-it,”
“We’ve-got-chaplains,” and
“I’m-not-aware-of-a-rule-against-it” rationales.
Dr. Fracica might be interested to know that I, too, have
spoken to people and received their input into this matter. My
examples are anecdotal but I least I can offer that much; Dr.
Fracica, as I mentioned before, has not even told me what his
workmates have provided him in the way of their counsel. My
discussions with others consistently resulted in responses
such as: “Creepy.” “Inappropriate.” “Scary.” “Horrible.” “You
have got to be kidding me.” Such reactions have come from
people from all walks of life—some very religious indeed. None
has ever thought such behavior was appropriate. None felt the
need to declare knee-jerk solidarity with such selfish and
antisocial behavior as Dr. Fracica does so faithfully on
behalf of the hospital and the doctor.
Unlike Dr. Fracica, I am willing and able to offer even more
than the anecdotal; Dr. Siebel’s supervisor wrote to me the
following:
“He (Dr. Siebel) gave
me assurance that this practice will cease immediately.”
He doesn’t seem to be blind to this very real problem; he
appears to understand that he simply can’t afford to have his
doctors behaving in such an unethical and unprofessional way.
Dr. Fracica writes, “Your
concerns have been forwarded to both the doctor involved as
well as the Anesthesia Department Chairperson.” To
what purpose? Was this nameless Chairperson asked for his
input? Has the Chairperson been advised that Dr. Fracica has,
all on his own, given the doctors under his charge the license
to approach patients with “respectful offers of prayer”
just minutes before their surgery? How does the Chairperson
feel about this? Incidentally, has Dr. Siebel received the
good news that he has prevailed? Sadly, there is no way of
knowing any part of what is going on in an informationless
“grievance process” bereft of anything but idle remarks.
Item: The Chairperson,
I understand, supervises doctors in both Mercy Gilbert and
Chandler Regional. Since Dr. Fracica notes that Mercy Gilbert
is a Catholic hospital, are the guidelines different in the
two hospitals?
Item: My complaint
was in the form of a carbon copy of my letter to Dr. Siebel.
Why would one “forward” it to him when he has already
obviously received it? It sounds as illogical as claiming that
one has “reviewed (my) medical records” when they are
obviously irrelevant to the complaint. Perhaps these are
statements conveniently cut and pasted from previous letters
in response to other patients’ cases where they might have
been germane.
In summary, no effort has been made by Quality Management
apart from assigning an apologist to write a quick brush-off
letter and sending it to me in certified mail. Only a little
effort would have sufficed. I am left to wonder whether Dr.
Fracica, all on his own, decides what hospital policy is. I
would like to ask whether the administrators in the hospital
think the “grievance process” I have described meets the
standards of a major hospital.
Mostly, however, I would like to ask if turning a blind eye to
complaints of proselytizing under Dr. Fracica’s
“respectful-offer-of-prayer,”
“some-folks-might-actually-like-it,” “we’ve-got-chaplains,”
and “I’m-not-aware-of-a-rule-against-it” theories is official
hospital policy as Dr. Fracica seems to imply. If not, what is
the policy?
Sincerely,
Tom Cole
cc: Philip Fracica, Marcia Bolks