No bare elbows please - we are Muslim pharmacy staff

THE “bare below the elbow” policy is strictly enforced at Life Entabeni Hospital in Durban when health workers engage with patients in wards, and especially in the Intensive Care Unit.

However, a Muslim staffer was having none of it, arguing that her faith did not allow her to expose her lower arms and wrist in public.

Farzana Ismail said the “bare below the elbow” policy constituted unfair discrimination against people of her faith, and wanted it overturned.

While acknowledging the fact that the Health Department had to have measures in place to safeguard patients – especially those in ICU who were vulnerable to infections – she suggested she be allowed to wear long disposable gloves, which she would change after coming in contact with each patient.

Her dispute with the hospital went to arbitration where Commissioner Hilda Grobler concluded that the policy was fair. She said if an exception must be made for Ismail and thus others of the Muslim faith working at the hospital, the cost of providing disposable sleeves would be more than R53 million a year, which would eventually be passed on to the consumer.

Ismail had been working at the hospital since 2011 as a pharmacist in the hospital dispensary. As she did not work directly with patients, she was allowed to wear her full Islamic dress.

She, however, applied to advance to a clinical practice pharmacist and had to make daily clinical ward rounds – mostly in the ICU – to assess patients and medication they were using.

The hospital told her that, in this new position, she had to adhere to their “bare below the elbow” policy as prescribed by the health authorities.

The hospital said it employed people of diverse religious backgrounds, respected their beliefs and tried to accommodate them as far as possible.

However, it could not compromise clinical sterility when it came to the safety of the patients.

According to the hospital, it allowed its health workers to wear their Islamic attire outside of the wards, but when they worked with sick patients, the rules remained in place.

When Ismail became part of the multi-disciplinary health team, she knew what the rules regarding infection prevention were, the arbitration commission was told. These rules did not pertain only to this hospital, but to the entire hospital group.

When Ismail was promoted last year, she signed an agreement that she would adhere to the “bare below the elbow” policy, and did not dispute that it was necessary. She, however, proposed alternatives such as disposable sleeves, not accepted by the hospital.

Ismail said the difficulty she found herself in was that while she dearly wanted to perform her new duties, she was bound by her religion which strictly forbade bare forearms in public.

In the end, she was sent back to perform her duties in the pharmacy, although her salary was not downscaled.

In challenging the policy which did not cater for alternatives, Ismail said she perceived the fact that she now had to do her old job as a demotion.

Ismail conceded there was another Muslim woman who worked alongside her, who did adhere to the hospital’s policy, but she said that health worker was “more liberal” than herself.

Grobler said there were more than 400 workers nationally of the Muslim faith working for the hospital group and if an exception was made for Ismail, it had to be made for everyone.

She said the policy Ismail declared discriminated against her was justified in this instance.