Being described as "purgers" does not reflect well on the profession.
It seems to me also that this case raises an issue that chaplains face in any setting -- whose interests do we represent? Do we represent the interests of the staff members we see and work with every day? Or, do we represent the interests of the patients (whom we may only see once)? It's easy to say we want to do both, but what happens when these interests are in conflict? And if we do choose to represent the interest of officials (over patients or prisonsers) does that mean we lose the credibility we need in order to get folks to trust us enough to let us into their lives to minister to them?
I first wrote about this in July here.
clipped from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print