Will Texas Nurse Whistle-blower Case Have Dangerous Ripple Effect?

KERMIT, Tex. — It occurred to Anne Mitchell as she was writing the letter that she might lose her job, which is why she chose not to sign it. But it was beyond her conception that she would be indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor at her rural hospital was practicing bad medicine.

That’s from an article in today’s New York Times about a Texas nurse who’s being prosecuted for blowing the whistle on what she asserts were inappropriate medical practices by a doctor she worked with. We’ve posted on this as the case has developed and also written about it in the journal. Ultimately, the judgment is up to the court. But the concern we’ve expressed and which others have also voiced is that this will have the effect of silencing others who should be speaking out. In the process it may well reinforce old nurse–physician dynamics that profit no one. What do you think?

UPDATE: She was acquitted today (February 11)!Bookmark and Share

2010-02-11T17:35:19-05:00February 7th, 2010|nursing perspective|5 Comments
Read More

From Flu Vaccine to Abortion Rights: The Same Argument?

By Shawn Kennedy, MA, RN, AJN interim editor-in-chief

bv alvi2407/via flickr

There’ve been articles, blog posts, a court ruling in New York State halting mandatory H1N1 vaccinations for health care workers, and last week a suspension of the mandatory vaccinations by Governor Paterson (who explained the decision in terms of the vaccine shortage). Earlier this month, we ran a poll on this site related to whether or not nurses and other health care workers who work as direct caregivers should be mandated to receive the flu vaccine.  In reading the poll results, I notice that many of the arguments against mandatory vaccination focus on the right to decide about one’s own body—a powerful argument, indeed.

It did make me wonder: do those who stand by this reason for not getting an H1N1 vaccination shot (or nasal mist) recognize that this argument—that one has a right to determine what happens to one’s body—is the same argument used by women who want to choose whether to have a baby or not? At the very least there’s an interesting parallel, even if some people I’ve pointed this out to don’t seem to agree. I’d like to know if others feel there is a difference—and if so, what?

Bookmark and Share

2016-11-21T13:21:29-05:00October 26th, 2009|Nursing|6 Comments
Read More

Genomics, Technology, and Nursing: A “Focus on the Whole Person”

UK National DNA Infographic/ by blprnt_van, via Flickr Creative Commons

By Diana J. Mason, PhD, RN, editor-in-chief emeritus. Mason often writes for this blog about policy and research issues.

Last week, I attended the annual conference of CANS, the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science, the “research-facilitation arm” of the American Academy of Nursing. The title of the conference was “Technology, Genetics and Beyond: Research Methodologies of the Future.” 

‘Genomics’ vs. ‘genetics.’ I’m not a genomics researcher but I found the sessions enlightening in two ways. First, I admit to struggling with the terminology (and jargon) of the field. I was reminded today that the correct term for the field is “genomics,” since “genetics” refers to the study of single genes and thus limits the focus of study mostly to rare diseases.  Genomics looks at associations among genes in the whole person—a shift in perspective that was enabled by the mapping of the human genome.

Targeted interventions. The second enlightenment came from keynote speaker and senior nurse researcher Christine Miaskowski, a dean and a professor of physiological nursing at the University of California at San Francisco School of Nursing. She noted that this shift to a focus on the whole person is what makes nurses and nursing research essential […]

2016-11-21T13:21:36-05:00October 21st, 2009|nursing perspective, nursing research|0 Comments
Read More

Nurses Express Safety Concerns About H1N1 Vaccine

By Jacob Molyneux, blog editor

Nurse blogger Not Nurse Ratched has written a post on her decision not to get the H1N1 vaccine shot until she is more convinced of its safety.

I’m just urging caution against the knee-jerk fear reaction that is, no doubt, going to make hordes of people swarm out to clamor for this vaccine. I’ll be watching for more data on it and might modify my decision, but for now I’m going to just say no.

Judging from responses to a recent post we ran on the topic (“cancel my subscription” appeared more than once), the loudest clamor may be from those who are driven by fear of the vaccine rather than fear of the H1N1 virus. In the post in question, Doug Olsen, a nurse ethicist, examined the ethical side of the question of whether or not nurses should get vaccinated. 

(Whether or not you agree with Olsen’s guarded conclusion in favor of vaccination, his post demonstrated how a professional ethicist uses a set of concepts as tools—not to come up with a definitive answer that can be called “right” or “wrong” but instead to examine the moral dimensions of a decision. We hope that some of the concepts he used will be seen as tools to help nurses make their own informed decisions.) 

By way of update, here’s an addendum we received from Olsen that addresses some of the concerns about vaccine safety expressed in the various comments:

Any obligation of nurses to protect the patient by getting flu vaccine depends on trust in the science and in the system […]

2016-11-21T13:22:41-05:00September 9th, 2009|Ethics, nursing perspective|10 Comments
Read More

Comment ground rules

1. Please be respectful.
2. We moderate all comments.

Content disclaimer

Views expressed on the blog are solely those of the authors or persons quoted. They do not necessarily reflect AJN’s views or those of Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Go to Top