[Dixen81]

If you're not a criminal and have nothing to hide, then why should you be opposed to fingerprinting? If it helps to keep the bad apples out of health care, then I'm all for it.

[ERKev]

I believe Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up a single right for security deserve neither."

Background checks are fine. Fingerprinting, too? Where will it stop....

ERKev

[LeesieBug]

I think it is QUITE logical. I had to get fingerprinted when I worked in a BANK, so why would I not expect to get fingerprinted when working in a job where HUMAN LIVES are in my hands?

I know I wouldn't want my loved ones alone at midnight on a hospital floor with people who had not been checked out. It's not foolproof, but at least it helps!

In Ohio now, we now have to be fingerprinted when we start school, before we can do clinicals. I think it's a good idea.

By the way, I screwed up and hit yes for my vote, so that thing is off by one!

[EricTAMUCC-BSN]

______

[Monica RN,BSN]

Yes, you are right in regards to the Board of nurses, but that is only on initial licensure.. fingerprints and background are done before you can take boards..

But after that, the board does not know if a person has been arrested unless the person convicted notifies the board of nursing. Or unless it is a violation involving misconduct of theft or drugs, in which an employer has reported them to the board of nursing. There are many people out there working as nurses with a criminal record, and the board does not know it becasue it happened AFTER they were licensed. The employers have a right to protect the community, and fellow staff to check out a person before hiring them, since there is bound to be anything on an arrest record.

I have seen it all from grand larceny, to arson, to DUI, to prostitution... and on and on... and these are nurses with a valid nurses license to practice!! So , I do not agree that fingerprinting is a violation of a persons rights. If the person is offended by the idea of being printed, GO FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO WORK!!

[donmurray]

"But after that, the board does not know if a person has been arrested unless the person convicted notifies the board of nursing."
If I have been arrested, I may be innocent. Once I am convicted, then it is the Board's business.
I suppose it's easier because the UK is smaller, but an obvious loophole easily closed is for the courts to report all felony convictions of nurses to the BON automatically, as they do here.

Speaking of innocence until proved guilty, taking my fingerprints presumes that at some future time, I am going to be guilty of something, infringing my right to be assumed innocent.

[renerian]

I have been printed in Ohio for years. I have some people do credit checks and such.

renerian

[EricTAMUCC-BSN]

_____

[EricTAMUCC-BSN]

_____

[Monica RN,BSN]

Eric

I have been in administration along time, but would never forget about the humanistic side of compassion and caring. But it is a fact that the nursing board can not track all the violators of the law. At least in Florida this is so... If a person is convicted of a crime, the board may never know unless the person arrested reports it, (as they are SUPPOSED to do) but how many do you think really do?? Probably not as many as there have been arrested.( Employers may report them)

Facilities that do drug screening and background checks are probably less likely to have problem employees from the beginning, making it safer to work there, and/or be a patient in that facility.. ( Just makes sense to me)
Better than a place where one could say.... "Hey, I have been arrested I can go work at facility X, they hire felons, no prints needed there!!" ( Great Place to work I bet!!! )

I think that fingerprinting is one more safety net to protect staff and clients from needless nonsense exposure to people who many have a colorful past, or are a potential threat in our working environment. I believe it is far better to know up front, than down the road when some one is sexually assaulted, drugs stolen, or who knows what could happen... Just hope you are not a victim to needless harm, all because it would violate rights? Whose rights would be violated THEN??

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I give you credit for that... But you should look at the other side of this debate as well.

Thanks for letting me share My opinion!