ANA officially states strikes are unethical and approves use of replacement nurses - page 2
We all know that a code of ethics is not subject to a personal interpretation by an individual or an individual group. Nor can you pick and choose which code you follow and do not under different... Read More
Dec 9, '01Why stop reading the Code of Ethics at #2, why not continue down to #6?
6. The nurse participates in establishing, maintaining, and improving healthcare environments and conditions of employment conducive to the provision of quality health care and consistent with the values of the profession through individual and collective action.
This statement in the ANA Code of Ethics might also be of interest:
9. The profession of nursing, as represented by associations and their members, is responsible for articulating nursing values, for maintaining the integrity of the profession and its practice, and for shaping social policy.
Dec 9, '01Jt, again there is no personal interpretation here.
The language and wording used in the ANA's "Codes of Ethics" is clear and precise so that everyone who reads it will understand it. There are no exceptions to these codes elaborated or referred. Even the code that talks about unions does not authorize a strike action or walk out. It only discusses collective bargaining and that in it's self has nothing to do with a strike or walk out.
This is intended to prevent someone saying as you have, "I know that what the nurse members of the ANA intended when they wrote it."
You can not write a "Code of Ethics" for everyone to follow with the notion that they will understand the intention behind it. That is ridiculous.
When you write something as important as this, you do the best job you can at making it very clear and not subject to misinterpretations. Codes of Conduct as well as other rules are based on ethical codes.
So if you do not have to follow the "Code of Ethics" as it is written, because as you say, you know it's true intention and it is not in agreement with what is actually written, then why should anyone else?
Then the whole "Code of Ethics" is worthless and does not apply to anyone.
Has the president of the ANA urged nurses to strike since this "Code of Ethics" was adopted? The past is irrelevant prior to the adoption of these codes. If she has, then she is violating the "Code of Ethics" as they are written. Maybe like you she knows what "was intended to be written". This would really make these ethical codes meaningless. There is a big difference between intending and actually writing and adopting.
I intended to make a million dollars today. I intended to go Christmas shopping today. I intended to mow the lawn today. I did none of those. All I have to show for the day is what I actually did.
Actually JT, I think you have learn how to use the art of double talk pretty well and that seems to go a long ways in the ANA just like the other topics I posted discusses and referenced here discuss.
Dec 9, '01How on earth can there be no interpretation of such broad statements?! I don't see anymore validity in your interpretation (a narrow one) and another interpretation or how you would know how these ethics were intended to be read. Of course there is personal interpretation. Doing what is in the best interest of patients and health care can mean striking.
Minimum staffing means that people who are truly in immediate need do get treatment. Those who are not in immediate need are only inconvinienced and I don't consider convinience to be a patient's right or my ethical duty. Here, we have never been and never will be replaced by scabs because union membership is required of ALL RNs in the province.
Dec 9, '01WashYaHands, actually a collective action can take many forms other than a strike or walkout.
It can be collective bargaining, protesting, a rally for political purposes, a petition, a mass meeting with administration, etc.
The language used in the first code sets the groundwork for what is ethical and what is not.
Remember it states "primary Commitment" not secondary or another ambiguous term. "Primary" means "most important" or "first".
Are you suggesting that the first code is meaningless when dealing with the others? Then just what kind of ethical code would that be?
Dec 9, '01I am so glad I am from California and belong to CNA. My hospital is in the middle of neogiating a first contract. It hasn't been easy and no one wants to strike, but I can see the writting on the wall and that is the way it could be. You bet I will walk out for the one day strike knowing the hospital will lock us out for another 4 days. But I am willing to do that with the majority of the nursing staff because we are working hard at making our hosptial a safe and fair working place where nurses are valued. Glad I don't belong to ANA and all their junk, that's why California broke off from them. Sounds like their code of ethics goes against what nurses are fighting for, a voice, to be treated like professionals, to be valued for their opinions, their experience and importance in the life of their patients. In condeming strikes, how does ANA want nurses to achieve their goals? Sometimes collective bargaining alone doesn't work. 6 new CNA hospitals in CAl, have settle contracts in 6 months with no fight, no union busting groups and no harrassment, my hospital wasn't so lucky we had it all. We have been neogitating for over a year, we just want to get our contract and move on to recruiting and retaining nurses. So yes we will strike and won't for one minute feel we are unethical.
Dec 9, '01fergus51, are you saying that these codes are so braod that individuals can interpret them to mean many things? Even though they are written in precise language with one building into the next one?
Are you saying as JT has, that the words that were used are different from the people who wrote these were actually intending to write? So that someone who read these codes and was not there when they were actually written, would have to use their powers of ESP and disregard the actual words and their meanings to understand them?
Dec 9, '01<The nurse participates in establishing, maintaining, and improving healthcare environments and conditions of employment conducive to the provision of quality health care and consistent with the values of the profession through individual and collective action.>
Collective action - as in STRIKE when need be, in order to maintain, & improve healthcare environments and conditions of employment. You see, W. Its right there down the list a bit further. Theres more too. Spin it however you want but the ANA & the ANA's National Code of Nurse Ethics, written by the nurse members of the ANA, support nurses striking as the ETHICAL thing to do.
<<the president or the ANA went to jail for actively joining and participating in a strike, does that mean that she was acting unethically and against the ANA code? To answer this you first have to remember that this code was only recently adopted. So the answer would be no. If she did this today or in anyway encouraged a strike or walkout, then yes she would be acting unethically and directly against the established ANAs Code of ethics. >>
No it does not mean that - no matter when the Code was put into effect. Your perception is that nurses strikes are unethical because the nurses "abandoned" the pts. Since this is not true, a nurses strike is not unethical nor is any nurse participating in it acting unethically. The Code supports nurses strikes as collective action. No where in the Code of Ethics does it suggest that a nurse particpating in a strike would be acting unethically. This is just your own personal opinion. Its just YOU who is saying the striking nurse would be acting against the Code. The Code itself doesnt suggest any such thing at all.
<< According to the Code of Ethic, it is not unethical to be a member of and/or use collective bargaining. It only becomes unethical when nurses strike or otherwise walk out and forsake their primary commitment.>>
You are correct only in the first sentence. But the rest is not "according to the code". It is just according to YOU. It is your own opinion, based on your biases & how you perceive strikes. It is not the opinion of the ANA or the nurses who developed that Code. When you write "according to the code... it becomes unethical when nurses strike", you infer that this is written in the Code. It is not. The Code supports collective action & that includes strikes. No where does the Code suggest that a strike or a striking nurse is unethical. YOU do. Because you believe that pts are abandoned. But the nurses who wrote that code understand that no pt is abandoned in a strike, therefore the code supports strikes and all other collective actions. I would appreciate it if you phrased your comments without trying to intentionally distort everything & misrepresent the facts.
<<I am sure that these codes were well thought out and discussed by many in the ANA before they were adopted by the organization as a whole. To go back now and change them would be a little shady, to say the least.>>
They were very well thought out & if you wanted to have any debate on it or input to it, you could have been there for it. You choose not to. But for those who were there, the Code is exactly as they wanted. Those nurses can be very proud of their work in developing it. It meets the goals & needs. The Code of Ethics was the basis for the defense of 6 nurses in New Mexico recently & it held up in the court of law to win their case for them. Where did you ever get the idea that anyone wants to change it? Theres nothing wrong with it! As noted, its just recently been put into effect & it has already proven to be a very strong document. It is not being changed.
<So in actuality, these nurse's are walking out and abandoning their "primary commitment" without knowing if there is anyone to cover the patients they are leaving behind or the community at large.>
Ohhhhhh pullleeeaassee. Same old argument? Someone hasnt been paying attention! Hundreds of thousands of unionized nurses view this very differently from your opinion. No pt is "abandoned" when nurses go on strike. How many times has this been explained here? Do a search for the answer - or just read Fergus & Hoolahan again.
<<Are you saying as JT has, that the words that were used are different from the people who wrote these were actually intending to write?>>
That is not what Im saying. What Im saying is that the intent (& the words) of the Code of Ethics is not what you have twisted them into. Im saying that the Code of Ethics is one thing & your opinion of what it is is something else. Im saying that in order to further your campaign against the ANA, you have grasped at straws to finagle the Code to fit your plan, to once again make false accusations, confuse people, & spread inaccurate info.
The Code says a nurse has a committment to maintain the health and safety of her pts. That means she is obligated to do all she can to make sure of the pts health & safety. Even if that takes a strike to make it happen, she is still following the Code of Ethics which demands that she do all she can to ensure the pts safety. That is what it means. In black & white. When it supports "collective action", it is supporting all collective actions - including strikes. You just dont want to believe that strikes are right or many times the only thing left to do other than keeping the status quo of short staffing and mandatory ot (which would knowingly allow the pts safety to be at risk & that would be unethical). So you continue with your ill-found "logic" to twist the meanings.
As the Code is written, with the words as well as the intent, collective action is promoted. Therefore, when all other collective action fails, and a strike is needed to ensure the pts safety at that facility - be it with recruiting & retaining incentives for more staff or abolishing mandatory ot or whatever is needed to keep the pts safe - then striking is the ethical thing to do. You mistakenly insist that in a strike, the pts are "abandoned" & not kept safe so it is not ethical. To allow the unsafe situation of short staffing & mandatory ot to persist would be unethical. Your logic & interpretation, based on your own personal opinion, is inaccurate because the fact is that no pts are abandoned in a strike.
<<According to the ANA's recently adopted "Code of Ethics" put into place for all nurses within the profession to follow,
there is nothing left to debate. >>
Well, at least you got that part right.
Next topic?Last edit by -jt on Dec 10, '01
Dec 9, '01<Glad I don't belong to ANA and all their junk, that's why California broke off from them. Sounds like their code of ethics goes against what nurses are fighting for,..Sounds like their code of ethics goes against what nurses are fighting for, a voice, to be treated like professionals, to be valued for their opinions, their experience and importance in the life of their patients. In condeming strikes, how does ANA want nurses to achieve their goals? ......>
#1 I'm glad you are part of the CNA too. They have done some excellent work for nurses there. I was privileged to be invited by them twice to participate in their unionizing conferences along with other members of the ANA over the past 2 yrs, most recently last September. Good luck with your first contract. As for the ANA, I am glad I am a part of that organization.
#2 You just fell for the whole purpose of this thread's existence: to start rumor, spread lies, & gear people up against the ANA. You were purposefully led to mistakenly believe that the ANA has condemned strikes. This is not true. This never happened. This is in Wildtimes imagination as he spends his time picking apart the ANAs words, twisting them to fit his own agenda, putting his own spin on them, reading things into them that arent there, & just sitting around thinking of ways to tear it all up.
The headline of this thread is a blatant lie. And everything in his posts is the result of his own twisted logic. The ANA strongly supports organizing, unionizing, & collective action & that includes strikes.
I swear W, you are looking more & more like troll everyday. Congratulations. You got people thinking your biased opinion is actual fact.
Dec 9, '01I tell you what jt, sit down and rewrite all the codes by changing words and the meanings to convey what was intended to be written.
Start from the very first because we all know, at least most of do, that each code is just as important as the next when it comes to a code of ethics. Most of us know you can not violate one code of ethics to satisfy another. That in it's self would be unethical And any person who did it would be unethical in doing so.
So go for it. You rewrite the ANA's "Code of Ethics" for all the nurses in country to follow. Why not there is not much difference between 1 person wrighting the code as the is less than 8% of he nurses adopting it and saying everyone has to follow it. You seem to have no problems as a member of the ANA disregarding an ethical standard here or there to do what you want.
Dec 10, '01No jt, I am not loosing my edge. I am just tired of messing with you.
Everyone can read the code for him or herself and determine them for their selves.
You gave very little logic in your argument and when it all boiled down to it you stated you are not going to follow these codes either as they are written. You disagree with them and you basically denounce them as a member of the ANA.
Remember with codes of ethics, if you denounce one, then it is no different then denouncing them all.
I disagree with a few of them, but then I am not actually bound by these rules/codes and when it all said and done, the only thing they can actually do to you for denouncing them is to take away your membership. We both know that will never happen.
What was really interesting in this tread was all the people who were fighting to say that they were following the ANA's code of ethics and coming up with this or that. When all they actually had to say was, who cares?
93% of the U.S. say this all the time by not supporting the ANA and that is the reality.
That leaves 93% of the nurses in the U.S. looking for leadership that they will actively stand behind and support.
The person with the CNA summed it all too well, but he/she is lucky enough to have a good leadership in place and their number of members and active member ship reflects that. Their percentage when compared to the area they represent far out numbers anything the ANA has ever accomplished.
For the rest of us in all but a few states, it is either the ANA or nothing. The majority of the nurses choose nothing. This is not my interpretation, this is the fact.
If the leadership of the ANA also interprets the code of ethics as you do, then there is no legitimate reason or fact for not rallying all nurses, both non-union and union alike, in the same tactics as they condone in the in the UAN? There is also no legitimate excuse for the separation or exclusion of one entity from the other from a national organization who claims to represent all nurses equally.
So now here we go back full circle again and I am sure the double talk will also start back up.
Remember there are nurses out there who do not belong to unions and who might not ever or can not convince enough nurses to form one. They are looking for leadership who will not exclude them by putting them into categories of union or non-union as far what tactic and how much they will be offered when it comes to leadership.
The ANA can not continue to do this and expect for nurses to honor their codes or anything else they happen to come up with. 93% are already saying, "so what, who cares". They have seen and continue to see where they actually stand. They stand for the most part alone, at least where it counts. All the safe needle and ergonomic legislation in the world will make a very small dent in how they feel. All of the nurses I know are very smart and safe when it comes to handling sharp objects.
I do now that this recruitment legislation will be felt if it passes before the problems are actually resolved. There will be a whole lot of hopes for a true change that will go up in smoke. This is the reality of the legislation being urged on by the ANA before the problems are actually resolved. This will provide the worst employers with new nurses because this is where the nursing shortages are the worse. This is where nurses have left in protest and refuse to go back. Of course, this is all based on logic.
Here is a simple logic problem for you. If you are out in a boat and spring a big leak and you can't get back to shore. What do you do first, bail out the water that is rushing in or repair the leak?
Here is another one. If you are in a war and you want to get from point A to point B but there is an enemy machine gun in the middle that is wounding every person you gets near it. What do you do, continue to send more people or focus on wiping out the machine gun. The other choice would be to continue to send more people with hopes of wiping out the machine gun one day. This last choice is the action that is being taken by the ANA.
Dec 10, '01<. I am just tired of messing with you. >
because you cant!
<you stated you are not going to follow these codes either as they are written. You disagree with them and you basically denounce them as a member of the ANA.>
hmmmm.... hallucinating again?
Whenever you cant beat me in arguing facts, you resort to writing that I stated something which I never did.
<That leaves 93% of the nurses in the U.S. looking for leadership>
You keep saying that. Maybe someday youll get up & do something about it: Organize those nurses with the group you think is best for them or be the leader yourself. Do something worthwhile & constructive to improve your situation if you dont think others are adequate enough, instead of wasting all your time & energy trashing everything they do. You know what you dont like, so why not set up something that you would like?
Too hard for you?
Or is this all about sour grapes because so many nurses are doing lots of things out there & making a difference & you are doing.........what?
I dont know why you persist in harping on just one piece of the legislation that the ANA has put forth to solve the shortage of nurses willing to work at the bedside. Yes, there is a recruitment bill being reviewed by Congress. There is also a retention bill, a safe staffing bill that encompasses abolishing mandatory OT and several other bills that were put forth at the same time as the recruitment bill. Its a whole campaign to reverse the crisis. Its not just recruitment. You keep ignoring the others but they are being fought for just as hard as the recruitment bill. And from reading the nurse testimonies before Congress, the news articles, and texts of interviews, you know the ANA has repeatedly said with all of these bills that recruitment will not work without first fixing working conditions & compensation. (in fact, you are echoing the ANA's own position). I think you conveniently refuse to recognize any of these because then you will have nothing to argue about.
Like I said before, if you wanted to have any input to or debate on developing the National Code of Nurse Ethics, or the National Nurses Bill of Rights, or any of the legislations that will affect us all, you could have been in there for it.
You choose not to.
Every nurse in this country had the opportunity to have a hand in developing these guides and bills. If 92% of the nurses, for whatever their own reasons are, chose to leave themselves out of the decision-making that guides their profession, you really cant blame the 8% of the nurses who chose to be part of the process.
If some nurses refuse to have anything to do with making the decisions, they really cant complain about the decisions that the nurses who were there made.
No matter what you feel about it, the ANA is recognized by the media, the government, & internationally as the authority on the nursing profession in this country & that is not going to change. You can continue to have your temper tantrums far outside of the loop or you can get in there & make it what you think it should be.
Or you can go with another less recognized organization or start up your own & make that what you think it should be. You have options.
Stop complaining about nurses who are trying to do something to fix things & do something yourself.
To quote you once again:
"There is nothing left to debate".Last edit by -jt on Dec 11, '01