RN1263 4,560 Views
Joined Mar 19, '03.
Posts: 487 (13% Liked)
I read about a proposal (by physician groups) to add a 40% increase for all salty foods to reduce hypertension world wide.
Seriously? I eat super healthy 90% of the time and exercise over 5 hours a week and now the 2 times A year I buy chips I am going to pay 40% more?
Inch by inch, step by step, all of this is getting so carried away. I believe I have the right to make my own good or bad decisions. No, it is not ok to drive drunk and harm others of course, but just because I might some day cost someone somewhere money because I have hypertension that may or may be sodium moderated?
All these previous intrusions that have been allowed into what we do in our own non-working time have laid down the foundation for more and more of this.
If anybody wants to "look" at me or anyone else and use looks alone as a basis for making them their role model, they are an idiot. You should role model who people ARE, not what they look like. Helen Keller wasn't beautiful, but she turned darkness and silence into light and language. Eleanor Roosevelt was ugly as sin, but did more to advance the rights of minorities and women than any First Lady before or since. Mother Teresa was small, scrawny and wrinkled, but did more good in one day than I could hope to do in my whole life. If I'd had a daughter, I'd rather she came out like one of them, than a shallow idiot who bases their life on their looks.
I have no desire to stand before God at the end of my life and when he says, "what good did you do with the life I gave you?" all I can say is, "I was thin and a snappy dresser."
I think it's such a touchy subject because there has always been an accepted fat discrimination. When a child is fat, he/she is teased in school and by his/her family etc.. all through life fat people are looked at as frumpy, lazy, dirty, pigs, etc. It's "OK" to call someone "fat pig" etc.
I believe that's where the passion comes from. And now to hear that fat people won't be permitted to work as well d/t their weight, DESPITE being a very good nurse and as competent as the next person, they are not judged by their individuality - but by their appearance. That's a GENERALIZATION! And we shouldn't generalize a population. Think of those nasty stereotypes.. I won't mention them out of respect.. but they're rampant, and they shouldn't be. Many MANY people do not represent that stereotype.
SO.. now is it going to be.. "You're so fat you can't even GET A JOB!!!" ha ha ha... ???
I can see the health issues long term.. but the cruelty doesn't help, it hinders!
Call it whatever you want.. it still boils down to D I S C R I M I N A T I O N ! ! !
I'm so glad I don't have to work with you 8mpg since in your opinion I'm lazier than you and can't work as a nurse because I too slow and can't physically do the job. What a load of malarky. Since you think insults are the best way to get your point across, point taken.
It's not logic, it's discrimination plain and simple whether you care to see it or not. You show a lot about your true self in your attitude towards your perceptions of your overweight coworkers and patients.
Personally, I think this thread had run its course. It's sad that fellow nurses are "fine" with discrimination of any kind. It doesn't matter if the hospital can hire whomever they want, wrong is wrong. I guess the next thing will be to let go any of their employees over 50 because "the customer expects a certain look". And guess what, they can do it without crossing into age discrimination.
I am empathetic to everyone who struggles with weight. I do support the right of employers to make prudent decisions about whom they hire, and that includes excluding candidates statistically likely to miss more days of work and add to the health insurance burden. I do not support the current structure of insurance and for profit health care, but it is what it is, and so long as we are trying to operate within this framework tough and unpopular decisions will have to be made.
While we're at it, I think employers should start screening for caffeine use. Nurses that use any mind altering substance are just hypocrites when they talk to their patients about healthy lifestyles. Caffeine increases GER, causes hypertension, and leads to headaches, amongst many other things. And let's not forget the irritability that caffeine withdrawal causes. We'd probably cure all the lateral violence and customer service problems if we just stopped allowing nurses to have caffeine.
I am empathetic to everyone who struggles with weight. I do support the right of employers to make prudent decisions about whom they hire, and that includes excluding candidates statistically likely to miss more days of work and add to the health insurance burden.
"Sane" and "insane" are legal concepts, not medical/psychiatric concepts, and I don't think the issue has anything to do with "contempt." The standard for being found "sane" and competent to stand trial is quite low. "Just" being seriously mentally ill is not, by itself, sufficient (and, indeed, the vast majority of the mentally ill, even the seriously mentally ill, never intentionally hurt anyone else or break the law in any significant, dramatic way). Lots of people are "bat **** crazy" without meeting the legal standard for being "insane." This is why defense attorneys never use an insanity defense unless they truly have absolutely no other option; and, even then, it's successful in only a small minority of cases.
"Consider the Jeffrey Dahmer case. Dahmer was arrested in Milwaukee in 1991 after he had killed at least 13 victims. His apartment contained the remains of many young men who he had brutally murdered and dissected. He poured acid on his victims, cut them into pieces and preserved their heads and genitals. He treated, preserved and decorated the skulls of his victims. His crimes are a litany of perversion and torture that is rare even for sexually motivated serial killers. In court, his attorneys attempted to plead Dahmer not guilty by reason of insanity. But prosecutors were able to prove that Dahmer knew full well that killing was against the law and what he was doing was wrong. The insanity plea was not accepted in his case. If someone like Dahmer could not be categorized as legally insane, then it stands up to reason that the criteria for insanity must surely be a difficult standard to meet.
This is the reality of the insanity defense in America: difficult to plead, seldom used and almost never successful. But in that small number of cases where it is successful, it is sometimes manipulated or abused in a way that often grabs headlines and captures the imagination of the public. Ultimately, only a jury can decide the issue of insanity, which in itself may be the most controversial aspect about the insanity defense. In other words, people who have no training in the field, rarely come into contact with the mentally ill and have a minimal understanding of the issues involved, make legal, long-lasting judgments that are frequently based on shifting criteria."
All about the insanity defense by Mark Gado Crime Library on truTV.com
I, personally, am glad that it's not easier than it is to be successful with an NGRI defense in court. This is one of those "slippery slope" kind of things, IMO.
85% pass the first time that they take the exam.
So that means that 15% will need to take it again.
The number of questions that you get has no bearing on telling you if you passed or did not pass. I get quite a few e-mails and pms from those that did not pass with 75, as well as those that passed with 265. The number is just that, a number. Too much focus is placed on that, and too many ulcers are created.
It means you really really passed, or you really really failed. I think the test is designed to give you more leeway if you aren't doing well; to give you an opportunity to work off your test anxiety, etc.
So I think that it is MORE likely to give you more questions if you aren't doing well and LESS likely to if you prove yourself.
Most people that stop at 75 pass is my understanding.
I'm just glad I took the paper test.
I have been doing home health now for 6 months and I love it. YEs, when I had 18 patients the case management felt overwhelming but I have a good support system, and my learning curve has been long as far as Medicare regulations go but the one thing I know is that the harder I work, the more I get paid. Unlike in the hospital when the harder I work-hey thats just great, I kept them alive 'til 645. Its a matter of figuring out how to work smarter, not just harder.
And yes I am one of those with a problem with authority and constant oversight. Thats what drew me to Home Health.
I think many home care nurses quit because they don't understand the nature of home care. They think that it will be an easy job and no one is looking over their shoulders. I think that home care draws a lot of "loner" -type nurses who balk at authority and don't always have the personality to maintain relationships. When they discover that home care is heavily regulated and relies on massive volumes of documentation and that they are required to meet a certain productivity standard, they move on to another agency where they think it might be easier or they stay PRN to avoid requirements. I've seen quite a few hired without so much as a reference check. As long as they have a warm body, a license, and pass the background screen, they're in.
I also think that many agencies don't treat field staff well. They do not get a thorough orientation and are often surprised by standards they weren't told they had to meet. I think many agencies have unrealistic expectations of what field staff can do in a day. I have seen managers in the office get upset that clinicians are home by 3 while the manager is stuck in the office until 5 (or later), only to forget those days of doing paperwork and returning calls after hours. I have also had managers with the attitude of "I own you until 5 pm" but the reality of it is that there are really no set hours for home care. Some days may finish at 3, some may finish at 7, but it all evens out in the wash.
And hospitals often do a poor job of discharge planning with the attitude that "home care will take care of it." Discharge planners without experience with home care give patients unreasonable expectations of what homecare can/will do which disappoints the patients. Patients and families also have the idea that Medicare will cover everything they need, only to find that there are huge gaps in the coverage.
There is no one reason that nurses leave home care. Those that understand the nature of the beast and love it do well. Those who don't understand it and want it to flex around them will be perpetually disappointed. If you want regular hours with a job that doesn't follow you home, home care is not for you.
Advertise With Us