megjrn 1,561 Views
Joined Nov 4, '03.
Posts: 31 (42% Liked)
Oops...ELIGIBLE, not elligible.
Elkpark--Yes, I agree it is pretty snarky. It's a shame these students have to spend all that money and go through all the stress of a nursing program only to find out at some point that they may not be elligible to sit for the boards. Yes, it would be wise to check the elligibilty requirements for licensure prior to enrolling in a program, but as you implied, who would think of that? I don't think I ever thought about it until my senior year when the Dean of Nursing had us fill out our paperwork to sit for the boards after graduation--you know, back in the Stone Age when everyone in the state had to go to the same place and sit for the exams for two whole days!! And use a #2 pencil to mark your answers...
Actually, the Florida lawmakers ARE using evidenced based statistics upon which they passed this law. It's called the recidivism rate. Florida very well knows that most offenders re-offend within ten years post-conviction. The jails and prisons here in Florida are full of multiple-offenders. They figure if you can go 15 years without re-offending, you've probably learned your lesson and are not a true criminal. Drug-related convictions have an especially high recidivism rate because of relapse potential. What I find interesting is that the colleges aren't stopping nursing school applicants with criminal histories and explaining to them up front that upon graduating they must be 15 years post-conviction in order to sit for the boards. When I went to college 300 years ago, the college application AND the School of Nursing acceptance application asked if you had a criminal conviction. Maybe they don't ask that now?
Lying on the licensing application? That really shows integrity.
The title of this thread is, "Change to License Requirement".
I'm not self-righteous--I'm just not a convicted felon and therefore never had to worry about getting my nursing license or getting a nursing job. And my patients don't have to worry that I've had run-ins with the law. You can try to put it back on me as being self-righteous, or whatever, but I'm not the one with the questionable background who has something to hide. We all know right from wrong. If you broke the law, you did it knowing it was wrong. Breaking the law is not an accident. It is Intentional. You set out to do what you did, you did it, and hoped you wouldn't caught. I've worked as a prison nurse and jail nurse for years and I've heard all the ying-yang and pity-party stories about how having a record has ruined a person's chance to do so many things they wanted to do. Duh. Rarely do I hear any inmate say they caused all their own problems by commiting the crimes that made them criminals. It's always the fault of "the system", or "the way the law is written", or something else other than themselves. I do believe there are people who make mistakes they regret and would never make those same mistakes again. But, part of learning from a mistake is accepting the consequences of the mistake. Sometimes the consequence is that you will not be able to do something you want to do. Nursing is a profession of trust. You enter into a trusting relationship with your patient and your employer. The law in Florida is intended to make you show you are trustworthy enough to be a nurse. If you behave for 15 years post-conviction, you have earned the trust of the state of Florida to become a licensed nurse. At least that is the amount of time Florida feels it needs, and it is what it is. I still don't think convicted felons should be allowed to practice nursing. I just don't think the patients would like it if they knew. And I don't think things should be hidden from people whose lives are in your hands. So, if you're going to be mad about the situation, don't be mad at the legislature, be mad at yourself for commiting a crime that put you in the situation. Accept the limitations your actions caused you and let it be the motivation that keeps you from doing it again.
I do not think there is anything unfair about this law. Nurses carry a huge responsibilty legally, ethically, and morally. In my opinion, certain professions, nursing being one of them, should not allow convicted felons to hold licenses at all. I understand people can make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. However, being convicted of a felony is not the same as, say, getting a traffic ticket. A felony is a serious offense. It is an offense which is usually commited without thought to consequences. Not being able to practice as a licensed nurse is one of those consequences. I don't think the BoN or the legislature is the problem here. If people behaved themselves they wouldn't have to worry about this stuff, now would they? Two years ago, Josh posted about his situation. I'm curious as to how a broken healthcare system caused him to be caught with xanax for which he had no Rx? If he didn't have a script for it, he should not have had it. Plain and simple. Sounds like he's rationalizing there. There are other felonies besides drug-related ones, I know. Doesn't matter. It is a question of character and responsibility. Nursing is a profession which requires unquestionable character and absolute responsibilty. There are no excuses or rationalizations in this profession.
The nurse that OP speaks of may have an undiagnosed learning disability.
So...is 2ndwind not allowed to have an opinion?
depends if they came in that way or acquired it AT work......the first is a slam dunk, go home docked a days pay and dont do it again....the other, well what are they supposed to do? it isnt like a hosp, where you can borrow scrubs......if this is yourself that ran into this issue, i would keep an extra outfit at work or in my car....to play it safe.
Her family is either taking or selling her meds.
Why would anyone go to work in a dirty uniform? Ew.
FlyingScot was, I believe, trying to make the point that no matter how many EMS personnel were present, regardless of their advanced qualifications or lack thereof, this woman refused care and was reported to have signed a refusal of care waiver. So...no matter what the EMS responders knew about head injuries (and I'm sure they were well-educated in head trauma), they could do nothing to help Natasha Richardson because she wouldn't let them. So the only one to blame for her poor outcome was herself, unfortunately. Could she have survived had she allowed them to transport her for eval? Yes. And, she pobably would have had a full recovery without deficits. It wasn't the "fault" of Canada's lack of proximity to a head trauma center or the amount of time for transport. Her time had already run out. She refused care at the critical point--before the bleed caused irreversable damage. From the media reports, assuming they are accurate, it sounds like she developed a slow bleed. I think this case should prompt PSA's on television and radio as to the necessity of having a head injury assessed. It should be emphasized that just because you "feel fine" doesn't mean you ARE fine.
In TBI, there is a phrase "talking and dying". I worked in a TBI unit for several years and this was something we saw frequently upon ER admission of a TBI--AAOX3, talking, ambulatory, many pts. even driving themselves to the ER. CT scan would show a bleed and IV steroids were started to prevent/reduce increased ICP, then evacuation of the hematoma was performed. A TBI doesn't require a hard hit, just the right kind of hit to cause damage. Even a light hit on the head can cause brain shearing (the impact causes the brain to bounce back hitting the skull, then bounce forward hitting the skull again) and this can bruise the tissue. This is particularly a risk in head impact which causes the neck to jerk. Helmets are designed to not only prevent the skull from being directly impacted, but also to absorb the shock of impact to prevent brain sheering.
Advertise With Us