A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

Nurses Activism

Published

  • Home Health Columnist / Guide
    Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

You are reading page 12 of A Call to Action from the Nation's Nurses in the Wake of Newtown

  1. Nurses: Do You Support a Call to Action in the Wake of Newtown + other shootings

    • 54
      I support need for improved mental health services for individuals and families
    • 7
      I do not support need for improved mental health services for individuals and families.
    • 3
      Unsure if improved mental health services for individuals and families.needed
    • 43
      I support increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals.
    • 7
      I do not support increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals.
    • 7
      Unsure of need for increased student access elementary thru college to nurses and mental health professionals
    • 28
      I support a ban on assault weapons and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society.
    • 34
      I do not support an assault weapons ban and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms to protect society.
    • 4
      Unsure of position on assault weapons ban and enacting other meaningful gun control reforms.
    • 28
      I support an armed police presence at schools.
    • 19
      I do not support an armed police presence at schools.
    • 14
      Unsure of position on an armed police presence at schools.
    • 33
      I support our Nursing Associations commitment to ending this cycle of preventable violence, death, and trauma
    • 16
      I do not support our Nursing Associations commitment to ending this cycle of preventable violence, death, and trauma.
    • 6
      Unsure of supporting our Nursing Associations commitment to ending this cycle of preventable violence, death, and trauma.

54 members have participated

TopazLover, BSN, RN

1 Article; 728 Posts

I am having difficulty following. Am I reading that you don't believe mental illness is an illness? Think genetic diseases are not "real" diseases?

I agree that culturally some things are more acceptable than in others. In some cultures cock fighting is accepted. In the US we see it as abuse of an animal. Same for dog fights and the same for bull fighting. I don't think these things, by themselves would get someone labeled as psychotic.

In general when someone is labeled as having mental illness there are many signposts. We are just learning about genetics so this is an area that will be explored more in the future. You have to remember that we did not even know about DNA within my lifetime. That is how quickly things develop. We are in our infancy about the brain. We are just learning about the chemicals and what they mean. In comparison: We are close to where our knowledge of the heart was 40-60 years ago with the working knowledge of chemical interactions causing response. We need much more knowledge to see how specific chemicals react in the brain. Genetics are certainly part of this.

We used to try to bleed out problems or chase demons because we did not understand physical illnesses. As we are learning more about mental illness we find that it is more of brain dysfunction than a check off list in the current DSM -?

Taking on year of stats is not valid and you can't determine much from those stats. There are good studies out there. I choose not to get into the gun control fight as much as some. I prefer to focus on what nurses can control. I figure there are other forums that can focus on guns. Our expertise is with human responses. To me that means all of us need to be involved with what we can do to help get more mental health assessment and treatment, not less. It is not a case of being labeled any more than being found to have diabetes labels you. We need to get our heads around that so we can provide adequate care to all our patients and not exclusde their mental status. As I review charts this is the biggest lack I find.

allnurses Guide

herring_RN, ASN, BSN

3,651 Posts

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

I care for people with cardiovascular disease. Most often these are not caused by a pathogen.

Altra, BSN, RN

6,255 Posts

Specializes in Emergency & Trauma/Adult ICU.

I participated in the poll at the beginning of this thread, but it is disappointingly (even shockingly) biased ... from an AN administrator whose reasoned knowledge and experience are so often invaluable here. Very disappointed.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B

9 Articles; 4,800 Posts

What you just posted pretty much says banning certain types of guns don't work. If someone is inclined to kill another they will use whatever gun is available.

Guns have always been available in the US. It is actually harder to get them now than when I was a teen. Someone needs to take a hard no BS look at why shootings are more common now than in the past. What has changed? Have guns changed? Not really. Ammo? No. This only leaves society. Is there a massive increase in mental health issues? Perhaps. What could be the cause of that, single parent households, extreme violence in movies and video games desensitizing kids, not holding kids responsible for their actions, among other things?

I bolded that portion for a reason. I feel this is the main contributor. People can be desensitized to anything. Just using my own experiences, when I first arrived in Iraq I was so nervous I could hardly sleep. As time went on everything started to become "normal" even the major firefights I was involved in. When someone is constantly bombarded with graphic images, be it violence or sexual, people get used to it and it becomes a part of everyday life. Just look at what nurses and first responders get desensitized to over time.

I can remember Saturday morning cartoons--Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck getting his beak shot off, Coyote and Woodpecker, lots of "violence" and we all laughed like heck!! GI Joe, all sorts of sci-fi "weapons of th future" tv shows-- And not to mention hours of make pretend games of cops and robbers (you are DEAD....I KILLED you) type of play, play guns, cap guns.....so that "extreme violence desensitizing kids" is not a valid argument, as this stuff has been around for years.

allnurses Guide

Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN

11,304 Posts

I can remember Saturday morning cartoons--Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck getting his beak shot off, Coyote and Woodpecker, lots of "violence" and we all laughed like heck!! GI Joe, all sorts of sci-fi "weapons of th future" tv shows-- And not to mention hours of make pretend games of cops and robbers (you are DEAD....I KILLED you) type of play, play guns, cap guns.....so that "extreme violence desensitizing kids" is not a valid argument, as this stuff has been around for years.

Oh my goodness . .that is not the same thing. At all. Cartoon "violence" consists of a cartoon anvil falling on the head of the cartoon coyote isn't the same as teaching kids to shoot or as one researcher puts it "unethically train children in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to the act of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of opponents in a single typical video game".

If people are so gung-ho about restricting weapons, why let kids shoot in a realistic manner on a video game? With blood spurting and groans and screams? And what about the racism inherent in some of the games?

I'm not a fan of video games period. Kids should be outside playing, getting fresh air, enjoying being a kid.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B

9 Articles; 4,800 Posts

Oh my goodness . .that is not the same thing. At all. Cartoon "violence" consists of a cartoon anvil falling on the head of the cartoon coyote isn't the same as teaching kids to shoot or as one researcher puts it "unethically train children in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to the act of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of opponents in a single typical video game".

If people are so gung-ho about restricting weapons, why let kids shoot in a realistic manner on a video game? With blood spurting and groans and screams? And what about the racism inherent in some of the games?

I'm not a fan of video games period. Kids should be outside playing, getting fresh air, enjoying being a kid.

Then I will respectfully agree to disagree. There is a whole entire generation of kids who played all sorts of games that would be considered "violent" from bb guns to simulated plastic weapons to cap guns. Games like risk to dungeons and dragons. There is not a cartoon that I saw on looney tunes that did not have some sort of character physically hurting another character. Try it on your little brother, however, and there was a price to pay. Which brings to point that parents have lost a great deal of control over their children. In the quest for "free thinkers" and kids being able to "make their own choices" have ended up with some entitled kids. With little consequences. Let kids be kids indeed, and let parents make the choices for them, teaching them along the way so that when they are grown they can make the same good choices. When they are grown, out of the parent's home, and need to. If I grew up in a home with guns in them, and I did not, I wouldn't think of touching it, as my parents would have locked me in my room until 18.....or the dreaded "spoon". (

TopazLover, BSN, RN

1 Article; 728 Posts

Just as an aside, One of the things that the service says is that people who played lots of video games have great hand eye coordination and are much easier to train to do complex tasks involving these skills. Of course they are great at running drones, but that is also another thread.

allnurses Guide

Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN

11,304 Posts

Then I will respectfully agree to disagree. There is a whole entire generation of kids who played all sorts of games that would be considered "violent" from bb guns to simulated plastic weapons to cap guns. Games like risk to dungeons and dragons. There is not a cartoon that I saw on looney tunes that did not have some sort of character physically hurting another character. Try it on your little brother, however, and there was a price to pay. Which brings to point that parents have lost a great deal of control over their children. In the quest for "free thinkers" and kids being able to "make their own choices" have ended up with some entitled kids. With little consequences. Let kids be kids indeed, and let parents make the choices for them, teaching them along the way so that when they are grown they can make the same good choices. When they are grown, out of the parent's home, and need to. If I grew up in a home with guns in them, and I did not, I wouldn't think of touching it, as my parents would have locked me in my room until 18.....or the dreaded "spoon". (

Yep, agree to disagree. BB guns in the hands of children who are supervised and taught respect for guns, simulated plastic weapons, cap guns . . . . all not based on realism.

I did not like Dungeons and Dragons and never let my kids play.

Looney Tunes - all cartoonish . . not real. Try to find an anvil in real life to drop on little brother's head.

I do agree that there tends to be a loss of control over kids nowadays - the "free thinker" and "make their own choices" kids grew up in the late 60's and 70's. . . . .they are raising kids now trying to be their kid's friend vs. parent so I agree with you there. I see it all the time as a school district nurse.

My 4 kids have grown up in a home with firearms. We got our last son his first .22 a few years ago and he's 11 now. Big brother got him a compound bow for Christmas and will take him bow hunting for his first deer next year.

None of this, in my opinion, has anything to do with desensitizing kids towards violence.

I'm not saying ALL kids who watch rated "M" video games will shoot up a school - but I do think a game that looks realistic, has you shooting people, complete with blood and moans, is completely different than Bug Bunny.

The armed services use those violent games to desensitize the recruits.

I'm not letting my kid anywhere near those.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/20/5066175/what-is-proper-response-to-gun.html

Popularity of violent video games

Let's stop deluding ourselves that interactive games where players are rewarded for making choices such as dismembering, decapitating, torturing or raping a human being – with blood spurting and victims screaming – are no different from reading "Lord of the Flies" or watching a "Road Runner" cartoon. Obviously, most gamers don't act on violent fantasies. But these games, whether we participate in them or not, reflect and shape a culture that increasingly glorifies and trivializes violence. It is up to us to take on this coorificening of our culture.

InfirmiereJolie

104 Posts

I think this entire claim of the last few decades to "lose the stigma" is faux as the entire stigma starts with the label of so-called "illness" or supposed "disease" or "abnormality" (esp. a "permanent genetic default") as the person with the label KNOWS it makes them "different" (with a negative, not a positive correlation of originality) and it is based off someone's decision that their actions, personality, or feelings are supposedly "abnormal." This is unlike diabetes or cardiovascular disease as those affect the human body's cells (e.g., myocardia caused by ischemia) and do not affect people's actions, personality, or character/social place significantly. Any person could get cardiovascular disease no matter what they are like socially or their actions. Yes, there is diet involved and exercise, but that has nothing to do with social norms or communication, ect. Mostly people who do these things WANT CONTROL, I repeat these people WANT CONTROL over their lives. They're acting out because there is an outside problem causing it and they want people to just listen to them for once instead of calling them the so-called "problem." This is like calling a victim of a crime who is feeling trauma from an event a supposed "problem" and saying it was their fault of getting victimized in the first place and they should have "acted better." This is crushing and makes them feel even more vulnerable/out of control. Instead of attacking the victim why don't you attack the criminal and tell them those are normal (repeat, normal) feelings of victimization and lets try to reduce crime. This diverts the problem from them to the actual cause in the first place. It is never the fault of the victim, but of the attacker.

Chemical reactions do not necessarily mean there is a so-called "illness," but an emotional reaction to stress, fear, anger, not the person's fault or a "disease" (based on social opinion). There are chemical reactions for positive aspects and characteristics as well. Chemical reactions do not have to be labeled "illnesses," but natural human variations. Maybe someone with a supposedly "differing" chemical reaction is the only person who can recognize there is a problem and is trying to tell others. Each person differs in personality thankfully, yet, we are 99.9% the same. This is normal variation, not a "disease" or "ailment" (meaning, needing eradication by taking away their sense of self-control by labeling, i.e., stereotyping them and placing them in a box, and telling them it is their problem). To their bodily cells, their is no ailment killing their cells like a disease would. It's nothing like lysis (from overhydration) or myocardia. Their bodies are not trying to remove any so-called "disease" nor are their human cells significantly altered.

One can claim it is like having a physical disease like diabetes, yet is is not as this so-called "disease" is directly connected to their daily actions, personality type, self-control, feelings and place in society. It depends, greatly, on social norms and subjected to change (as each year, the supposed "illnesses" increase in number by votes from a board). The supposedly "genetic disease" (not called a normal variation in personality or reaction to distress) aspect did not come until after hundreds of "diseases" were added to the manual. Science is currently being forced to prove the so-called "diseases" which were previously already listed. They were not primarily scientifically discovered as were viruses, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or paralysis, which are concrete and cannot be disputed as they have a mathematical and human cell response basis, they were primarily socially discovered. Then once they were "discovered" they are trying to use science to prove it. Does this not sound like it does not make sense? You could say it was a hypothesis, but they already had claimed it was an "illness" without this "proof" beforehand due to social standards.

This is almost like saying the sun revolves around the earth (geocentric model) and accepting it as scientific proof firstly by observations, then trying to use some testing to prove it... not mainly because it is fact, but because it "good" socially for this to happen. It was widely accepted, then continually falsely "added to" for this social convenience. They were at the beginning of a new territory also.

And those statistics per year are consistently near 10,000 from 1933 to 2000. This was the purpose of me listing them as there has been no change. Th total overall yearly related deaths due to firearms has stayed consistently near 30,000 since they were first published.

If nurses were more unionized, they would have greater national influence (i.e., lobbying, advertizing and providing information to the public). There are nursing organizations supporting gun reform as well as the AMA already.

I am having difficulty following. Am I reading that you don't believe mental illness is an illness? Think genetic diseases are not "real" diseases?

I agree that culturally some things are more acceptable than in others. In some cultures cock fighting is accepted. In the US we see it as abuse of an animal. Same for dog fights and the same for bull fighting. I don't think these things, by themselves would get someone labeled as psychotic.

In general when someone is labeled as having mental illness there are many signposts. We are just learning about genetics so this is an area that will be explored more in the future. You have to remember that we did not even know about DNA within my lifetime. That is how quickly things develop. We are in our infancy about the brain. We are just learning about the chemicals and what they mean. In comparison: We are close to where our knowledge of the heart was 40-60 years ago with the working knowledge of chemical interactions causing response. We need much more knowledge to see how specific chemicals react in the brain. Genetics are certainly part of this.

We used to try to bleed out problems or chase demons because we did not understand physical illnesses. As we are learning more about mental illness we find that it is more of brain dysfunction than a check off list in the current DSM -?

Taking on year of stats is not valid and you can't determine much from those stats. There are good studies out there. I choose not to get into the gun control fight as much as some. I prefer to focus on what nurses can control. I figure there are other forums that can focus on guns. Our expertise is with human responses. To me that means all of us need to be involved with what we can do to help get more mental health assessment and treatment, not less. It is not a case of being labeled any more than being found to have diabetes labels you. We need to get our heads around that so we can provide adequate care to all our patients and not exclusde their mental status. As I review charts this is the biggest lack I find.

I care for people with cardiovascular disease. Most often these are not caused by a pathogen.

TopazLover, BSN, RN

1 Article; 728 Posts

Doctors Say Gun Control is a Public Health Issue | American News Report

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 31,000 Americans die from firearms annually. While there’s decades of research on what leads people to commit violence against themselves or others, there’s significantly less information on how access to firearms contributes to the likelihood and consequences of these acts.

That dearth of research, say Arthur Kellermann, MD, vice president of the RAND Corporation and Frederick Rivara, MD, Seattle Children’s Hospital, is the direct result of pro-gun members of Congress mounting an effort in 1996 to eliminate funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC. Although the effort failed, language was added preventing the CDC from using federal funds “to advocate or promote gun control.”

So, in 1996 the NRA (through lobbying Congress) was able to get research stopped about what leads people to commit violence, etc.

How many people have died since then that might have been alive today if research had not been stopped?

Sad that the ability to sell more guns with less restrictions trumps the value of human life. As we now know the NRA really is only the mouthpiece for gun sales. Those honest shooters who thought the NRA was there to protect their interests need to wake up and smell the gun powder being sold. It has nothing to do with anything except greed.

Overland1, RN

465 Posts

My concern is that, as in so many cases, we (as nurses) are getting dragged into a lot of incorrect perceptions that have "grown legs" (thanks to the media and politicians, both of which I trust lately at a level one step below a stool sample). Nurses will be out there protesting, writing, and campaigning (as in the past with other issues) their way into being looked upon with disfavor when all the chips fall (and they will).

We are nurses; most of us entered and remain in this profession to help people. We have the ability to make or break a person's life in mere seconds or less. We make a positive difference in people's lives every day. We also exercise great caution, logic, and reason in doing what we do as nurses. We need to exercise that same degree of caution, logic, and reason when pursuing and attaching ourselves the myriad causes out there.

Specializes in Trauma.
My concern is that, as in so many cases, we (as nurses) are getting dragged into a lot of incorrect perceptions that have "grown legs" (thanks to the media and politicians, both of which I trust lately at a level one step below a stool sample). Nurses will be out there protesting, writing, and campaigning (as in the past with other issues) their way into being looked upon with disfavor when all the chips fall (and they will).

We are nurses; most of us entered and remain in this profession to help people. We have the ability to make or break a person's life in mere seconds or less. We make a positive difference in people's lives every day. We also exercise great caution, logic, and reason in doing what we do as nurses. We need to exercise that same degree of caution, logic, and reason when pursuing and attaching ourselves the myriad causes out there.

Excellent post. People need to stop trying to convince themselves they are more politically enlightened than others by virtue of their job. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about everything, but don't make the mistake of thinking your opinion is more informed due to your job. A nurse is no more enlightened about gun control than an actor is about the environment. When people start using their jobs to try to push a personal agenda in politically charged subjects they are doing themselves and others in the same career a disservice. If someone wants to speak as a nurse I would suggest sticking to what nurses do best, advocate for patients.

+ Add a Comment