GM2RN

I'm not sure if I read your comment about OT the way you meant it, but since you are a new grad and may not know, it's against the law to NOT pay you time and a half for any hours over 40 in a week or 80 in two weeks. Hospitals where nurses are union, unions can negotiate for a better deal when it comes to OT, but what I stated is the minimum that hospitals must pay hourly nurses for OT.

Sure, as long as one can afford it.

Wow, I would have thought DC paid better than that.

The Midwest covers a lot of territory and wages vary depending on the state and hospital. I live in Michigan and make $42/hr base in a union hospital with 12 yrs experience.

You have to look a little further than just “the Midwest.” I live in the Midwest but in the north and make $42/hr. However, there are areas in the south where RN’s may make only half of that.

I once sent my notice via email to my immediate supervisor (in hindsight I should have copied it to HR). He never responded to my notice and I later found out that he also never informed HR, so they tried to terminate me for “no call, no show.” I ended up getting it straightened out but I was ticked.

I feel the same for most surveys and polls. However, a completed exit survey was one of the requirements stipulated in the policies of one hospital that I worked for in order for me to receive my banked PTO when I left. There was no way to even pretend that the survey would be anonymous so I just told them what I thought they wanted to hear so as not to burn any bridges...just in case.

Where are you getting this from?

You're right that just documenting the conversation wouldn't let others know about the change in the order. I was attempting to address that issue by suggesting that the nurse should remind the doctor to d/c the order and hopefully he would do it soon enough to prevent a situation like this, but it's not a perfect solution. Given the way this particular situation worked out, the best outcome resulting from documenting the conversation would be to protect the (OP) nurse from accusations by management, showing that she had covered all of the bases as best she could under the circumstances. I also agree that it's not exactly the scenario for refusing an order, but without a better idea, it's the best I could think of to support the (OP) nurse for not giving the original order. There does need to be a way to ensure that the order being followed is entered as an actual order, but the nurse's hands are essentially tied in that respect since she has to wait on the doctor to do his part. The whole thing is a bit bizarre to me and a sticky situation for any nurse. Something needs to change, but until it does, I think the only option under the circumstances is to document the whole thing.

I agree with most of this but some of what you said is a little bit confusing. I think I know what you meant but I will attempt to clarify with my opinion and you can tell me if you agree. While the OP may not be allowed to take any verbal orders, she could have/should have (and maybe she did) remind the doc that he needs to d/c the order, then chart in the narrative the conversation that she had with the physician about the Haldol, including her reminder to d/c the order. While I understand and would follow a rule to not accept verbal orders, it is certainly within the nurse's purview and scope of practice to refuse to follow an order that is to the detriment of the patient, which is why the OP, or anyone in her position, should document the conversation between nurse and doctor that explains why the order was not followed. While care should be taken in the wording, I would never follow any hospital rule or policy that forbade me to document such a conversation.

Not sure I will get to actually answering these comments today but for clarity purposes can someone please tell me how to separate out part of a quote as in post #164?

But what I am proposing is that, IF abortion is an issue of CHOICE, it DOESN'T MATTER when viability occurs or when a fetus "becomes a person." If a woman truly has a right to choose in the matter of pregnancy and abortion, that right does not end just because a fetus may be "viable." Either they have the right to choose or they don't. And it becomes contradictory to say that they have a right to choose during some part of the pregnancy but not during another part because it is still their body and the fetus is still a part of it. ETA: So to take it one step further, why don't proponents of abortion just advocate for it at any stage of pregnancy? Why confer rights on a fetus at viability if it is still attached to a woman's body until it is born?

I actually agree with you on this.

Belief in the Bible hinges on believing that God exists, else it has no meaning. Many would say that there is no evidence that God exists or that the Bible is true, but there actually is. I cannot post it here as it would be too lengthy and some of it is in video form (not to mention that it would be getting WAY off topic for this thread) but I could lead someone to if they were interested. However, the problem becomes whether or not a person is truly seeking truth, regardless of whether or not it supports current beliefs, or whether that person is just seeking to discredit what the Bible says. I have not yet met a person online that is interested in seeking the truth and would be open to changing their mind when presented with it.

I agree that ideally all pregnancies should be wanted. I have some thoughts on that that I may go into another time. The question that I asked earlier actually has nothing to do with viability of a fetus. What I'm asking is, if indeed a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body during pregnancy, why does that right end just because a fetus has been determined to be viable? My conjecture is that either she has a right to choose or she does not. Viability of a fetus, since it is still a part of the mother's body until it is born, does not determine a woman's right to choose. If we say that a woman has a right to abort until a fetus is viable but can then no longer choose, then it is no longer an issue of choice and it becomes a moral question of killing a human life. I also contend that if this is the case, then it was never an issue of choice because if it were, a woman's right to choose to rid herself of a fetus that is dependent upon her does not end just because it is possible the fetus might live outside her body.

And if I believed in abortion I would probably agree with you. Here's what I don't understand...correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that you are for abortion because of the belief in a woman's right to do what she will with her own body? If a woman has a right to choose, why wouldn't that right extend to the entire pregnancy? Why stop with viability? I do realize that some take this stance, but you have not. So what makes the difference for you?

Nope, only to add support to another post-er. But then I felt compelled to answer some of the comments made relative to my comment.

Let me ask you this...is there any point at which you believe that abortion should be restricted, or do you believe that abortions should be allowed at any point in pregnancy, up to and including when a woman is in labor? I only want to know what you believe, not what is currently legal or not. ETA: I will go first. I believe all abortion to be the killing of a pre-born baby.

If I did would it change your mind?

According to you I have "pretended" comments into non-existence, been part of the "radical Christian right," and am now "disingenuous." (I think there were others but I don't remember them all.) I don't know how to quote from different posts to bring them into one, but here is the comment that I originally responded to that now prompts the "disingenuous" remark: Heron: "Meanwhile, if you would kindly explain how lying, murder, emotional abuse and forced pregnancies are godly, that'd be nice." I said that they are not godly and now you say that I'm being disingenuous? Where have I lied, murdered, been part of emotional abuse or forced someone to be pregnant? So I imagine that there are those here that you agree with on some things but disagree on other things. If you were to say that you don't, THAT would be disingenuous. At the point where I agreed with pmabraham, he was talking about having been conceived in rape (post #168 is where I commented) and that he believed that killing someone because they are unwanted or putting a price tag on the cost is not compassion, and I do agree with him on that. In the scripture that talks about pearls and swine, Jesus is saying that the gospel is precious as are pearls, but there will be people who will not believe when the gospel is given to them and will trample it as swine do when something is cast at their feet. So when it becomes clear that those people will not believe, it will do no good to make further attempts so we are not to do so. In Matthew 10:14 the message is the same: "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." As far as the tail wagging the dog, I don't understand how you are applying it in this situation relative to public policy. ETA: I AM getting weary of defending false accusations, especially since this has gone exactly as I suspected it would. No one with your stance has ever been convinced that they are wrong--here or anywhere else on the internet--which is why I RARELY ever comment on threads of this nature and do not intend to do so much longer.

First of all you are lumping me in with a group(s) of people with whom I might share some beliefs but not others, but I will use your term for a minute to answer your comment. If you do not share the beliefs of the "radical Christian right," does that not make you an unbeliever? I know what that says about me and my beliefs relative to people who believe differently...there's nothing for me to figure out. You threw some stuff out there as if applying them directly to me, so I asked for clarification of what YOU meant in order that I could answer. In your previous comment you said that I should look to my own beliefs, "strongly implying" that you know of my beliefs and that you think I am going against them. Now you say that they are between me and God. So if you have something to say about what you think MY beliefs are, not what you are attributing to me based on what you think you know about the beliefs of the "radical Christian right," then lets hear it. Whatever beliefs I do have, some of which are pretty clear from WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, not what you think they are, do cause me to behave the way that I do, just as whatever YOU believe causes you to behave the way that you do. However, any behavior that you may think that I have you can only truthfully attribute to me based on what I have said or you have personally witnessed (not possible for you to have witnessed anything though since we have never met), not based on a group of people with whom you have no idea if I believe or behave the same as they do. Any such "cognitive dissonance" here is erroneously perceived by you because you continue to attempt to lump me with other groups, of which I do not belong. Anything I have said here is completely consistent.

Scoff if you like but it's true. Do you think that saved persons just had the thought pop into their heads that they should go "looking to be saved" and then ran out to find someone to show them how? Someone had to first present to gospel to them, in a lot of cases more than one time before they made that decision.

No one does, until they do.

Of course I understand subjective. You don't believe in God, so He and his words mean nothing to you, therefore you do not accept them as truth. You've made that clear. But any thinking person should understand that unbelief in something doesn't automatically make it untrue. If you told me that the sky is blue, but I told you that I don't believe that there is a sky, so saying that the sky is blue means nothing to me, does that make your statement about the sky untrue? Of course not! God created all of us with free will to believe as we want, so that He can have a relationship and fellowship with those who want to have one with Him, in the same way that we want those that we love to choose to be around us and have a relationship with us, not because we force them to. But choosing not to believe in God and his word does not make it go away or become untrue, nor does it mean that anyone who chooses not to believe will escape the consequences of unbelief.

They aren't. Are you attributing these characteristics to me? If so, how? If not, then what do they have to do with what I have said?