dcookRN

The flu vaccine is approved for pregnant and nursing women, and the package inserts for most varieties clearly states these populations have not been studied, yet approving it for them certainly implies safety. Patients deserve quality safety studies for any drug they are given, as to most people, it is assumed that drugs are proven safe or they would not be given. There is more than adequate evidence that pharmaceutical companies commonly produce drugs that end up killing and harming people, aggressively market them, after approval based on safety studies they perform themselves. In the case of vaccines they also aggressively lobby to get them mandated, and have absolutely zero liability should someone be harmed, which has happened plenty of times. There is risk associated with any drug, including vaccines. Many nurses choose to work at facilities that do not require flu vaccines when they are hired, but the policy is changed at some later point. When a nurse is given a drug, they ARE a patient.

Exactly! How can you know. When they say the flu shot is 62% effective, they are counting effective as including those who were vaccinated and got the flu anyways but did not require hospitalization. It is very poorly executed, presented and is quite misleading.

If it weren't for employees standing up for their rights, do you think "the man" as you put it would pay overtime, give adequate sick days, or good insurance benefits? As far as I can tell, nurses are the single most involved and needed employees at the hospital. Seems voicing our thoughts and standing up for our rights would be a good thing?

Deciding to be a nurse does not mean we decided to be vaccinated annually for the flu. In reality, the family member in the situation you would be concerned about would be at greater risk from a vaccinated employee or visitor that lacked basic infection control knowledge and/or PPE and training. Or maybe it would be the contaminated stethoscope, BP cuff, etc that resulted in the spread of disease. If going into nursing involves keeping our patients, families and ourselves healthy maybe we should mandate better food and lifestyle choices. After all, heart disease, obesity and related diseases kill far more people than the flu, and the same factors certainly contribute to a weakened immune system, overall poor health and increased risk of contracting an infectious disease. Vaccinated people catch and spread the flu regularly. It seems the most effective means of preventing the spread of disease deserve the resources.

The studies listed are far from adequate. They look at too few factors over too short a period of time on too few people. The unfortunate fact that fish and commercial foods are also contaminated is only evidence of a broader problem resulting in poor health outcomes. How can you compare food or driving a car to forced vaccines? And personally, I don't eat fish or commercial foods. I chose to work for a hospital that does not require flu vaccines for employees. Vaccines change, as new ingredients are added and others removed. Do you really believe the long-term effects of injecting vaccine ingredients on a yearly basis are known? We should have a choice to NOT be injected with aluminum, formaldehyde and god knows what else on an annual basis. No entity should force drugs of any kind on people. This is an essential aspect of freedom. If you choose to put your kids in public schools, and the school decides to start vaccinating 12 year olds for HPV without parental consent, do you also view that as a choice you are making? If you want an annual flu vaccine, you have the choice to get it. And everyone else should have a choice as well. If you limit your research to the CDC, you are placing unnecessary limits on information available.

I agree with many of your views, and respect that you voice them. I only wish more people would, especially other nurses. We are advocates for our patients, and standing up for our right to decide what drugs go into our bodies has positive consequences that extend beyond ourselves, into the communities most of us became nurses to help. Many argue that everyone should receive all vaccines, period. To me, this is a very flawed position. While there are certainly vaccines that have benefits that should be utilized, there are also many that do not seem to fit the target populations, or offer benefits that exceed the risks. For example, my wife and I adamantly declined to have either of our newborn sons vaccinated against hep b, which staff attempted to do within hours of them being born. This one size fits all, mass vaccination policy is inadequate. It fails to consider the risks associated, or even the benefits, ie will the hep b vaccine even still offer immunity when newborns grow up and actually become at risk to any real degree of contracting hep b? I doubt it. As a parent, a nurse, and a free American, I do not want someone else deciding what drugs myself or my kids should receive. Especially when mandated schedules are written directly or indirectly by the very same companies that make and profit from the vaccines they push to mandate, with absolutely zero liability for any adverse events. It is known that vaccines contain many ingredients that one can logically not want to introduce into their body. Is there really adequate data to say with confidence, that injecting small quantities of mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, etc many times a year, from within hours of birth to death, does not result in neurological disorders or other morbidities? I have tried to find quality long-term studies that answer such questions without success. We need independent, long-term safety studies that closely look at the effects of any mandated drug. We also need regulatory agencies that are not staffed with people that are on the boards of the companies they regulate. Bottom line, we should not lump polio, diptheria, pertussis, etc with rotovirus, chicken pox and the flu. The risks are not the same, and therefore the risk benefit analyses of vaccination should be distinguished. If the drug companies have their way, we will all receive who knows how many mandated vaccines. Look at how much the number of mandated vaccines our children receive has increased over the last few decades. Is it wise to manipulate, stimulate the immune system that much? Does anyone really know the long term consequences, or are we all unwitting participants in a grand post-introduction drug trial? They have tried to mandate the HPV vaccine for school-aged children. Where is the line? Wherever it is, I will draw it for myself.

They don't stop at flu vaccines either of course. The one that bothered me the most I think was the attempt in Texas to mandate the HPV vaccine to school age kids as young as 12. In this particular case, Rick Perry(governor at the time) tried push the mandate the vaccine with his super pact coordinator (Toomey) that had received over a half million dollars from Merck for promoting Gardasil. All for a vaccine that has been shown to have very serious health risks, and only offers possible protection from very few strains of HPV, spread by sexual contact and the associated cancer risks.

The studies outlined in the vaccine package inserts and other published sources do seem to be quite lacking. To me it seems the real safety trial is done after the vaccines are released to the public, of course true with all drugs to differing degrees. Especially if the government, schools, places of employment etc want to mandate a drug, and as mentioned by others who posted the manufacturers are free of liability and make significant profits from these mandated drugs, the safety studies should be top notch (in an ideal world they always would be).

Its an interesting subject, that's for sure. And so many people believe that its a clear cut issue, ie vaccines are safe, period. And while much is implied in this area, I imagine its quite challenging to find any MD, scientist, or entity with any accountability that will guarantee anything, as the reality is there are no guarantees. An important aspect of good science is ever-expanding knowledge driven by eternal questions, seeking the truth, proving and reproving. There are fewer "facts" in medicine than many realize. We cannot know what a substance does over a long period of time when a long period of time has not even elapsed. Then, there is the question of what substance A does in the presence of substance B, or in the absence of proper mitochondrial function, and so on. We know that chemicals behave differently in the presence of other chemicals, but often they are studied individually, in small populations, over weeks. There have also been cases of safety studies being done without the presence of adjuvants in the trials, which were added to the products after approval. There are too many variables to consider to just accept short-term safety trials as proving safety, or justifying the implications. Not dropping dead within two weeks of receiving a drug leaves many questions to be answered. Its not easy to find excellent nurses, and our society needs excellent nurses in a serious way. It is unfortunate to lose nurses that would do so much good over their careers simply because they want to decline a substance, whatever their reasons for doing so. Talking about this seems to stir much emotion on both sides, driven by fear of one thing or another. In reality, often we do not fit neatly into one category or another. Questioning something should not lead to being categorized as anti anything.

I have received the majority of vaccinations available. Many were given to me as a child before I knew much about the subject. The number of vaccines given to children is astonishing, and it is many more than were given when I was growing up in the eighties. Many chronic illnesses, auto-immune disorders, food allergies etc are becoming exponentially more common. The reality is, we do not really know why this is happening. But we do know drugs, including vaccines, are often fast tracked and given to the public before the consequences are fully understood. Do we really need to vaccinate for every disease or disorder can come up with a vaccine for? Should vaccines for rotovirus (which causes diarrhea) or HPV be mandated and treated like vaccines for polio, measles or pertussis? I don't think so, but this has been and continues to be done. All the while, drug companies insist they are safe in any quantity, and any harm that results is handled privately in "vaccine court", and settlements usually require gag orders, and their is no liability for the drug companies who make more money for every vaccine that is mandated. No liability, guaranteed profits, seems like a great business model. Where do we draw the line? Hundreds of vaccines are being developed for everything from obesity to drug addiction, and the drug companies seem to want us to have all of the mandated and given in childhood. More people get sick and die because of obesity, poor diet etc, but little is done to address this. In my opinion, the flu does not warrant annual mandated vaccination. Think about it, being injected with a vaccine and all the aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, and whatever else it contains every year, now based on the "required" schedule, from 6 months old on. For most people, the flu is a minor illness, and while unpleasant results in just a few days in bed. It has been so blown out of proportion over the last few years. When I consider the risk if the flu, and the risks/benefits of the vaccine, to me it is not worth getting and the right to use my own judgement to make this decision is extremely important to me. I do not want drug companies, the government or anyone else deciding what drugs I should take or give my kids. I have had other vaccines, which were claimed to bring life-long benefits with one dose. To me this is very different that getting injected with something year after year after year for the rest of my life.

That is horrible and unfair. What state? I ran into a similar problem when I was in nursing school, and it was challenging but eventually I found a solution. What happened to you is a good example of why we need to protect our right as autonomous individuals to refuse any drug that we do not want. How many excellent nurses will be prevented from helping people for this reason?

That is wonderful to hear. Me neither. Another thing I was thinking about, as I see the direction we seem to be moving in nationally with forced vaccination in schools, hospitals, and various contexts, is who is it that will be asked to do the injections into people who do not want them? Does it then become the role of the nurse, to be the one who physically violate the autonomy of another human being? This is very contradictory to what the values of nursing are supposed to be about.

It is a scary trend, and also crazy that more people do not want to stand up for these fundamental rights. We have to maintain the right to decide for ourselves what drugs we take. I do not want someone else thinking for me. I know plenty of nurses, doctors, and others that have made an informed decision not to get flu shots.

If my baby was there, I would hope they were not irradiating my child with x rays if not absolutely necessary. She could still get and pass the flu even if she had the vaccine. If she is washing her hands properly, and not coughing on people that is enough for me, and if she is sick she should stay home. I have two kids, and I hope that the nurses and techs that helped take care of them had the right to decide for themselves what drugs to receive. Grocery store clerks, teachers, all kinds of people that work in public could potentially spread the flu. Do you want to force them all to be vaccinated? Why not use education to encourage good decision making, not force.

There are much more effective ways to save lives than to force people to get injected with something they do not want. I fully support the right for all people to choose for themselves what goes into their body. Vaccination and other practices intended to improve health outcomes should be encouraged through education, not force. The flu itself is very rarely even a serious illness; for most it it a few days in bed. As caregivers, we have an obligation to educate our patients, and facilitate true informed consent when any drug is given. Why do you think pregnant women should be able to wear a mask instead of getting the vaccine ( i certainly agree)The CDC is even saying pregnant women should get it now, although in the package inserts I have seen it clearly states the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine in pregnancy is unknown and has not even been studied, they cannot even say its safe for the fetus or nursing child. Where do we draw the line? For me, the line is drawn at deciding for myself what drugs to take. We do not need pharmaceutical companies or government agencies thinking for us.

Thanks for the thought provoking response, I feel very engaged.

I know what adjuvants are intended to do, and I am sure they achieve the intended goals. However, more studies need to be done in order to know what unintended consequences may result as well. It seems entirely logical that kicking the immune system into an overstimulated state, especially time after time after time, barely giving it a chance to even regain normal function, could have significant consequences. I take no comfort in the fact that antacids contain aluminum, or that breast milk contains mercury. In the area of vaccine science, there are far more unknowns than most people realize or admit. Its a grand experiment, good or bad, right or wrong.

How do you know overstimulating the immune system is not a problem? The immune system is very intricate, and something is causing autoimmune disorders/food allergies to skyrocket. And the CDC has many people that are on the payrolls of pharmaceutical companies. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an easily verified fact. There are certainly financial conflicts of interest among members of the CDC, FDA, USDA, universities, everywhere, its rampant. Is it also just a conspiracy theory that pharmaceutical company contributions to political campaigns influence healthcare policy? Ignoring these issues breeds ignorance and feeds a major problem that we should be concerned with. Injecting aluminum, formaldehyde, etc into muscle tissue on a regular basis cannot be justified by noting the amount of aluminum in breast milk; there may be more mercury in breast milk than in a mercury containing vaccine, but this says nothing for the safety of injecting or consuming these inherently toxic ingredients. Seems quite logical to fear consuming known neurotoxins that accumulate in tissue, including brain tissue, in a world of ever-rising chronic disease rates across the board. If you ingest a toxin by mouth, your body will metabolize it and excrete it differently than if injected. We should not discourage critical thinking, questioning, investigating, learning, and being involved with what goes into one's body. We need more thought, not more blind obedience. You can post links all day to CDC or FDA articles that talk about how harmless various drugs or drug ingredients are, and all day I can post links to cases in which these claims were horribly wrong, and human lives were destroyed as a result.

I agree with much of what you said. As nurses, we do need to be involved in this. In addition to my nursing education, I have spent much time researching drug company safety data, foreign studies regarding safety and efficacy, CDC/WHO reports, as well as details about specific ingredients, their function as part of the drug formula and credible theories as to potential consequences. As a nurse, I eel the need to do more than simply approach a patient with a syringe in my hand and say "you need your flu and pna vaccines", which I often see done. In my opinion we need to present options, along with adequate and balanced information so informed decisions can be made. Many patients listen to their nurses and depend on our advocating for them. It is amoral not to make sure true informed consent is obtained. Patients have the right to know the true risks and benefits of any drug they are given. For example, how can we tell a pregnant woman they should get a flu vaccine, that it is safe for them and their unborn child when the package insert states safety for the fetus has not been studied? What kind of world would this be if we just did what we were told, without asking questions, without seeking evidence, not basing our practice on evidence, but the very definition of what qualifies as evidence seems to be diminishing rapidly. Viox was safe, thalidamide was safe, the swine flu vaccine of the 70's was safe. But as we learned, safe can be a short-lived thing. Its getting pretty bad, so many pregnant women have been given antidepressants that caused harm to their babies, there are so many examples of these problems and it is sick. Have you ever seen the film "Generation Rx"? My statements may seem tangential, but the issue of mandated drugs is way larger than flu vaccines for healthcare workers. This is simply one indication of a larger issue, and a direction we as a nation are heading. And we don'thave to wonder how well our ways are working, as its pretty evident in health outcomes. While we have eliminated many acute diseases and decreased deaths from infectious disease etc, we have more than replaced them with preventable chronic diseases, yet instead of actually addressing the problems we seem to have a tendency to hand out drugs instead, and for lifetimes. Do you see your patients come back healthier after starting statins, maybe a beta blocker, insulin to manage DM, etc? Very few new drugs are made to treat acute illness, the vast majority of new drug research goes into making meds that people will take forever, how often do we hear "once a day, every day" etc? Do you feel sad? Try this SSRI. Still sad, ask your doc to add abilify. Overweight? Beef, its whats for dinner, you can keep eating and take this to lower your cholesterol, and cymbalta for your pain, and the one with the nice floating butterfly in the ad to help you sleep. And this company will send DM management supplies right to your door at medicares expense! Is your child distracted after watching 10 hours of TV a day and living on junk food? Maybe they need an antidepressant too. They must work, the people in the commercials are happily walking on the beach, as the guy in the background says how the drug can cause cancer, liver failure, suicidal thoughts etc. Ok maybe that was a bit off subject. The US and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct rx ads to consumers on TV. I am not saying I believe flu vaccines are dangerous, but I am saying there is ample evidence drug companies and regulatory agencies (often occupied by the same individuals) sometimes jump the gun and say something is safe when the reality is, the real safety study begins when drugs hit consumer markets. Drug companies do not exist for the honorable purpose of helping cure sick people, they exist to make money. The same companies that make many chemo and other cancer drugs also happen to be some of the largest producers of cancer causing chemicals in the world. You can buy cosmetics full of cancer causing chemicals that are endorsed with pink ribbons. Therefore, the right for all individuals to do research and make informed decisions about what medications they want or don't want is essential, as are the roles of the nurse as advocate, educator. If someone has the right to decide what drugs other people take, who is it? Those who make the drug? The government? Hospital CEO's? School employees? Should those that make the drug be allowed to be in the government?

I think it is scary there is no direct accountability for the drug companies or practitioners in this area. Any compensation is paid by consumer fees. I am grateful for the benefits some vaccines have given us, but the system needs improvement. Pharm execs should not be on regulatory agency boards; those pushing for mandated vaccines should not stand to profit as a result; formaldehyde and aluminum should be removed or proven safe in quality, long-term studies. Its no small thing to accept a drug administration year after year after year, we should be able to have faith in safety and efficacy and as it stands, with all the conflicting info how can we

If you read most flu vaccine package inserts, they clearly state the safety and efficacy of the flu vaccine in pregnant women have not been established, and it is not known whether the flu vaccine will harm the fetus or a nursing infant. It is however known that pregnant women who receive flu vaccines are being exposed to formaldehyde, aluminum, and in some flu vaccines mercury. How can they say it is safe for a fetus when they clearly state it has not even been studied?? As nurses, most of us have learned that the human immune system is amazing, complicated, effective, and in some cases (ie auto immune disorders) dangerous. I wonder what overstimulating a pregnant woman's immune system, as is done intentionally when vaccines are given, does to the natural physiological processes involved in the establishment of the new immune system being formed in the unborn child. Personally, I wonder if excessive vaccination in early life, many doses close together, has anything to do with the drastic increase in auto immune disorders we are seeing among our population, including food allergies. Do they know as much as they claim to know about the long-term safety of vaccine ingredients? Based on what I have reviewed in the area of long-term safety studies that have been done, the data available is way less than adequate, especially to state with such confidence vaccines have no long term health risks worth worrying about. But if vaccine manufacturers state in the package insert it is not known if you as a pregnant woman can receive a flu vaccine with no risk to the fetus and no proven benefit as no studies have been done, do they have any accountability is any harm is done? I think it is way wrong to force anyone to take any drug, period. It is a fundamental freedom to decide what drugs enter our bodies. Personally, I choose not to annually inject my body with formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, among other things. I have had one flu vaccine, and I have had the flu one time (the same year I got the vaccine). The Hospital that employs me, as of this year makes us wear a mask if we chose not to get the vaccine. I wonder how many people that get the vaccine even bother to read the package insert. I would start there before I made any decision. At least then you can be aware of some risks and benefits, as well as the ingredients which can be researched further in MSDS etc. But if a drug company tells me it is not known whether their drug is safe or effective for my child, I would skip it, especially considering that in reality for the vast majority of people, the flu is a simple, short-term illness with no significant danger and means a few days in bed. I know it makes it less profitable for the drug companies, but I wish they would remove the known neurotoxins, carcinogens, from their products.

I am very much against requiring anyone to get a flu vaccine, or any other drug, period. What medications we take should be a personal choice. Education is the answer, not force. There are too many examples of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, etc claiming a medication is safe, when in fact it is not. All drugs have risks, and as individuals we should have the right to weigh risks and benefits, and make an informed decision for ourselves. You can find a legitimate study to support whatever stance on the issue you may have. Have you read the package insert for the flu vaccine? Have your patients? How do you define informed consent? Personally I will do no more than offer reliable information to my patients, so they can make an informed decision. I will give them a copy of the package insert, so they can read about safety studies, ingredients, efficacy etc. Maybe the flu shot cannot cause the flu, but I know it can cause people to get sick. Is during acute recovery from a major surgery really the best time for a vaccine? Seeing how if it gives immunity at all, it will not be for weeks, this should be considered along with all the risks and benefits, but it is wrong to pitch a sales line for the pharmaceutical company and say the flu vaccine is entirely safe, effective, and has no risk beyond an ache at the injection site as this is not the truth. My family decides not to get flu vaccines. We do not want to annually inject formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, and other toxins into our bodies. I think it is entirely reasonable to suspect that over time, doing so could have negative health consequences. To us, the risk of the flu, which for he vast majority of the population is nominal, does not warrant the recent hype. According to the package inserts we have read, safety studies have not even been done with the flu shot in certain populations, including pregnant women and nursing women. Long term safety studies are minimal at best, and we need to look at more than what side-effects occur in a period of time measured in days or weeks. No one can say that stimulating the immune system and introducing known toxins into the body does not cause chronic illness over time. Why are auto-immune disorders increasing exponentially, such as asthma, lupus, type 1 DM, food allergies, MS etc? Take a look at the studies that have been done on the issue, because they certainly have not ruled anything out as the cause. I am not saying that vaccines are or are not causing illness, I certainly do not know but obviously something we are being told is safe is not safe. I had many vaccines prior to becoming a practicing nurse. I believe they have great benefits, but I also believe they have risks. And I do not want annual vaccines of any kind. If they removed the toxins such as formaldehyde and aluminum, maybe I would reconsider. You can get the flu, spread the flu, and face all consequences associated with the flu if you get the vaccine or if you don't. Common sense and good nursing practice will prevent the spread of disease. It amazes me that so many people are fine with forcing someone to take a drug they do not want or risk getting fired, in the name of "the greater good", yet so many other actions that kill and make far greater numbers of people sick are accepted in the name of economic progress. Like buying pink ribbon cosmetics that donate 1 cent to breast cancer research that are full of known carcinogens, or allowing coal companies financed by our tax dollars to pump tens of thousands of pounds of mercury and lead into the air and water every year, or allowing schools to fill our kids with junk food as juvenile obesity, dm and heart disease are on the rise. How much of our scarce resources to improve public health are wasted on this BS. Its sickening. If you want to get a flu shot every year, go for it. Thats you're choice. But don't tell someone else what to put in their body, especially something that is not guaranteed to reduce the risk of anything, and that has plenty of risks involved

The initial post was supporting the labeling of GM foods. This would allow people to make informed decisions about what they eat. Those that wish to consume conventional produce,or that are indifferent can continue doing so. Those that wish to avoid it can do so. If conventional food is so nutritous and necessary to feed the world, why not label it. It does not take an advanced degree to understand that ingesting cancer causing chemicals can result in cancer. You say no one is admitted to the hospital because they ate GM foods; do you apply the same logic to cheeseburgers? How do you know what degree of cancers are caused by pesticide exposure, or what health problems may result? Have you reviewed the safety studies and approval process? Many studies show that GM crop yields are lower than organic, especially over time. Ask the people in India if they want our GM foods to feed them. GM foods destroy soil, pollute water, require application of ungodly amounts of chemicals that end up in our air, water and blood, reduce crop diversity, result in the loss of seeds, allow life itself to be patented, result in super weeds. I wonder if you would feel the same way if your kids had to play in the areas polluted with cancer causing chemicals, or if you were the one that someone else decided needed to be saved by being fed with this stuff. Maybe its just a matter of needing a market to dump their product in. There are reasons entire nations have banned the cultivation of GM crops. Whatever your position or my position, the majority of Americans want GM foods to be labeled.

in addition, as stated in "Healthy Food in Healtcare" from the 2008 ANA house of delegates, the ANA wantes the FDA to reconsider the approval of rBGH (growth hormone injected into cows), as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and all countries in the EU have banned it. Please tell the FDA to ban and or label rBGH in dairy products and meat. As a nurse, I feel obligated to advocate for patients and communities, and dietary intake is a major factor in health and disease prevention, including the consumption of food additives, pesticides, herbicides, etc that have been shown to have negative health impacts and are in our food, and the food is not labeled as having these ingredients. I am proud of the ANA's stance on this issue.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 5, 2011 CONTACT: Mary McNamara, 301-628-5198 [email protected] Adam Sachs, 301-628-5038 [email protected] www.nursingworld.org ANA Joins ‘Just Label It’ Campaign Silver Spring, MD – The American Nurses Association (ANA) has joined a coalition urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to label foods that have been genetically engineered. ANA, along with nearly 400 other groups representing health professionals, consumer and environmental advocates, parents, farmers and businesses, believes people have a right to know what’s in their food. The Just Label It campaign (www.justlabelit.org) is demanding that the FDA require labels on foods produced using genetic engineering. ANA has been a vocal advocate in the issue of food policy. The association co-authored Principles of a Healthy Food System, which supports socially, economically and ecologically sustainable food systems that promote health, the current and future health of individuals, communities and the natural environment. Everyone has a right to know what’s in the foods they eat. Tell the FDA to label genetically engineered foods; please send your comments to the FDA. To learn more about ANA’s work on healthier foods please visit, http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/OccupationalandEnvironmental/environmentalhealth/PolicyIssues/HealthyFoodinHealthCare.aspx # # # The ANA is the only full-service professional organization representing the interests of the nation's 3.1 million registered nurses through its constituent and state nurses associations and its organizational affiliates. The ANA advances the nursing profession by fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the rights of nurses in the workplace, projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the public. 17 minutes ago