macawake

I'm not privy to the thoughts of California lawmakers but my guess is that they want to send a signal about what values they want to promote in their society and also strengthen the protections of a group of people who are often vulnerable and discriminated against. It's basically what all laws are. They are a signal regarding what society considers acceptable behavior, and what it does not. In my country we have one law that is a bit strange when you compare it to the equivalent law in other countries. It's the criminal code regarding prostitution. Here it's actually legal to sell your body, the rationale being that it's yours to sell. BUT.. it's illegal to use the services of a prostitute, because another person's body isn't yours to buy and use. So the customer/john commits a crime, the prostitute doesn't. It can be regarded as a rather convoluted solution but it is intended as a signal. It also has the advantage that a prositute who gets battered or sexually assaulted, can report the crime without fear of incriminating her or himself. Yes, some people lie. It's hardly a majority of people or patients who are in the habit of making false accusations regarding being the victims of crimes, but they do exist. However, I don't see how that fact can be used as a rationale to not make more laws if they are deemed necessary. People can lie about offenses that are already criminal, like rape, assault/battery or theft. Surely you don't think doing away with those laws is the proper response to the fact that some people lie? I suspect we've all used the wrong pronoun at some point in time. As you say, sometimes we're just tired or unfocused. It happens. I highly doubt that anyone will lose their license over it, and I don't think the respective BoNs will come gunning for nurses with English as a second language, when it's obvious that they mangle their pronouns regardless of the gender identity of the person they're talking about. It will likely be quite apparent to any semi-competent investigator when they're facing an example of maliciously motivated and intentional discrimination as opposed to poor language skills. I think you're warning about scenarios that are extremely unlikely to occur. Who are you having this argument with? Who in this thread has advocated banning this song? Aren't we all in agreement that we can turn it off or change stations? Do you care to clarify this comment? It's not super clear who you're addressing or what you're actually saying. The way I interpret it is that you think that you are a member of the kind and respectful camp, and that some other posters aren't. Is that correct?

I think that you're absolutely correct. If the complaints were legitimate, the people who make them shouldn't find it so darn difficult to come up with examples of things they'd like to be able to say, but feel that they are prohibited to say. I've asked for examples on multiple occasions in this thread, but no one appears to be able to verbalize them. That makes me suspect that what they wish they were able to say, in all likelihood isn't able to withstand the scrutiny of daylight. You guys are free to prove me wrong by providing examples of what you would like to be able to say, but that will have serious negative consequences on your employment status, personal safety or liberty if you do. If you're unable to do that, my previous conclusion will remain. Bottom line, I'm not giving anyone who's not willing to specify what they wish they'd be able to say but are prevented from saying, the benefit of doubt. The entire term PC in my opinion has a deliberate negative connotation. It's an attempt to minimize the validity of opinions that are different than your own. If you call someone's opinion PC, it implies that the person doesn't have the opinion due to personal beliefs and values, but rather that they are trying to adhere to some kind of external rules and norms. The implication is that if someone is PC their convictions aren't internal in origin, but externally dictated. Who're you calling stupid I agree with you regarding the golden rule and if everyone could just follow it, things would be so much better. ~~~~~~~~~ One of the few concrete examples I've seen in this thread of what a person would like to say, was a poster who thought it important to him to be able to talk about (and to I guess) a transgender person, using the "correct biological" pronoun. How is it to live by the golden rule to deliberately disrespect another person's wishes? Why does someone feel they should have the right to be able to say to a person, that they reject the other person's entire identity and that the other person's feelings are less important than their own? How is that not simply cruelty masquerading as freedom of speech? Why not respect the other person even if you yourself don't understand how it is to feel like they do and be like they are? Why is it so important to be able to shove your own convictions down the other person's throat? What kind of satisfaction does that offer? Think and believe what you will in private, but treat other people with respect. As you're "good griefing", how many people in this thread have actually supported banning this song? It's a non-issue. It's has got to be a teeny-tiny insignificant percentage of the population who would actually go as far as a ban. You have rap music with some blatantly misogynistic lyrics so I don't see a countrywide ban being imposed on this song. In my opinion you and others are inflating this way out of proportion. In my opinion there's a whole lot wrong with that annoying song, but as far as I'm concerned you are free to listen to that ode to repressed sexuality to your heart's content. Of course it's religious extremism at the root of this. I know several religious persons who are tolerant of others and who genuinely embrace the golden rule and they are just as appalled as I am, by people who think they have the right to impose their world view on others. Not so the extremists. They are watching in dismay when their once dominating worldview is now challenged and no longer allowed to reign supreme. They feel the control and dominance they once had, slipping through their fingers. They miss the 1950s and they don't feel at home in this new world. They feel threatened, so now they try to fabricate one ludicrous threat after another and use misinformation as a strategy to sway people's minds to their own authoritarian and liberty-hating way of thinking. I say liberty-hating because the only liberty they want, is their own. And it's always at the expense of other people's rights, autonomy and happiness. A couple of years ago they were trying to disguise their bigotted views by faking concern that women would be raped in public restrooms just because transgendered people would be allowed to use the women's restroom. Now they're trying to make it sound like LTC staff will serve hard prison time for a simple slip of the tongue. I don't even have to read the proposed law to know that it isn't about sending someone to jail for mistakenly addressing someone as she when they wish to be addressed as he, or vice versa. It's about protecting residents from discrimination based on for example sexual orientation, gender identity or hiv status. In order to be sentenced to actual jail time, I'm pretty sure that the discriminatory action by an employee would have to be systematic and involve more components than merely using the wrong pronoun, and there would likely have be an aspect of actual harm to the resident as a consequence of the discrimination present as well. That said, I think that insisting on being able to call a patient or resident something else than what they wish to be called, is selfishness of the first order. Any intelligent person ought to question their own motivation for making that particular "freedom" a priority.

Knock yourself out. I'm convinced that you're plenty smart enough to figure out that if you talk about or address a person in a different manner than they want to be addressed, you know that you've made the deliberate decision to disrespect their wishes and depending on the person, quite possibly also hurt them. My conclusion is that being allowed to do that matters more to you, than the possible pain you inflict. Right or wrong? If wrong, feel free to explain why you think so. Personally I don't get it. If something's no skin off my nose and the person isn't being a **** towards me, my default setting is to simply respect the person and their wishes. Different strokes I guess. Sweetcheeks, your terms of endearment are really tugging at my heartstrings, but I suspect Farawyn ain't your dear... It's kind of funny. This thread is over a hundred posts long, and no one has managed to provide a meaningful list of things that they want to be able to say, but feel is frowned upon or even condemned by a sizeable portion of the population. What have we got so far? * Being able to say Merry Christmas. * Being able to call Easter eggs; Easter eggs. (I've searched the internet for credible incidences of people being assaulted or jailed for using the phrase Merry Christmas or saying Easter eggs, but rather unsurprisingly, I drew a blank). * If I interpreted it correctly, being able to call a person who's transgender the pronoun you prefer, instead of the one they prefer? Isn't this a rather pathetic list? Have I missed anything major? There are so many posters in this thread who seem to share the common belief that you guys are way, way too PC, and that's the best the collective you can come up with? Come on! Careful, y'all are starting to sound like special snowflakes Are you telling me that you have a genuine fear that it will become illegal and punishable by a jail sentence, to simply call a person the wrong he or she? Without even bothering to research where you've picked up that strange idea, I can safely predict that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law. So stop fretting. I swear it's as if some of you guys are actively looking for things to get upset about. In my opinion there's a bit of a victim mentality lurking in there somewhere... I have to wonder why is it so hard for you to "keep up with the goalposts"? It ain't rocket science. I find that kindness and respect, and a sincere apology if if I've shoved my foot in my mouth (and that's certainly been known to happen), usually does the trick. TraumaRUs, I was planning on asking you about this in my first post in this thread, but I forgot. As I've already said, I appreciate your posts and I find that you are always respectful and kind (a lot more so than I often am). I must admit, to me it came a bit out of left field, that this PC stuff bothers you. The thing I was going to ask about, is why would anyone want to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in Japan? I mean, the bombs "you" dropped on them are horrific. With a nuclear bomb, if you're "lucky" you are instantly "vaporized". If you're less lucky, you suffer an agonizing, protracted death, with thermal burns, radiation burns, vomiting, severe bloody diarrheas, extensive internal bleeding, bone marrow and central nervous system death. Or if the amount of radiation you were exposed to was lower, you might just get milder nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, painful mucous membranes and develop leukemia two years or so down the road. Who could blame the Japanese for not wanting to be reminded of this, especially by citizens from the country that bombed them?

The song doesn't make me think of date rape but rather that I'm glad that I wasn't young in that era. Since I've never been shy about stating what I want, I probably wouldn't have been very content to live in such a repressed state where game playing and fake coyness was the norm and the expectation. I guess I welcome the "decadence " with open arms

I agree. I'm quite convinced that I could fly to Sea-Tac International and run around all the terminals yelling Easter egg at the top of my lungs and not have to worry about being scolded and flogged by a huge angry PC mob :) Airport police/security might be a different matter... They might disapprove of my behavior, but hardly based on my being PC-illiterate One can always find a small amount of people who object to basically any silly thing, but as long as they aren't a significant/majority portion of the population or those who wield absolute power over you, their little idiosyncracies don't really have any meaningful bearing on your or my life. I doubt that this spring sphere has spread sufficiently to actually impact/restrict anyone else's life. Personally I think it's pretty silly to focus on weird outliers and try to magnify the phenomenon into something of relevance. Let that person call it a spring sphere if it floats their boat :) I think it's a perfect example of a non-issue that doesn't affect me whatsoever. Is anyone here seriously genuinely afraid to utter the words Easter egg out loud to the point that they'll refrain from it out of concern for the negative consequences? Somehow I doubt it.

I've never heard that song before now and I must admit that listening to it annoyed the **** out of me. Mostly because it was painfully repetitious. Should it be banned though? No. I can change stations. It's interesting how differently we perceive things. I don't really see it as more "innocent" than today. I just find whatever games those two couples are playing, irksome and repressed. For ***** sake, if you're attracted to someone, just come out and say it. That's the easiest way to find out if the attraction is mutual. First couple I see a man who's dense as a log. The second couple I see a woman who's equally dense. If someone keeps trying to put on their jacket and leave, chances are they aren't that into you. People who beat around the bush annoy me. A lot. And as far as I'm concerned, people who keep pulling your arm in order to stop you from leaving when you've made your intent clear, have earned themselves a no, a swat and a smack (in that order, as needed). While I'm semi jesting here, it should be noted that physically preventing a person from going where they're trying to go, is in most cases a criminal offense. (Well, unless you keep on singing at/to them in a jolly manner, in which case I guess it's okay ) I still don't think the song should be banned, but I guess it's safe to say that I won't be downloading that tune any time soon Before I can even begin to answer that, we'd have to agree on what "PC" even is. I have a feeling that if you asked ten posters to try to actually define what PC means, we'd get ten different versions. I also think that in some instances, some people stick the label PC on others, as a lazy copout when they don't want to or aren't able to support their own viewpoint in a rational and cogent manner. It's easy to just dismiss someone's position as being "PC", instead of accepting that the other person feels differently than oneself, based on their own opinions and personal values/convictions, rather then being "politically correct". Was there a clear definition of the term PC provided in this survey, or were respondents answering with their own personal/individual definition in mind? *** Could someone here who thinks we are too PC, give me ten clear examples (even five will do :)) of things they would like to be able to say, but feel they aren't able to, without being struck down be the "PC brigade"? I genuinely don't understand what PC means. Because I never feel curtailed or hemmed in. I feel that I can speak my mind and if someone objects it's usually because they have a different opinon than I, which is fine. It's not normally for the way I way it. I can't identify with this feeling of being restricted by what's PC, so I'd really appreciate if someone could give concrete examples. Personally, when I do manage to offend, it's normally because I intended to offend (or at a minimum, didn't care if I did). It doesn't just, oops, just happen... I can't blame that on anyone else, or hide beind that I don't like this "PC nonsense". I always try to own the insults I deliver. I'm responsible for them. @traumaRUs. I've never seen you be anything but well-mannered and civilized on this board. I assume that you're not habitually offensive to others in real life as well? I guess that just as with the term PC, we have to find a common definition for what's offending to others, cause I simply don't see being offensive as being something you do. Personally and generally speaking, I find it's always a good idea to think before I/one speak/s :)

Well, you are of course free to laugh your butt off. But I have to wonder if you've given any thought at all to why several posters perceive you this way based on what you write in your posts? Or have you just surmised that we're all clueless fools? That "loud and proud" part appears to be a trigger for you. Yes, let's make attempting to save face when random people asks a person intrusive questions about something deeply private, a mortal sin. Of course they don't deserve any sympathy when they lie so egregiously. I told you about my work ex-partner's situation. Do you think he'd confide in you if you happened to be his nurse and you asked him about his family situation? You can safely assume that he wouldn't. Building the kind of trust required to share something like that takes time, and even then it's not something you share with each and every person you interact with. Does the fact that he wouldn't share the reason he chose not to have children and perhaps offer up a more light-hearted explanation as a defense mechanism, mean that you would put him in the group of people that you deem unworthy of your sympathy? He's just one example. There are many people out there with complicated and sometimes painful life stories. They've experienced things that you and I and the rest of us, usually aren't aware of. We're normally privy to a very limited part of other people's lives. To stand in judgment of them strikes me as extremely smug and prideful. Doubly so when you consider that they haven't even committed an act that hurts anyone or breaks any law, legal or moral. So what on earth is there to even judge? I really don't understand why you've decided that people who choose to not have children, aren't worth sympathy and kindness. It seems really strange to me. Trope? That's cold. Excellent post Horseshoe with intelligent and empathetic insights.

Since you shared your opinion that you think that another poster comes off as bitter and borderline misogynistic, I assume that you don't object to straight talk? I hope you don't, because I'm not inclined to sugarcoat things. In my opinion the opinions you express in the above quotes, sound extremely rigid and quite judgmental. I'm not sensing much kindness and understanding for the fact that human emotions can be complicated and that human lives are often rather messy affairs. Things don't always work out as a person has planned or hoped... Before I became a nurse, I locked people up for doing all sorts of things that the law says they shouldn't. Those of the offenders whose crimes involved wilfully hurting other human beings, is pretty much the only category of folks, that I can't easily summon up empathy and compassion for. Unless a person has spent their life actively hurting others, I say they deserve kindness and compassion if they are alone and afraid. Regardless of age. Regardless if they chose to procreate, or not. By the way, wouldn't having children for the sole purpose of not being alone in old age, be the height of selfishness? To me that would be a very poor reason to bring a life into this world. In my old job I worked with a man who I'd spend time with off-duty as well. You know, just hanging out and having a few beers. We became friends. He was married, no kids. I knew the no kids parts was his choice, but for many years I didn't know why. After a particularly stressful super crappy shift when the worst that mankind has to offer was on prominent display for ~ten depressing hours, he, I and a few others went out for a couple of drinks to decompress. That's when I found out why he didn't want to have children. As a child he'd been sexually abused. He was deathly, and in my opinion irrationally, afraid that he would perpetuate that legacy if he had kids of his own. I trusted this man with my life at work and I'd trust him around children, but he couldn't get past his fear. He made a choice and because of it, I guess there's a chance that he'll be alone in old age. I think it's profoundly sad that the childhood perpetrator had, or was given, so much power that it has affected his major life decisions. He's a good man and he sure as hell deserves kindness and sympathy if he ever becomes lonely and afraid. Despite the fact that the choice to not have children, was 100% his own. If a person makes the choice, whether that choice is an active one or just life happening, I highly doubt that the choice is made because the person is hoping that they'll spend their old age feeling alone. Life is complicated.

Aunt Slappy, I don't think that's at all what Cleback said. I agree with Cleback. It is a sad situation and it's easy to feel empathy for a woman who sounds like she could be quite lonely and perhaps scared of how her life will be after she retires. Emergent, not all conversations are comfortable and easy to have and this will likely be one of those. I think the kindest thing you could do for your coworker friend, is to do exactly what she has already given you permission to do. Talk to her. Be honest with her. As another poster has already said, I'm sure you can do it in a nice way and make her feel that you have her best interest at heart. Do you have volunteers at your hospital? Perhaps that's something she could do, that could soften the transition into retirement for her and help fill her days with something meaningful? A couple of years ago, a surgeon I used to work with was pretty much made to retire. He was past the age of retirement and did well for a couple of years but then we noticed that he started slipping with some work-related things, so some of us had a honest and quite painful talk with him about it before it got to the point that patient safety was compromised. I and one other nurse and a handful of his physician colleagues meet up with him regularly. Personally, I meet him for a coffee about once a month or so, to do a bit of gossiping :) I know that retiring was painful for him. He's a widower and has also lost their only child. Ageing can be cruel. He was a great coworker and a highly skilled surgeon who helped thousands of patients through the years, and I guess my heart just goes out to him. Plus he's a interesting person to talk with so those coffee "dates" are a win-win situation :) (Edit: I took a break to fix a snack in the middle of writing this post, and now I see that Cleback has made a post after I started writing this post).

Yes, I think that's exactly what we're seeing. If I'm honest, I also think that we as human beings often tend to be a bit judgy-pants and it gives us a degree of satisfaction to display our condemnation and disapproval in a public manner. That way we can all bond and feel like we're on the side "of the angels". This is probably a bit hard to admit even to oneself, as it's not an entirely attractive characteristic. I know that I've been guilty of that type of behavior. I agree. There is something seriously wrong with coming up with the idea "that I'll try to kill someone and see if that might possibly help relieve some of all the stress I'm currently experiencing". To me, no sane mind goes there. If you ever do this again, we'll turn you in, pastor told killer nurse | The Star If this article is accurate, it seems that the deciding factor that made her confess to her crimes in a way she knew could not be ignored, was the fact that one of her employers had told her that they were planning to reassign her to pediatric patients, and that prospect terrified her since she realized that she could not control her impulses. According to the article I've linked, it appears that she didn't work any more shifts as a nurse after finding this out and she subsequently checked herself into the psychiatric facility and confessed to her crimes. I don't know if all this is accurate, but if it is it certainly points to some kind of a conscience. Listen, I'm not defending this convicted murderer. Her crimes are vile. As I've already said, in my opinion she deserves each and every one of her eight life sentences. But I do confess to being annoyed when people only see things as black and white, and refuse to see nuances. Yes, she committed despicable crimes. That however doesn't automatically mean that she couldn't possibly, even in a single situation, ever be motivated by something other than self-interest. I hear you, but what is evil if not some defective wiring of the organ which guides our actions? I don't even understand the definition of evil. To me it's a biblical concept, rather than something with clearly defined necessary components. Since it can't really be diagnosed using any objective type of criteria, the concept just isn't all that meaningful to me. Evil to me, is kind of the fallback label when we don't understand or know how to explain an action. I think I understand your concern. But I don't think anyone here meant to imply that oftentimes life-saving medications made this nurse a murderer. There was something clearly wrong with how she reacted and acted when faced with stressors, and that can't be blamed on medication side effects. I am open to the possibility that the medications she was on had an effect on how she emotionally reacted to and processed the aftermath of her own acts, but I'm entirely convinced that they didn't cause her to murder. I agree that it's troubling when people avoid medications that could be highly beneficial for them because they fear real side effects. We see that a lot, both with somatic and psychiatric medications. We don't need side effects that aren't real, like turning into a serial murderer, added to the list of things patients fear.

Reading the various responses in this thread I am struck by how emotional many of them are and I wonder if everyone has even tried to find all the available facts about this case, or if you're just gut-reacting to what are undeniably horrific crimes. Sure, it's difficult to imagine that so many people would hear a confession to murder, and do nothing. But is it impossible? Not at all. If Wettlaufer is telling the truth when she says that she confessed to all these people, their reaction was in all likelihood not "meh". They probably failed to wrap their heads around the fact that this person they knew well, was in fact a serial killer. People do react in strange ways with a lot of psychological defense mechanisms coming into play. If it is true that she confessed to all these people, I doubt they will admit to it today, so her story is likely hard to corroborate. The people who heard her confessions, if in fact they did, have to come to terms with the fact that they could possibly have prevented the later murders if they had acted. Have you ever interviewed family members, close friends or neighbors of a person who's being charged or has been recently convicted of any type of gruesome or sensational crime? The standard response is they had no idea. Some might say that "he" was always a bit of a loner or aloof or something along those lines, but they never believe that someone they know could in fact commit such horrific crimes. CBlover, why do you think she has zero credibility? I agree that she might not be upstanding citizen numero uno, but the way I view it is that criminals who confess to things and acts, where the confessions actually hurt them/their case, gain at least a modicum of credibility. I'll give you an example from this specific case. She confessed to deliberately choosing the most vulnerable victims available, because she realized that their dementia might help her if they were to ever accuse her of wrongdoing. She knew her victims would likely not be believed due to their condition. As I said previously, that's cold and calculated. She could easily have explained her choice of victims in a way that didn't paint her in such a repulsive light. She could have said that she picked victims with dementia because she felt sorry for them and she was convinced they had low quality of life due to dementia, and tried to portray her murders as acts of "mercy". That's still not a pretty picture, but it's light-years better than wilfully preying on the weakest, most vulnerable population for the express purpose of self-preservation. She didn't do this. She went for the ugliest explanation possible and owned it. Of course crazy isn't a legal diagnosis and we aren't in a position to say anything definitive about this case, but I do agree with you in general terms. Murder is always wrong, but in my opinion in most cases you can at least identify a motive from the murderer's perspective. It can be for financial gain, it can be anger, jealousy or revenge, it can be to conceal a crime/rid oneself of a witness. There are many reasons. It doesn't make murder in any way acceptable, but you can logically identify a motive in these cases. When there isn't a logical motive, I agree that crazy is an appropriate label. AFTER Wettlaufer voluntarily confessed and was sentenced to eight concurrent life sentences AND had started serving her sentence, she was CONTACTED BY three lawyers who visited her in prison. These lawyers were a part of a a public inquiry that the provincial government had commissioned. The inquiry sought to "get the answers we need to help ensure a tragedy such as this does not happen again" and one of the people they interviewed was the convicted murderer. She was specifically asked what SHE THOUGHT: "could have stopped, or reduced, her killing spree?" Since she acknowledged that what she did was wrong in her trial, I think we can safely assume that she knows. The "whatever" reason she was caught, was that she VOLUNTARILY confessed her crimes after she had voluntarily entered a drug rehab program. She wasn't "caught". Neither do you I assume. We don't know if a different psychiatrist might have been more successful in identifying and treat what appears to be a gravely dysfunctional human being. What we do know is that the one she had, apparently failed to. I'm not about to pass judgment on a psychiatrist when I'm aware of the fact that I hardly know anything about this specific case, about the care the physician provided and how the patient cooperated with her care. However, without saying anything definitive about this one particular physician, let's not pretend that there aren't psychiatrists out there who only do the bare minimum, and who more or less rely solely on medications. Interesting. You sound like you live in a black-and-white world. How do you diagnose "evil"? Is there an accepted standard and a standardized test you can run? When I see people who make claims like yours, I think they are afraid that if you admit that a perpetrator suffers some kind of mental abnormality, that somehow diminishes their responsibility for the crimes they committed. Many violent offenders I've met have had diagnoses like antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder and a couple of them had a third one as well; sadistic personality disorder. Is that what you mean by evil? Because trust me, their brains aren't wired like yours and mine. I'm not a psychiatrist, but my layman interpretation is that they are mentally abnormal. They do however know the differnce between right and wrong and in my personal opinion, jail and not a psychiatric facility, is the right place for this group of offenders to serve their sentence. To me the clincher is if a person know what they did was wrong/illegal. I have no problem admitting that a person's personality disorders or other diagnoses might be a factor in the crimes they commit. In a few instances their disease might be a defense for their crime, in most cases it's not. I think it's important to point out that the majority of people who struggle with mental illness NEVER commit violent crimes. If anything, they are more likely to become victims of it. What I've seen in violent offenders over and over again, is what was previously classified as axis II, mainly cluster B, disorders. What's your point? Should she be given a ninth life sentence for not being sufficiently "ladylike"? Farting in public is indicative of what exactly? A homicidal nature? Would her crimes have been less repugnant if she'd been physically attractive?

Sad and horrific story. I think that it's worth noting that the convicted murderer didn't initiate the discussion about these five things that might have made it more difficult for her to commit the murders. As far as I can tell, she didn't try to argue them at trial. She was convicted because she confessed to murder and attempted murder to staff at a drug rehab facility, where she was an inpatient in 2016. The staff in turn notified the College of Nurses and the local police regarding her confession. She herself wrote an email to the College of Nurses and resigned as a nurse, citing the fact that she had deliberately harmed patients under her care and was now being investigated by the police for those crimes. From what I understand, after confessing to the staff at the rehab facility, she cooperated fully with the police's investigation. If her account is to believed, she also confessed several times prior to the time she confessed in rehab, but no one seemed to take her seriously. Elizabeth Wettlaufer - Wikipedia She was later contacted and asked by three lawyers as part of an inquiry, who visited her in prison, where she had already started to serve her eight concurrent llfe sentences. One of the questions these lawyers asked was according the article that OP linked; what she thinks "could have stopped, or reduced, her killing spree?" It is possible that she gave the anwers to the inquiry lawyers because she is trying to displace and allocate at least some of the blame of her crimes, to external circumstances such as facility protocol. But another possibility exists. She could be trying to be a "model prisoner" by trying to be helpful and come up with answers to help with this inquiry. Many times prisoners who serve a long sentence, know that their probably only chance of possibly getting parole sometime in the future, is to keep their nose clean and cooperate with the authorities. I think we should be mindful that we don't know about everything on this woman's mind and in her heart from reading one or two newspaper articles. I don't know how many of you have actually talked to real-life murderers about their crimes? I have. I find it entirely plausible that she is now experiencing remorse in a way that she didn't previously. If that's the Seroquel or not, is not for me to speculate about. But what I do know is that people with drug abuse problems and/or psychiatric problems who commit violent crimes, often experience a major crisis when the full extent of what they've actually done, dawns on them. It is my opinion, anecdotal since it's based on my personal experience, that they often report credibly that they felt detached when the crime occurred and the realization of their own culpability can be painful for those criminals who have even a shred of normal empathy. To me, they are all still wholly responsible for their crimes. I'm just noting that there are two groups of offenders. Those who completely lack a conscience and never feel any remorse, and those who actually are affected by what they've done. I'm not saying this as an excuse for this convicted murderer. In my opinion she deserves every single one of those eight life sentences. What I'm saying though, is that life is seldom black and white. There are many shades of grey. One part of the article that Emergent linked, was in my opinion particularly chilling. According to the article, the convicted murderer said that she picked patients with dementia because "they couldn't report or if they reported, they wouldn't have been believed". That clearly shows calculation and awareness of the risk of getting caught. That's in my opinion cold. She also, according to the article, said that "anybody I ever did had dementia". Please note the use of "did". What she did was murder or try to murder defenseless patients entrusted to her care. Why is she using the word "did"? It could be that she's not accepting responsibility for her acts and using such a dehumanizing verb to describe the act of murder, could point to a lack of empathy and disregard/indifference for the life of others. But it could also be, and I've seen this is real life, that it's a way to attempt to protect herself from painful thoughts. Saying "I murdered" might actually be too painful, so she tries to distance herself by using a neutral word. I don't know enough about this case to guess which of the two possible explanations apply to her. Personally I doubt that more stringent controls regarding insulin storage and administration, would have stopped her from killing her patients. It seems from the article that she avoided opioids because they are better accounted for. If the same had been true for insulin, I suspect that any sufficiently motivated person would just have found another method. Or accepted the larger risk, if the urge to kill was strong enough. This is just me guessing, I have no possible way of knowing for sure. Of course drugs and medications don't turn a person into a murderer. But I don't think that there is anyone here who will argue that medications can't have effects and side effects. Alcohol is famous for lowering inhibitions and there's a reason why some violent offenders like to take, or drug others with, for example flunitrazepam. We can all speculate about this specific case. However, one thing I think we can all agree on, is that it's painful to see a healthcare professional so completely betray her duties to her patients.

I think it's time to don our nursing critical thinking caps and try to find the source for the shortened attention span claim... I think there's a good reason why posters haven't been able to figure out exactly where the eight second attention span result comes from... Busting the attention span myth - BBC News The above article says that the 8 second attention span figure, while it was mentioned in a study by Microsoft, the study didn't say that it was the source of it. When the author of the article attempted to identify and verify the original source for the number, things got a bit confusing. I suggest you guys read the BBC article. Opinion | The Eight-Second Attention Span - The New York Times The above is an opinion piece, but I think it's worth a read. Microsoft Attention Spans Research Report | Attention | Advertising Okay, nurse critical thinking cap on... If the attention span has gone from 12 seconds in 2000, to 8 seconds in 2013... What does that mean? What exactly is the definition of "attention span"? In the year 2000 people, including young people, were able to become physicians and pass the bar to become lawyers. Air traffic controllers sure as heck had the ability to focus for more than 12 seconds at a time, otherwise aircraft would have been crashing and falling from the sky in droves.... So what consequences will the decreased attention span from 12 to 8 seconds have? (Assuming we even accept these numbers as scientifically verifiable, and I have some serious reservations...) My guess is that people will still become physicians, lawyers, nurses, engineers etc. etc. and if air traffic incidents increase, the reason will much more likely be congested skies, rather than short attention spans of young´uns....

Hello and welcome to AN. I'm not sure exactly what to make of your posts. I looked at the only other posts you've made so far, and they were as I understand them, about looking forward to no longer being young and cute, so that creepy guys won't hit on you any more?? That struck me as odd first posts so I admit to having some reservations. But despite that, I'm going to take your posts here in this thread at face value, because what you describe is in my opinion serious. In my opinion, your situation doesn't sound anything like OP's situation. What you are describing bears many of the hallmarks of a potentially abusive partner. I must confess that there are parts of your posts that I don't understand. How does thinking about the fact that someone can take everything they have with them and make YOU homeless, help? You ask if you deserve someone who makes your life hell. I've never met you, I don't know you, yet I can confidently reply that; NO, you do not. No one deserves having their life made into hell. Especially not by someone who's supposed to love you and who shares his or her life with you. A husband/wife/partner should have their partner's best interest at heart. A husband who actively tries to sabotage your ability to focus on studying prior to exams by deliberately stirring up ****, is no good. He's showing signs of jealousy by being suspicious of your extracurricular activities. That jealousy can be sexual in nature, but it can also be jealousy and fear because you are gaining strength, more available options and independency from him by getting a formal education. Being able to support yourself will allow you choices in the future. Regardless of what motivates his suspicion, unless you have a habit of having affairs outside of your marriage when you say you're at study group, his suspicion is not okay. And it's a huge warning sign. I wish you luck with your studies and please do what you can to be able to focus on getting the best results that you can. With a nursing degree you'll have independence. Having independence is freedom, and means that the choice to stay or leave can be based on what's best for you, and not on financial considerations. We all only get one life. We deserve happiness. YOU deserve happiness. It's not my place to tell you how to handle your marriage, but PLEASE stay safe. >>>>> I was just done with my response to you when I noticed that you've made an additional post with more information. I'm confused. Are you now with husband number two? You previously said that you don't have kids with your husband, but in the new post, you speak of your daughter. Right now, I feel like my reading comprehension sucks big time. Anyway, my advice remains the same. Please stay safe! OP, sorry about the thread hijack. Dear Abby doesn't have anything to fear from me. I'm pretty crap at giving romantic advice. I just wanted to add that I think it's better that you found out about your man's moral fiber now, rather than in the future when you might have invested even more of your time, feelings and possibly kids as well. I know you're hurting right now, but one thing life has taught me. You WILL get through this. Grieve the loss of the relationship briefly, then focus all your mental energy on school. I wish you the best of luck in school and much happiness in life going forward! Well, thank you for your contribution This thread is officially becoming a bit strange.

Honestly, I'm not suprised that it didn't work out. OP, I realize that you came here looking for ideas about how to perhaps improve on the details of your proposed plan, and I'm afraid that my reply won't be very helpful in that regard. Regardless, I'd still like to share a few of my thoughts on the matter. I just want to be straight from the beginning and let you know that I don't believe that anonymous peer to peer reviewing is beneficial. I object to the anonymity, not the feedback. I believe in accountability. I admire persons who have the backbone to address another person directly, instead of going behind their backs. I want to encourage people to speak to one another, and to work out their disagreements as adults. Looking at the complaints that nurses would be submitting in that "locked box". Seriously, what kind of complaints are important or serious enough that a nurse should take the time to single out a coworker and write something critical about them, but at the same time NOT more important than it can comfortably wait a full month before someone looks at it and even begins the process of addressing the issue? The answer to that is petty stuff, and is in my opinion much better suited for direct communication when it occurs. If it's important enough to warrant a mention, you address it then and there. If it's not important enough, you forget about it. And for crying out loud, if you see a coworker doing a good thing, TELL them. Writing an anonymous note so that four commitee members can write a letter about it sometime in the future seems so convoluted to me. What's wrong with talking directly to the people you work with? So the four peers in the committee would be keeping some kind of "ledger" with some kind of work performance "debits and credits" recorded about every coworker? (Or perhaps it's just the debits that are to be tracked?) Coworker A; praise x 2 and complaints x 1... Coworker B: praise x 0 and complaints x 5 etc.? How long would the record be kept, so that it can be tracked if the same person does in fact get the same complaint twice? Not to be too rude, but the Stasi encouraged that type of behavior (keeping records of thy neighbor's behaviors), back in the day in East Germany. Listen OP, I'm not accusing you of being the Stasi. I think you mean well. I just don't believe that this kind of thing will have the unicorns and rainbow effect, that your manager seems to believe. The quote below in my opinion illustrates that unrealistic unicorns and rainbows expectation: OP, how do you think it will affect workplace dynamics that there will be a group of four of you, who have all the "inside scoops" about which coworker is currently on the praise list and who's in trouble with a lot of anonymous complaints leveled against them? You will be in a position of power. And how do you handle complaints against any of the four of you that end up in the locked box? Is it possible that you'll due to resentment, now become a target for complaints, since you now have a new and different role in your "hierarchy"? Would formal disciplinary measures ever be taken, based solely on anonymous notes left in a locked box? I sincerely hope that at some point in the process there'll be some transparency and actual accountability. Since I don't think you should or can base disciplinary action on anonymous complaints, I think you might just as well do away with that feature entirely. The anonymous aspect in my opinion, provides an excellent opportunity for people who want to air their grievances, real or made up, without ever having to take responsibility for their words. They're given the opportunity to air their grievances not in public, but while remaining protected and hidden. And the accused doesn't get the chance to respond to and question their accuser. I think you're right to worry about the effect on morale. OP out of curiosity, are you still working in the facility that posted about in February? You then wrote that your facility "has high levels of workplace bullying and/or incivility". If that's still the case, this anonymous peer-to-peer thing is probably a recipe for disaster. It is probably abundantly clear by now, that I think the better way is to talk to people. Directly. To their faces. If management wants a method to improve the unit, I suggest a "locked box" for suggestions that are not related to/concern individual employees, but rather to general workplace issues and that any people-to-people praise, feedback and complaints be handled directly by the parties it concerns, without creating artificial "intermediaries" or "messengers". To me creating a "middleman", only adds a layer of opaqueness and injects a possible (highly likely!) source of workplace friction, without contributing anything positive. Best wishes!

If he always behaves in a calm manner around patients then he is completely in control of himself. That includes when he's screaming and throwing things when he is around you. He's not a helpless victim of poor impulse control. If he was a helpless victim, he would sometimes lose it around patients as well. The fact that he doesn't, indicates that he's simply doing something he gets a kick out of doing, and in my opinion he's doing it because his supervisor and perhaps others as well, enable him by allowing the behavior. If technically doing your job was genuinely the only requirement one could make of a professional, then all sorts of odd behaviors would be acceptable. That would mean as long as he passes the right meds to the right patient at the right time, he could for example get away with running around in his birthday suit, loudly reciting pornographic poems to the patients I guess However, I suspect even his supervisor would object to that scenario... I have to wonder why your supervisor is okay with having one employee making other employees feel uncomfortable. Providing a work environment that's at a minimum free of fellow employees screaming and throwing things, seems like a very basic expectation to have of an employer. The fact that your supervisor makes excuses for him and condones his obnoxious antics, in my opinion reflects poorly on your employer. Personally, I wouldn't allow a coworker to behave this way around me. I realize that it's not easy for you since you don't seem to be getting any support from your supervisor, but if it were me, I could not not say anything to him when he started acting up. I completely lack both the will and ability to put up with such nonsense. What a crummy situation, OP

Okay... So how does a person who throws cups, screams, slings his keys around and generally makes as much noice as possible, and who's "not in control" of himself, behave around patients? I've dealt with plenty of unruly individuals in my life. Most of them haven't been my coworkers. I can't tell you what to do, but if this was my coworker, I'd tell him to do whatever it takes to start acting like a professional at work. If that means taking his meds, then I guess that's what he needs to do. Why are you tolerating this behavior? It sounds disruptive.

Okay first of all, I'm glad your patient is now doing okay and I'm sorry that you are experiencing the level of stress and anxiety that you are. Of course I wasn't there, but I very much doubt that it was hatred that you saw in her eyes/on her face. I'm not a U.S. nurse and we measure blood glucose in mmol/l in my part of the world, but after converting 14 mg/dl I realize that was a very low blood glucose. I would guess that your preceptor was probably frightened/worried for the patient and experiencing a lot of stress at that time. I have no clue how things work in the U.S., but as your preceptor, is she in any way responsible for checking on your "actions" during your shift? You can't change the past, but going forward it seems a good idea would be to not simply accept that you "don't do" blood glucose checks during night shifts. Again, I work in a different country so I can't offer you any advice. Here I wouldn't need a physician's order to do an extra BG check (or however many I deemed necessary), if I was concerned that something might be going on with the patient. On the contrary, it would be expected of me that I take the initiative and do the test and then take appropriate action and notify a physician about the result and propose a plan of action and get further orders if needed. The blood glucose likely only temporarily spiked because you administered the D50. From what I understand from your post, after that the patient didn't drink or eat anything. Since the patient's BG had already dropped once, it wasn't unreasonable to assume that it could happen again. I'm sorry, but I don't know. I realize it might be easier said than done, but please try to take a deep breath and calm down a bit. Learn from this. You can't change the past, but by learning from this experience you can reduce the risk of something similar happening again in the future. Again, I am sorry that you are going through this and I realize that it's scary. I do hope everything works out well, best wishes!

Do you know any anatomy and physiology... Anyone knows you need all the inferior leads to diagnose bowel issues.

Just out of curiosity, which lead is this? It is sinus and it is slow. The PR interval is within normal limits, but don't those P waves look very tall? With an amplitude of 0.5 mV, could this possibly be Right Atrial Enlargement? Lung disease? Tricuspid stenosis? I would love to see a 12-lead of this. Specifically, I would really love to see V1 and II.

Welcome to AN. As you might have guessed from the "huhs", your post is a bit difficult to decipher. When you say that you've come to appreciate the importance of "holistic medicine" and believe in its efficacy, do you mean holistic as taking both the psychological aspects of the individual as well as the physical symptoms/manifestation of the disease into consideration and treat the "whole" person or do you mean holistic as in alternative and complementary therapies as for example chiropractic and homeopathy (not that the majority of these therapies work. If they were proven to work, they'd be considered evidence-based practice. I'm just trying to figure out what you mean). You use the phrase "accumulation of despair" as potentially being the result of not being able to practice in the way you believe is the most efficient and helpful way. The way I interpret that is that you're wondering how one can find a way to still feel job satisfaction despite the fact that you very often don't have enough time and sufficient nurse staffing levels to be able to see and treat "the whole patient", all the time. But it could also mean that you believe that all nurses ever do in chronic care is throw pills at their patients, while you think we should be doing Reiki and aromatherapy as well. As I said, your post is a bit unclear. There is no easy, one size fits all answer to your question. For me personally, I work in anesthesia so I only take care of one patient at a time. That's offers me the chance to always feel that I've devoted all my attention and skill to that particular patient. Since I find the medical aspects of my specialty interesting and am constantly learning new things and staying abreast of current research, and I also have the opportunity to give all my patients my full attention, I feel that my job is worthwhile. That gives me job satisfaction. There's no crisis of conscience or "accumulation of despair". So I guess the trick is to find an area that suits you as an individual. Nursing has many challenges, but one of the positives, is that it's a very wide field that encompasses many different specialties and care forms. How much time you would have available to farming while nursing of course depends on what other commitments/responsibilities you have in your life outside of work, if you intend to work as a full-time or part-time nurse, how much sleep you require, how much time your commute to your nursing job will take, your health/energy level and whether you are willing to work seven days a week or not. The question you ask is really impossible for an internet stranger to answer. I'm not American, but if it helps any, most nurses who post on this forum who work full-time seem to work either three twelve-hour shifts per week (days, nights or both) or five eight-hour shifts, Mon-Fri. But I'm sure there are a myriad of possible schedules out there. OP, if you want more specific advice from posters (instead of my generalized blah-blah ), I think you need to provide some further details about what it was that sparked your interest in nursing in the first place, and also expand a bit on what you believe or fear the drawbacks are. Best wishes!

Guys, I agree 100% with you. OP, I would not under any circumstances go on a date with a man who acts this way. The fact that he is a recent patient of yours is in my opinion enough to make it inappropriate, but his failure to take no for an answer bothers me a lot. No, we don't know that he's a serial killer. He is however exhibiting stalker behavior. Repeated phone calls to a person's place of work after being told no, is troubling behavior. What kind? In my opinion, as long as it was the kind that's spelled November Oscar, saying it once should be all it takes. Unless he's merely looking for a new bridge partner, then trust me, sex has most definitely crossed this man's mind. He may or may not plan for or expect sex on a first date, but attraction is definitely a factor when you ask someone out. That depends on what you mean by persistent. If by persistent you refer to behavior like what's been described by OP, meaning treating a no as a yes or a maybe, then I really hope that it's no longer acceptable to be persistent. I of course have no way of knowing how you and your husband met. I assume his persistence was of a different and more benign nature, since you seem happy. However, what OP is describing, doesn't sound charming at all to me.

First of all, I'm very sorry this happened to you! To me, not sharing all information to your entire team regarding personal safety, is inexcusable. It bothers me that the nurse didn't even apologize and say that she should have told you, but she forgot due to stress, or whatever the case may have been. Based on your description of the event, she didn't seem to think it was a big deal that she failed to pass along the information. If something like this incident has happened to you dozens of times, and it might if you work with human beings long enough, you can become a bit hardened and jaded. That's something I know from experience. Despite that she ought to have been able to express some sympathy for how you felt and acknowledge that what happened to you wasn't okay. Spitting someone in their face is of course an act of aggression. It's certainly unpleasant even in the cases when the person doesn't happen to have a communicable disease you have to worry about. But more importantly, the propensity to spit is a warning sign that there might be more and worse aggression/violent behavior in the future. When I have a patient whom I know has shown signs of aggression, I always keep a watchful eye on movement from the parts they can hurt me with. Forehead and teeth are excellent weapons, hands, elbows, knees and feet. A raised voice or slapping/hitting/punching themselves can also signal escalation/possible violent behavior towards someone else. Also be aware of whatever sharp objects or blunt objects of sufficient weight they have within arm's length/reach. If you use a stethoscope at work, personally I never have it hanging around my neck when in close vicinity to a person who might be prone to violent behavior. If she'd told you, you might have asked for help or she could have made the offer herself to help you, when doing personal care. Or you might have been able to position yourself in relation to your patient in a way that would have made it more difficult to aim at your face. About the psychological impact of being spat in the face. It's pretty disgusting either way, but another thing I know from experience is that these type of attacks are easier to process if you are mentally prepared for the aggressive behavior. That's just one more reason to always share the relevant information regarding the patient, to those directly involved in their care. Again, I'm sorry this happened to you. I think your coworker failed you. Be safe and take care!

There is no such thing as an average nurse "look". Nurses span the entire spectrum in all areas; looks, intelligence, integrity, sociability, likability etc. etc. You do not apply to nursing school based on your looks, and you aren't accepted into nursing school based on your looks. You don't become a competent healthcare professional based on your looks. Sure, some schools or employers may have a policy against things like for example visible body piercings when you're "on the clock", but you do not have to pass a "beauty test". I get the feeling that you might be young? Some people are idiots. If they talk about you like this, they qualify in that category. Of all the fun, challenging, interesting, pleasureable, rewarding or meaningful things a person could spend their limited time on this earth doing, these individuals choose to hang around discussing another person's looks Pretty darn pathetic if you ask me. Like I said; idiots. I realize it might be hurtful and painful to overhear something like that but really, just ignore them. I'm a nurse but like most of us, I've also been a patient. The first time I lay eyes on a nurse or physician I haven't met before, I notice the way they greet me. Do they look me in the eyes and introduce themselves? I judge them on how I perceive their intellectual acuity/ability. I look for empathy. I subconsciously notice things like for example personal hygiene, but beyond that I really don't give a crap about how they look. I'm a tall female, 185 cm or 6'1'' in your part of the world, who works out a lot. When I was younger people would describe me as beautiful. These days courtesy of a facial scar running from ear to mid-jawline and a nose which has been broken twice in an easterly compass heading and once towards the west, my looks can best be described as... interesting... I wear my blonde hair in a messy updo at work. Sometimes it's blonde hair with mauve or pink highlights... in a messy updo... Apart from a rather severe lipgloss addiction, I detest makeup. Or rather taking the time to apply it. I got my scar from a "run-in" with a knife-wielding man in my former job (not healthcare) and the nose mishaps from wrestling matches with criminals and at self-defense training. A reconstructive plastic surgeon I work with, told me once during a lunch break that she'd be happy to do some work on my facial scar if I wanted her to, but I told her I'm quite fine with it. I really am. It's a part of my life experience. I wear it with pride. The reason I described my physical attributes is to show you that there is no such thing as a typical nurse. If I was an actress I would most likely be cast in the role of ice queen serial killer or maffia don (donna:laugh:). While I do exude warmth when I smile, my neutral face is quite austere and imposing. Despite that my patient's like me and trust me and I have no problem connecting with the majority of them. I've never had a patient recoil from my touch. Just one piece of advice regarding touching your patients, and this has nothing to do with a nurses' looks. It's just basic healthcare professional etiquette. Talk to your patients, inform them about what you're about to do. I'm going to palpate your abdomen in order to or because... [xyz] and ask them; Is that okay? OP, if you think nursing is the career for you. Go for it! Best wishes!

The term enabling seems to trigger a rather emotional response with you. Is this personal? Are you upset at Emergent for her posts in this thread? Am I reading this wrong? That's a very narrow definition. Does it have to be drugs? What if the "friend" has 7,242 bottles of nail polish at home and she still has a compulsive need to buy more? Obviously no one needs that much nail polish. Would you agree with me that a person who keeps lending this person money, money that person doesn't have the will or ability to pay back, is actually doing the nail polish hoarder a disservice? Aye or nay? Emergent described a woman who is still working despite being over 70 years old. She's still working at an age when most people have been able to retire. She's still working because according to her, she has one more "big bill" to pay off before she can retire. Does this sound like a person who can easily afford to lend money to someone, in effect gifting it since she won't get repaid. Logically, every dollar she gives her friend instead of paying off her debt, will push her retirement further into the future. The so called friend texts things like she'd be "better off dead" and that she's " a waste of space", in order to get what she wants. Does this sound like healthy interaction to you? Don't apply the term enabling to this situation if you disapprove of it, but how can you not see that this relationship appears unhealthy? Would it worry or concern you at all if a person you care about had a relationship like the one described? Personally, I'd worry that my friend or loved one was being taken advantage of and that they were giving away money that they would soon need for themselves. Few people are physically able to just keep on working year after year. She will have to retire at some point. The question is what shape she'll be in financially when retirement can no longer be postponed.