Helen Crump

There used to be this thing called the Scientific Method. They used to teach it to physicians and nurses- apparently not anymore. Basically, the way it works is that you come up with a hypothesis, and then you set out to prove or disprove this hypothesis. You do this by using a set of established principles to test the theory and you gather the evidence and once you have the evidence, you evaluate it using other scientific principles. This was done so that opinions can be removed from the process. Now, a method is only as good as the people using it, so in science, other scientists will take your hypothesis and using the scientific method and test it themselves. So will other scientists and if they all get similar results, that is how we know the data is reliable. That's the way it's done. So WHY would anyone speculate that "80% of the physicians and surgeons I know would agree they mask mandates don't work and they are not too sure about the vaccines" as some sort of proof of the unreliability of something that has already been tested by the scientific method? Don't worry, I am not just picking on you. That is the point of this post, there are lots of nurses and doctors doing this. That there are nurses and physicians signing on to this, people who should know better, is extremely baffling. I don't know if it is an indictment of our education or a testament to the strength of politics to cause us to ignore what we already know (or should know).

Yeah, actually we can leave it with the unvaccinated and the unmasked because their actions are what led to the rise and proliferation of the variant in the first place.

Who lumped every single nurse that raises objections into one category? There is a difference between someone who has an objection grounded in thorough, scientific research and an anti-vaxxer. To be clear, an anti-vaxxer is not even the same as vaccine-hesitant. People can have doubts and objections. Of course, they can. They should, science must always be questioned and tested over and over again. But that's not what I am talking about. The anti-vaxxers' objections are based on their belief that their personal freedoms are somehow being violated. They don't trust the government. The vaccine is going to alter their DNA. It's going to affect their freedom. The vaccine has a microchip so they can be tracked. COVID is not that bad. And on and on and on. Worse of all, it isn't enough that they have made a decision to risk their own health. They pass on this gross misinformation, and there are nurses who agree with it or parrot it, thus somehow validating it. They claim to have firsthand knowledge of large numbers of people who have been harmed by the vaccine. They pass on anecdotes that seem to confirm the general public's worst fears. That's wrong. That's who I'm talking about.

Stop with this. Don't dirty up my discussion with an abortion diversion. It is not the same. Not at all.

The problem is that this is not just a difference of opinion, and it should not be framed as such. This is about segments of the population not just ignoring established science but making up "science" to justify their points of view and then endangering the rest of us. I am not obligated to respect any difference of opinion that risks my life and that of my loved ones.

You were right, right up until the last sentence. I am not "marginalizing" a group of people. There is a contingent of people who are refusing the vaccine and all the "different motivations" come down to one thing: misinformation and in a lot of cases, they are being willfully ignorant. The information is out there but they choose to ignore it and seek out information that feels good to them and closely aligns with their identified social and political leanings (see: invermectin paste). You talk about the principle of informed consent and the patient's responsibility to act on that information. For the most part, there has been very little to no "duress", that is why this thing has lingered for so long! You want to talk about obscene? We have been respecting their "rights" and their "viewpoints" and their "opinions" even when it makes no sense, to the detriment of us all! That's what is obscene. And since the consequences of their choices are not self-limited, we all have a right to identify and address these people as who they are. That goes double for people who should know better, a la our colleagues.

This is a valid point. However, I believe the medical community used the information they had at the time to make those recommendations. In this case, we are talking about medical professionals who choose to ignore science or worse, make it up altogether. In most cases, these are not principled people making decisions based on the information they have but they are being swayed, (dare I say it?) by some political motivation. These are crazy times we live in.

As nurses we are supposed to understand and follow science. Yet all over the country nurses are using their background to validate crackpot theories about Covid and the vaccine. Should there be consequences for leading an effort to hurt the public health? After all, it violates basic nursing ethics in particular, do no harm. Should boards of nurses sanction these people or should the ANA or other associations put out a statement saying these folk don't represent us?

Who cares why he was mad? Your job is to take care of the patient, not soothe MD egos. You did a fantastic job, keep doing what your doing. Dr. Jerk will get over it.

So, basically I had to inform the BRN because they are the state but as far as hospitals or employment purposes "the arrest and convictions shall be deemed never to have occurred." Thanks!

Are you going to be able to get a job with that record? I'm curious.

Thank you traumaRus and Sha-Sha. Very helpful.

How many hours of clinical are you doing per week? Do you have the option to do clinicals during nontraditional hours like evenings or weekends?