Using Your Nursing Credentials to Validate Anti-Vaxxer Theories

[Helen Crump]

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?

[Guest219794]

3 hours ago, JBMmom said:

But if you truly believe that what you're doing is to help others, then using social media or giving your opinion is not inappropriate. 

I agree with your sentiment, but not with your conclusion.  For a true professional, like a doctor, there are professional standards, as there should be.  If one violates those standards, regardless of personal intentions, there can be consequences.  If a pediatrician all of a sudden started recommending against MMR, It would be incumbent upon the American Board of Pediatrics to intervene.

 

 

[OUxPhys, BSN, RN]

IMO, if you are a licensed medical professional spreading misinformation on Youtube, TikTok, Twitter, facebook, etc then you should have your license suspended and/or removed. There has to be some sort of consequence for spreading misinformation. 

[MD married to RN]

On 8/31/2021 at 12:36 PM, JBMmom said:

 If you think back to thalidomide, Vioxx, talcom powder, even smoking, the medical community has, in the past, supported treatments or interventions that ended up doing patients harm. 

I would like to add opiates for the treatment of chronic pain. Providers were compelled to take mandatory education emphasizing how providers under treat pain. One only needs to Google "Fentanyl" and "FDA approval" to see what the medical community thought of "novel" ways to treat chronic pain including intranasal and transdermal formulations of the powerful opiate. If a provider questioned pain scales and not utilizing opiates for chronic pain, they were subject to consequences.

Yesterday's dogma often becomes today's heresy.

Science relies on open 'discussions' and continued 'questioning' of accepted treatments in order to know what works and what doesn't. 

Kudos to JBMmom and SmilingBluEyes on their thoughtful approaches to this chain.

[SmilingBluEyes]

13 minutes ago, MD married to RN said:

I would like to add opiates for the treatment of chronic pain. Providers were compelled to take mandatory education emphasizing how providers under treat pain. One only needs to Google "Fentanyl" and "FDA approval" to see what the medical community thought of "novel" ways to treat chronic pain including intranasal and transdermal formulations of the powerful opiate. If a provider questioned pain scales and not utilizing opiates for chronic pain, they were subject to consequences.

Yesterday's dogma often becomes today's heresy.

Science relies on open 'discussions' and continued 'questioning' of accepted treatments in order to know what works and what doesn't. 

Kudos to JBMmom and SmilingBluEyes on their thoughtful approaches to this chain.

And just look where we are now.  Great post.

[ComeTogether, LPN]

I wish they would.  I'm embarrassed on a daily basis by "nurses" who are spouting misinformation and making this political.  We have a duty to know better. 

[MustardJones]

Anyone who has taken a healthcare ethics class, or who has a basic understanding of informed consent, knows that a truly autonomous decision must be free from duress. The risks and benefits must be accurately represented and the patient bears the responsibility of acting on that information. It astounds me that many healthcare professionals think that this principle of informed consent is suspended in the case of the vaccine. The use of specific language to marginalize a group of people with many different motivations, the “anti-vaxxers” is obscene. 

[Brian P]

It would help if the term "Anti-vaxxer" was defined a bit more. 

Things to consider:

Including the "vaccine hesitant" or those that were suggesting for people to wait until FDA approval of a COVID vaccine.

Including those that are advertising that vaccination is a personal choice. This one is dicey, because many try to validate their anti-vaccine position by suggesting that this is an attempt at state-control. Some will say things like "I got the vaccine but whether you do is up to you" without actually providing the research for patients to make informed decisions about vaccination. While it is true that patient choice is important, the failure of presenting proper data tacitly allows things like science denial, or denigration of organizations like the CDC or WHO to fester. Of course, educating a patient is no guarantee that they will make the wisest decision, but is at the very least a case of best practices.

[Jeckrn1, ADN, BSN]

1984

[CShel, ASN]

On 8/31/2021 at 2:45 PM, SmilingBluEyes said:

I am so very careful about any recommendations I make. People trust nurses to give them sound advice. I limit it to "please ask your doctor as he/she can best guide you what to do" or some other phrase like that. It's for the patient's protection and my own. I stay within my scope!

That is such a great and important point - stay in your lane.

I also agree that there should be consequences. If the ANA can discipline you or remove your license for "conduct unbecoming" like acting inappropriately in public or on social media, or getting a DUI for that matter, they should look at sanctioning behavior that contradicts the CDC and ANA recommendations regarding COVID vaccines.

By the way, the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine... curious to know if now these same people who were preaching distrust have done an about-face and told people, "It's approved! Go get vaccinated!" Haven't see that yet...

[Hoosier_RN, MSN]

When I'm asked, I say I've gotten mine, but they need to consult their MD if they have any doubts. Their MD knows their complete health history, while I don't know every detail. 

I don't discount alternative treatments when a MD has prescribed after thorough assessment of the patient. Many meds have been used off label for many years, in many circumstances. I do object to people self medicating with the newest heard of treatments. This leads to dangerous situations

[Yabaleft]

The phrase “I believe in science” may be one of the most ridiculous things a person can say in this age of information. Let me explain.

What this statement has come to mean is: “I believe in the current scientific consensus.” or “I trust the scientific results in this study", it also implies that “anyone who disagrees with me is anti-science, and I have no reason to listen to them”.

Not often do we realize that a person can find scientific evidence to back up any belief they have about the world. There was once a scientific consensus that smoking was good for you. Not just benign… but a healthy life choice. Science once told us it would be a good idea to spray DDT directly on the skin of people - including children. Then enters polio.
Science told us Vioxx (a drug for arthritis) was safe and it ended up causing 140,000 heart attacks and killing about 50,000 people.

Why do I bring up these instances? To show that, unless science is your religion, science is not meant to be a belief system. Science is meant to be a process. The minute you “believe” in science is the minute you give away your critical thinking skills because a study tells you how to think. True scientists do not “believe” in scientific results so much as they believe in the process. They have the understanding that science is always changing. We will never “arrive” to a place and time where we know all there is to know. Doing science often leaves us with more questions than answers. Science is meant to be questioned, not blindly believed in. In the words of Richard Feynman, “I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

The final issue I have with this statement is that most science has been bought by our capitalistic and reductionist culture. We only study the things that can make us money and only those with money can fund the science that they “believe” in. We study what a drug or supplement does to one part of our body without looking at how it affects the whole person long term. An example of this would be how there is a lack of science on the physiological, normal birth process because midwives don’t have the money to fund it. But when you’re trying to sell pitocin, fetal monitors and epidurals to hospitals suddenly there’s a lot of science to be done. There isn’t much research being done on the effects of a solid community surrounding a newly postpartum mother, but there's endless research on the drugs we can give for postpartum depression.

“Science is too delicate for market forces to govern. It turns scientists into salesmen” - Bret Weinstein

Science is a tool that helps us understand the world. Science is not a religion. Science is not a weapon to use against people who don’t agree with you. If you read an article that cites a study, tells you how to think, and then asks no questions, take it with a grain of salt. If it seems to have everything about this subject figured out, move on. Filter any scientific result through your own personal devil's advocate. What does your gut tell you intuitively? How does it compare to the biological norm? How does it compare to what you know to be true in the world? And, for the love of all that is holy, when someone else has a different scientific opinion - engage in a conversation instead of a debate.”

Originally posted on facebook by Victoria Miner.

[Hoosier_RN, MSN]

The FDA has approved many meds that have later been found to be harmful. Again, I refer the unvaxxed to have a conversation with their PCP, or other MD/NP in their care chain to give information appropriate to their unique health status