Australian nurses who spread anti-vaccination messages will now face prosecution

a reply to: TonyS

Honestly, I think we should begin to see more of this type censorship.

Censorship is for the ill-informed weak willed followers. Anyone who would believe a nurse without checking the real science is way too trusting.

I don't want to have information censored so devise centered 13 year old adults in their skinny jeans don't have to think about any real issues other than Pokemon.

I am a big boy now and I self censor material as I see fit.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Mandroid7

I just love the way you finish your posts with hyperbole. Shows you don't have an argument.

Nurses SHOULD be held responsible for BAD advice they give based on an OPINION. Australia has decided it's by being prosecuted.

Medicine isn't about opinions, it's about science.

Lol really?

I am sending them to arrest you, I disagree.(sarc)

You are wasting my time with this circular garbage.

MMR DTP Polio - all vaccines I would recommend

HPV for a male? You're our of your freakin' mind

This isn't about them representing their profession; this is about silencing their personal opinions..made in their own time on social media. It is absolutely a censorship issue.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

I like you...

If, as a medical professional, you give unsubstantiated advice that leads to the death of a patient you should be held accountable.

People don't get to make up their own facts because they watched a YouTube video and called it "research".

i wonder if those nurses and midwives were vaccinated as children...

a reply to: seasonal

So I am a rabid (pun intended) PRO vaccine person. However, I do take issue with this with this caveat:

Doctors and Nurses who are working for a medical system etc, have a choice in employment. If as part of your official duties as a voluntary or at will employee you do in many aspects have to tow the company line unless you are being asked to do something that is illegal.

That being said, what I do/say/act on my own time (as long as its legal) , while not representing my employer (be it a private or state medical system) is my own business.......

a reply to: seasonal

Also Australia doesn't enjoy the same freedom of speech right as the US.

You aren't protected by freedom of speech when you purposefully spread dangerous misinformation when you're supposed to be in a position of authority.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: seasonal

That's the way it should be.

Stick to the science. Opinion doesn't count.

That's the way what should be?

Cause you are talking about free speech here.

So if a mechanic negligently advises you not to have dangerous problems with your car fixed, will they be protected by freedom of speech?

NO.

Do you even know what freedom of speech is pertaining to your own country, let alone Australia??

a reply to: GetHyped

You aren't protected by freedom of speech when you purposefully spread dangerous misinformation when you're supposed to be in a position of authority.

If this was done at home on social networking, it is none of the hospital's business. I realize Australia has different laws regarding freedom of speech (2nd amendment too) so I can't say 100% in the land down under, but in US the hospital can pound sand.

a reply to: seasonal

If they're speaking within the capacity of their profession on social media, they're still accountable.

Pay attention australia to the USA currently and what happens when key white hats who don't like the corruption feel supported by those who are indeed networking and waking enough up that they can then start doing it. This means you have to get organized with large numbers of other nurses and say NO WAY. The universe is calling out people to do some work, because there is a pocket of fascism and corruption that needs to be dealt with.

Here is where people are getting confused IMHO.

Case #1 I stand in my uniform, identify myself as say a Nurse that works for (insert prestigious medical center here) in the infectious disease department, and say vaccines are evil, people naturally assume that my opinion is also that of the aforementioned prestigious medical center, and it gives it more weight.

versus

Case #2 I stand on a street corner, identify myself as a nurse, with printed copies of web sites and say vaccines are evil people are going to naturally assume a different standard

The difference is huge between the two cases is huge. In case #2 I'm representing myself and my own opinions, but in Case #1 I'm giving the opinion and using the weight of my employer (be in private or state) to reinforce its legitimacy.

its one of the reasons that I never identify my employer or where I work when posting.

a reply to: FredT

In case #2 you're acting in a professional capacity, even off the clock. It's the reason lawyers and doctors are legally accountable for the advice they give, even when you're not in your office/clinic.

a reply to: GetHyped

You aren't protected by freedom of speech when you purposefully spread dangerous misinformation when you're supposed to be in a position of authority.

If this was done at home on social networking, it is none of the hospital's business. I realize Australia has different laws regarding freedom of speech (2nd amendment too) so I can't say 100% in the land down under, but in US the hospital can pound sand.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: FredT

In case #2 you're acting in a professional capacity, even off the clock. It's the reason lawyers and doctors are legally accountable for the advice they give, even when you're not in your office/clinic.

I understand that, however, I am acting on my own and not representing an employer or government etc. In which my free speech (no matter how misguided it may be) is still protected.

In regards to professional accountability, unless I physically prevent you from vaccinating your child, its a nebulous area. I simply gave my opinion. You chose to listen too it. If that was the case, every quack who has ever written an anti vax paper would have been litigated to death each time a child with a vaccine preventable illness dies.

I agree with you BTW, but the reality is different

a reply to: seasonal

Actually, if you're employed by X and publicly go against what they say, it is a reflection of where you work as most social media sites have a bit for employment status and company etc. People would assume (wrongly) that because a nurse from X hospital said it on twitter or Facebook, it must come from the hospital too.

It's more to avoid litigation from people or families who follows a nurses advice and gets unwell or dead. The old "well this nurse, who works at your hospital, said vaccines are deadly, but my spouse/child/parent died or got unwell because we followed their advice."

a reply to: seasonal

If they say "As a nurse..." then yes, they are accountable.

a reply to: TerryDon79

There's this misperception by some that we enjoy free speech in all the facets of our lives, but we don't," said Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center.

The question of employees' rights when it comes to social media is "the hottest issue going right now," said Dorraine Larison, a St. Cloud employment law attorney who frequently counsels businesses on developing social media policies.

Generally, employees don't enjoy broad First Amendment rights to say whatever they want without risk, Larison said. However, employees do have protections under the National Labor Relations Act, passed in 1935, which include the right to engage in "concerted activity" for collective bargaining or other mutual aid.

Correct



www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: seasonal

Australia's finally doing something sensible. Good on them.

It's been amazing to see what a little misinformation can do.