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

a reply to: GetHyped

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

I think if they are silly enough to freely give their employers name on FB, they are on the hook too.

a reply to: seasonal

Censorship is for the ill-informed weak willed followers.

Right, about 80% of the population!

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

This isn't about you.....its about the 80%.

a reply to: TonyS

Censorship is for the ill-informed weak willed followers.

Right, about 80% of the population!

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

This isn't about you.....its about the 80%.

So are you saying we should censor vaccine/anti related material on the net, along with making talking about vaccine/anti a felony?

a reply to: seasonal

a reply to: seasonal

Some jobs come with a responsibility that goes beyond your place of work. I am an NHS nurse and I am bound by the NMC code which expects me to behave professionally and within the law even on social media. Unlawful conduct during my time off can put my registration at risk.

Spreading lies about vaccines is unprofessional conduct, as simple as that, and it breaches one of the codes that requires nurses to 'always practice in line with the best available evidence'. It says:

As a nurse or midwife, you have a responsibility to ensure that any information or advice that you provide via social media is evidence-based and correct to the best of your knowledge. You should not discuss anything that does not fall within your level of competence and you should avoid making general comments that could be considered inaccurate.

The NMC code

If you want to behave unprofessionally or promote dangerous pseudoscience you should leave the nursing profession and join the online quacks that have done their 'research' with google.

a reply to: Agartha

ome jobs come with a responsibility that goes beyond your place of work. I am an NHS nurse and I am bound by the NMC code which expects me to behave professionally and within the law even on social media. Unlawful conduct during my time off can put my registration at risk.

Spreading lies about vaccines is unprofessional conduct, as simple as that, and it breaches one of the codes that requires nurses to 'always practice in line with the best available evidence'. It says:

A I stated earlier, vaccines are safe almost all the time, and we are much better off with them.

Of course lobotomies were standard practice along with the Tuskegee experiment. Just to show how things that were once OK, are horrible ideas.

Censorship leads to secrets and abuse and loss of freedom. Of course there are lines that need to be drawn, I'm glad I'm not involved with that process.

So, can we assume that if a vaccine is proven dangerous in the future, the nurses that recommended the vaccine will be held criminally liable?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

No, all nurses act with the best knowledge at the time. No one found themselves in trouble for the examples I gave.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

Lol you dont die of MMR, sheesh...thats the name of a vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella none of which are deadly except in compromised immune systems for the most part. Again...lol

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
So, can we assume that if a vaccine is proven dangerous in the future, the nurses that recommended the vaccine will be held criminally liable?

Of course not it doesn't work that way.....now shut up and do as you are told

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Of course not it doesn't work that way.....now shut up and do as you are told

See lets say cell phone hurt you, there are so many people who have them you can look for $ with law suits. Have fun with your 4$ reward.

Same goes for any wide spread product. If it hurts too many, what can you do? That is why studies need to be done BEFORE products and services go "live".

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
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.

As a nurse you are responsible for upholding the values and standards of the profession both in and out of uniform. That includes not promoting medical opinion which is not grounded in recognised evidence based practice.

To do otherwise may place the public at risk as the opinions of a health professional may be viewed by the layperson as medical fact, thereby affecting their medical choices.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: flyingdutchman2112

Have you got any evidence of that rediculous claim?

You wouldn't just make that up, would you?

human-diploid fibroblast cell cultures (WI-38)
WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture
line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted white (caucasian) female fetus. (Wikipedia)

Adenovirus ingredients
www.cdc.gov...

Your move...

a reply to: bigal7997

It's a cell culture. That's where they take some cells (in this case lung cells) and culture them (no, not listening to Kenny Rogers and drinking tea) by making/letting them grow outside of the natural environment (outside of the body).

This process is used for ALL SORTS of things in modern medicine.

Hardly what the person I was replying to was on about.

a reply to: bigal7997

This is sick and just goes to the $ being made off of the ending of human lives.
Wonder why Walgreens doesn't advertise this vaccine now with more (or less) dead babies.

Wonder if the nurses were asked about this if it would be ok with the Hospitals to talk about this or would this be on the list of no-no's?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Still aborted human cells. But Oh, it OK cause it is in a bunch of stuff.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: bigal7997

It's a cell culture. That's where they take some cells (in this case lung cells) and culture them (no, not listening to Kenny Rogers and drinking tea) by making/letting them grow outside of the natural environment (outside of the body).

This process is used for ALL SORTS of things in modern medicine.

Hardly what the person I was replying to was on about.

What she stated is technically correct, though...

a reply to: seasonal

What's your point? That it's not ok to take a few cells from a non living fetus? I guess we should just put up with diseases because people have issues with cell cultures now.

a reply to: bigal7997

Not really because they're not made with dead babies. They're made with aborted fetus lung cells.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: bigal7997

Not really because they're not made with dead babies. They're made with aborted fetus lung cells.

I guess I'm not sure where to go with that statement. Is it OK because they didn't use the whole baby?

a reply to: bigal7997

It's the difference between using cells and the actual fetus. It's akin to when a doctor scrapes your mouth/throat and makes a culture from that to see what's up with you.