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

a reply to: TerryDon79

There is freedom of speech, it is censored under the guise for loss of livelihood. This what tptb want. If you do this or that you done. I remember a documentary about Ford in the early days, no drinking, go to church or else. That is an extreme example, but make no mistake, that is what they want. Obedient workers smart enough to do the work but shut up when told to.

And I agree in fact that the nurses should shut the pie hole, but in principal, while not at work they should be able to freely say what they want. That is of course if they are not representing the hospital.

Censorship by threat is still censorship. The nurses are free to give their opinion but will be fired.

And vaccines save lives any one came do their 5 minutes of home work and see that.

a reply to: seasonal

Freedom of speech doesn't apply at work. Try bad mouthing your boss on social media and see what happens.

You're quite clearly confused over what freedom of speech actually means, even though you and other have been shown it's to do with government, not the workplace.

originally posted by: seasonal
It is censorship, just because it is a dangerous thing that is unsavory to you doesn't make it so. By the way vaccines save lives, millions of 'em.

I don't like the Racial slurs, degrading women....., in alot of todays music, but I would fight for the music industries right to have the crap(in my opinion) out there. Same goes for the anti-vaxer's, I would fight for the right for their freedom as well.

You can't compare nurses with rappers. Nurses' advice can be the deciding factor between life and death, imagine nurses telling people with type 1 Diabetes to stop injecting insulin, because they are hesitant about the ingredients. Or telling those with cardiac failure to stop taking their meds because of all the side effects. Or telling a person who's been bitten by a dog with rabies not to get their shots. These examples of misinformation are criminal acts. Same with vaccines. Nurses who spread rumours that have no evidence are committing criminal acts as they are putting lives in dangers, and they should face the consequences just like any other criminal.

originally posted by: bigal7997
Can you please provide sources that back up those 3 claims?

Funny how you never posted any citations for yours.

1) India polio free.

India sanitation problem.

2) Since Wakefield published his MMR article in 1998, immunization rate had stayed low. And despite the fact that the study has been discredited, many parents are still worried and won't vaccinate their children.

Here is a BBC article with two graphs that show the measles cases (increasing) and MMR immunization (decreased).

Measle cases.

3) Pertussis in the '70s.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Freedom of speech doesn't apply at work. Try bad mouthing your boss on social media and see what happens.

You're quite clearly confused over what freedom of speech actually means, even though you and other have been shown it's to do with government, not the workplace.

I am going to argue semantics, something I don't do often.
I contend there is freedom of speech, just that you will be threatened/or fired. Right or wrong, you still have it, but the vast majority can't use it. Loss of a job is too risky, so the vast majority keep their trap shut. I did when I worked for someone else, even when I knew I was correct.

a reply to: seasonal

It all depends on the contracts and laws. You can and do have contracts that have clauses about speech at work.

Also, the Constitution’s right to free speech only applies when the government is trying to restrict it. Your workplace isn't the government, even if you're employed by a government office/facility. (This is to do with America though, not Austrailia).

Just had a look at a few sites and Austrailia doesn't have a freedom of speech thing like Americas first amendment. It's implied POLITICAL freedom of speech, not workplace.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I agree that you have no free speech at work, not because it shouldn't be, but because you will be fired.

And yes I understand the right's intention. It is a God given right that can't be taken away by govt. And going to work means shut it or else, and you get compensation for it.

a reply to: seasonal

Most companies also include clauses about conduct away from the workplace that might cause the company to be in ill repute.

But the thread isn't just about nurses bad mouthing a hospital. It's about nurses giving an opinion on someone's health that could be potentially life threatening.

At least with vaccines you can get a list of side effects. What can you get from an opinion apart from an opinion?

a reply to: TerryDon79
Yes, you can sign anything. And I get it, you get fired. And I understand that if a nurse gives out info, it better meet the hospitals standards.
All that is, and this is my opinion, is mute. Our god given right is freedom. And it boils down to talk get fired, shut up get $.

a reply to: seasonal

And now the law says they can be prosecuted, as it can, and HAS, lead to decisions based on a nurses opinion that have left the patient very ill and, in some cases, dead.

a reply to: [post=21473150]TerryDon79[/pos


price just got higher

a reply to: seasonal

It is a God given right that can't be taken away by govt.

No it's not. Saying it so doesn't make it so. But in any case, please provide sources for this claim pertaining to Australia.

originally posted by: seasonal
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:

Of course lobotomies were standard practice along with the Tuskegee experiment.

With that logic, we should do away with religion,cars,houses, hunting, just about anything that will appear archaic in the future, now, before we appear like cakemen to the people of the future.

a reply to: TerryDon79
In America, before a nurse administers a medication, she has to do a query of any known allergies, and if the patient has had any past ill effects from previous consumption of over the counter or prescription medications. She has to query on any medications patient is presently taking, including vitamins and herbal products. She must provide patient with information regarding the medication prior to administration, including any "possible" side effects and precautions. This is considered informed consent, she obtains a signature from the patient stating they were educated in regards to the medication and that they understand the information provided. Some pharmacies will include written documentation containing this information. Once the patient has signed that they have received informed consent and the nurse feels confident the patient is knowledgeable and aware of any possible ill effects on receiving the medication, the nurse has done due diligence before administering the medication.

If the nurse feels the medication is unsafe then she should not be administering the medication. I have refused to administer medications in the past when they were not medications that were emergency life saving medications and because I felt the patient was at a higher risk of complications if the medication was administered. I documented my reason for withholding the medication and informed the physician of my decision.

In over 40 years, I have only had two instances were the physician did not agree with me and my decision to withhold the medication at the time. In both cases the physicians administered the medication themselves. One of those two cases, the patient almost died and the physician ungraciously apologized for doubting my assessment.

All and all it is up to the nurse, and it is her license on the line. As one judge once put it, the nurse has to decide what she values more, her job or her license.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: TerryDon79

All and all it is up to the nurse, and it is her license on the line. As one judge once put it, the nurse has to decide what she values more, her job or her license.

Of course it for she (or he) loses their licence they lose their job anyway as it is illegal to practice without one.

a reply to: PaddyInf

You watch this will come to men with guns taking someone down.

Look onto the farmers selling raw milk in the USA. As raw milk videos suggests, you would think it was dangerous poison that is about to be dropped into the water supply.