Slashdot Mirror


Nurses In Australia Face Punishment For Promoting Anti-Vaccination Messages Via Social Media (medicalxpress.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Medical Express reports that nurses and midwives promoting anti-vaccination messages in Australia could face punishment including being slapped with a caution and having their ability to practice medicine restricted. Serious cases could be referred to an industry tribunal, where practitioners could face harsher penalties such as having their registration suspended or cancelled. The Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia released the vaccination standards in response to what it described as a small number of nurses and midwives promoting anti-vaccination via social media. The statement also urges members of the public to report nurses or midwives promoting anti-vaccination. Promoting false, misleading or deceptive information is an offense under national law and is prosecutable by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. "The board will consider whether the nurse or midwife has breached their professional obligations and will treat these matters seriously," the statement said. However Dr. Hannah Dahlen, a professor of midwifery at the University of Western Sydney and the spokeswoman for the Australian College of Midwives, worries the crackdown may push people with anti-vaccination views further underground. "The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: 'There you go, this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion.' It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems."

21 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good.
    Implement this in more countries please.

    1. Re:About time. by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you insane? Apparentley there is no more freedom in opinion in Australia, and also no more freedom of speech. And you appear quite content with that. Not a country where I would want to settle down, you can have it all for yourself, thank you.

      They are free to hold whatever opinon they wish. They just can't necessarily continue to be registered nurses. That's completely fine, regardless of what you may think, because spreading anti-vax is antithetical to being an effective nurse.

      So yeah, not a freedom of speech issue, unless of course you're incapable of nuaced thought.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:About time. by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can do. Just not while they're pretending to be health care professionals.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm all for freedom of expression and the right to an opinion but when people spread bad advice that isn't backed by science and it hurts other people thats where I draw the line. The worst part about these anti vaxxers is they put those that really can't get vaccinations like the old and sick at risk.

    4. Re:About time. by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have three groups

      1-Vaccinated

      2-Can't be vaccinated

      3-Won't be vaccinated.

      The can'ts are protected by the vaxxed. The won'ts put the can'ts in jeopardy because they can carry the disease in and transfer infection, regardless of if they are actually sick themselves or just a carrier. The can'ts usually can't because they are immunosupressed for whatever reason, making catching whatever worse than it would otherwise be. Neither group threaten the vaxxed because they are vaxxed. It's mainly about protecting the can'ts with herd immunity. Won'ts do nothing but weaken that effort while still benefiting from it. So take the won'ts, put them all together somewhere where there is no herd immunity then see how long they last before they start thinking this whole vaccination schtick might not be the worst idea ever. A nice epidemic of polio or smallpox ought to do it.

      The won't threaten the can'ts through their own (or usually their parents) sheer willful ignorance. The can'ts threaten the won'ts because they have no choice, but the won'ts could easily avoid danger by getting vaccinated. That's why people don't like the won'ts but give the can'ts a free pass.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:About time. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently you don't understand the difference between holding an opinion and promoting false, misleading or deceptive information. Would you be as quick to defend Samsung if they had put out full page ads claiming that all the Note 7 fires were just scammers trying to get money? After all, it's just an opinion and it doesn't hurt anyone, right?

    6. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a right to your opinion. however once you join certain professions, in this case medical, you have an overarching responsibility to do no harm and only provide sound medical advise. A doctor can't tell you the cure for Cancer is sitting in the corner and praying and still keep his license as a practising doctor nor should a nurse be able to tell someone they think vaccinations are wrong. If you want to voice opinions that go against science then join a church not a scientific profession that affects the lives of those you are in contact with.

    7. Re:About time. by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Everybody has the right to his own opinion and has the freedom to express the same
      You have a right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

      >Including nurses.
      Allow me to introduce you to the concept of professional liability. When you, as a trained professional in a field, give false or misleading information - you're employer can be held liable for any harm that results. As such your employer has every right to restrict what you may say in public as it relates to your field. Now as it happens, Australia is a single payer healthcare system, so the nurse's employer is the government, but that's no different from any other civil servant which, in turn, is no different from any other employee.

      If a doctor gives you bad medical advice you don't JUST have a potential claim against that doctor but also against the hospital he works for. If an Engineer designs a bridge which collapses he is not solely accountable for the disaster - his employers are also accountable EVEN if he did it in his spare time outside of office hours (so most civil, electrical and mechanical engineers are contractually prohibited from taking side jobs as their primary employers could be held liable).

      The exact details, of course, vary by country - but the core principle stands: when you're speaking as a licensed professional on the subject of your professional expertise you have no right to a personal 'opinion' since you are trust to provide facts you are only ALLOWED to provide FACTS. If it's your opinion that the facts are wrong, there are legitimate ways to act on that - publicly declaring your opinion as if it IS fact, is not one f them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:About time. by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what about those who suffered brain damage or other serious injuries as a result of being vaccinated?

      Until vaccines can be independently proven and verified to be 100% save and effective AND when the creators of these vaccines can actually be held accountable in a court of law due to damages caused by these vaccines, neither the medical industry nor government have any right to make them mandatory or force anyone to get one.

      Kudos to the nurses for standing up against corporate tyranny..

      Do you prefer the proven 0% safety and effectiveness of the diseases they prevent?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:About time. by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >when the creators of these vaccines can actually be held accountable in a court of law due to damages

      Aaah this bullshit again.
      1) This is in Australia - American systems do not apply
      2) In the American system they ARE held accountable - in fact, the system as it stands is AGAINST vaccine makes. It makes them pay compensation to anybody who MAY have been harmed by a vaccine without that person even having to prove it WAS the vaccine. You say it harmed you - if the injury is on the list of things a vaccine CAN cause - even if it's a one in a billion chance you get paid and it was set up to that parents wouldn't HAVE to suffer the very difficult task of trying to sue big pharma.

      Even if the claims were true, what a sad fucking person you must be if you think autism is worse than being DEAD. The whole anti-vaxx thing is seriously offensive to actual autism sufferers. Your basically telling htem that, there is something which MIGHT give your kid autism and avoiding it will probably kill your kid - you choose to let them probably die ? You are actually telling real human beings that their lives are worse than death.
      If I was autistic- I would punch you in the face for saying that about me.

      And all that aside. This has NOTHING to do with freedom. A licensed professional who denies facts on the topic they are trusted to provide them on is committing malpractice.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:About time. by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They can do. Just not while they're pretending to be health care professionals.

      So you think there is to be only one government-approved guide to all healthcare decisions, right?

      Mind, I'm not an "anti-vaxxer", but I am pro-speech. The vaccination controversy, no matter how well/poorly-founded, does exist, and trying to end it by government force is not only a stupid tactic, but sets a very, very, VERY bad precedent.

      (also, Nurses *are* health care professionals, for fuck sakes... you don't get to disqualify them as such just because you don't like what they say.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    11. Re:About time. by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you'd be okay with mechanics advising people not to get brakes checked, doctors telling people the cure for cancer is sunshine and farts, pilots saying gravity isn't real, a lawyer saying 'yeah kill that guy, he deserves it anyway'? People of certain professions are obliged in certain ways. A nurse is free to hold the belief that vaccination is bad or whatever just like a lawyer is free to think fuck that guy but f they come out with it in a professional manner it ain't gunna fly.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    12. Re:About time. by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that the only way to really test a vaccine is to give one group of people the vaccine, another group of people a placebo, and then expose both groups to the disease I think you can see why vaccines cannot be tested in the traditional sense. Doing so would be horribly unethical. Unless you would like to volunteer for a new HIV or Zika vaccine trial. No? Didn't think so. How about a rotavirus vaccine trial for you infant son/daughter? Still no? Darn.

      However we do have mountains of evidence showing that vaccines do prevent the occurrence of a disease in a population of people. Ever wonder why there hasn't been a case of smallpox, arguably the deadliest disease humanity has ever known, since 1977 despite it plaguing our civilization for thousands of years? Its got nothing do with with eating more natural food or people getting exercise. The same goes for polio here in the states, and measles, and a bunch of other things that used to kill and cripple people all the time. Did you know that it was common practice not to name kids until they were about 5 as recently as the early 1900's? It was to try to avoid getting to attached to them while they were young because so many kids didn't make it to that age until the advent of vaccines against common childhood diseases.

      Your flagrant disregard for ethical considerations and clearly established historical data that gets in the way of your world view sounds an awful lot like religion to me.

      --


      We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
  2. Slapping time by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The move followed outbreaks of measles in Europe and parts of the United States, and local whooping cough and measles cases in Australia.

    There was actual harm done because of the sticky stupid of antivaccine activists, so of course their Board will purge in response. People who make themselves allies of the first Horseman of the Apocalypse (Pestilence/plague) do not belong in the healthcare business.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  3. Is that all by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WTF is the point of spending years training to become a nurse / midwife if they just decide to ignore evidence of the efficacy of vaccination and promote woo? Anyone pushing antivax nonsense should be barred from practicing as a nurse or midwife. It should be that simple.

  4. Ban them from the profession by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 3, Insightful


    If what they are promoting goes against the evidence and leads to harming patient then they should be barred.

    Having an opinion is one thing. Holding a position on a verifiable matter, that leads to putting patients at increase risk is at odds with the goal of your profession is a completely different matter.

    They want to push some thoroughly debunked agenda? feel free but don't pretend you're a medical professional

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  5. Re:Is there any truth to what they're saying? by Nocturna81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To quote Isaac Asimov who put it more eloquently than I can: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

  6. Anti-science censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So confident in your opinion that you can't "risk" someone having a different opinion? Are you afraid you might not be able to defend your position against them? Because that is the main reason for censorship.

    Look up SV40 polio vaccine from years ago. They bring that up and suddenly your viewpoint begins to crack. There are other more recent ones that have had problems as well, but you don't think people have the right to discuss them because you are anti-science and can't defend your position. Funny thing being that vaccines with issues are very rare, you can't stand letting anyone know about them and promote censorship to keep it hidden.

    I'm actually getting sick of these anti-science whackos like you that think scientific discussion should only be what YOU approve. If you can't defend your position with scientific proof, you don't have a valid scientific position and are a fraud depending on censorship and name calling instead.

    If you were just HONEST, you would be far more convincing, and convincing people vaccines are good SHOULD be easy. Because you resort to censorship and name calling first, it appears you have something to hide and all you will get is anti-vaxxers yelling SV40 (which hasn't been a problem for decades) and causing more people to look up problems and causing more anti-vaxxers because in reality they disagree with your censorship and it has nothing to do with vaccines.

    1. Re:Anti-science censorship by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm actually getting sick of these anti-science whackos like you that think scientific discussion should only be what YOU approve. If you can't defend your position with scientific proof, you don't have a valid scientific position and are a fraud depending on censorship and name calling instead.

      I think the idea is what the organization licensing and paying for said nurses to be licensed approves of. They can say whatever they want, just not as a representative of the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia. Free speech changes quite a bit when you are representing more than your self.

  7. Creationists and flat-earthers by Theovon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have this idea in free society that people are entitled to their own opinions and the government should not force people to believe one thing or another. And it’s not like we lack precedents where totalitarian governments actively suppress ideas that might disrupt their regime. So we do need to keep in mind that indvidual people should be free to be wrong and be assholes. That kid in the gorilla costume at Tennessee State was an asshole, but should he be brought up on criminial charges? We need to ensure that “assholes” are not summarily suppressed. Richard Dawkins acts like an asshole but he’s still right about evolution.

    Now, when it comes to these nurses, the situation is entirely different. They are entitled to their *personal* opinion. But this is a matter of professional activity. In their capacities as nurses (even on their own time), they represent their employers. As a CS professor, I could be dismissed for a wide range of inappropriate behaviors in my “personal life,” including hooking up with an undergrad and making offensive and racist statements on social media. I can maintain my right to express an opinion, and my employer can exercise their right to not be associated with someone who does not represent their core values. (Although, I will say that I’ve heard that BYU won’t grant tenure to anyone who they see as not sufficiently “Mormon,” and I think that’s reprehensible, so there is some room for debate on this, which is why we have courts.)

    There’s also not much room on this subject for “personal opinion.” Science doesn’t have answers for everything, but all attempts to show a solid link between vaccines and autism have failed, and those attempts have been numerous. This isn’t based on a single publication with no replication studies. This topic has been beaten to death. It be shown that their statements are factually wrong. They are also not researchers in this area. If they were, then they would be in a position to conduct further studies to see if they could prove a link. Instead, they are just talking out their arses.

    Even more important, they are putting people in danger. And that’s what this is all about. The benefits of vaccines are not in dispute, and the risks are minimal and nebulous. When your scientific illiteracy puts people in danger, you need to be stopped.

  8. Re:McCarthism by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you or have you ever been an anti-vaxxer? If yes, you are blacklisted.

    Sounds like you think resorting to McCarthism is ok as long as you agree with the reasons for it.

    Its "McCarthyism", and such an interesting term since the head of the anti-vaxxer movement is one Jenny McCarthy, a woman who isn't a doctor, and her main claim to fame is that she has photos taken of her while not wearing clothing.

    You mistake politics for science. "McCarthyism" was a modern day witch hunt, using early cold-war paranoia about communism to advance a political carreer. It destryed the lives of a number of people, including it's perpetrator.

    Anti-vaxxing is an unscientific plan to take advantage of the emotional aspects of children with disabilities by blaming it on an unrelated activity. Oddly enough, it ignores that unvaccinated children sometimes die as a result of its adherents.

    It isn't politics - its science.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.