New Zealand nurse needs help

[anyolddinosaur]

Being supported by the New Zealand version of the Free Speech Union who say

"Cath Simpson has spent more than 25 years as a registered nurse.
In August, she will appear before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal - not for anything she did caring for a patient, but for a handful of posts she wrote on her own personal account, in her own time.
Those posts were her lawful opinions on matters of public debate - Covid, abortion, gender and politics - the kind of views thousands of New Zealanders hold and share every day.

One member of the public complained, then declined to take the matter any further. That should have been the end of it.
Instead the Nursing Council pressed on, engaging a King's Counsel to argue that a nurse's private political views make her a "risk to public safety."

There is no allegation she harmed anyone. A quarter-century of care now hangs on what she posted online.
This is not what professional regulators were built to do.

Their job is to protect the public from incompetent or dishonest practice - not to police the private opinions of the people they license. Once they cross that line, no professional's voice is safe: not a nurse's, not a teacher's, not yours.
The Free Speech Union is working to end this for good.

We are backing a Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill, led by our Chair Stephen Franks, to draw a hard line these regulators cannot cross - part of our wider work defending professionals across health, law and education."

Searching for part of that text should find a garden.

It very much depends on what she said doesn't it? I thought we pretty much didn't want our medical professionals to be overtly political because that leads to things like women being called 'chest feeders'. A quick google shows that she said something about Te Pāti Māori MPs... but interestingly doesn't say what. I sincerely hope it wasn't something that could be construed as racist, given that she has to provide care to Māori patients. Without context you can't possibly ask for people to blindly support someone without any information on what it is they have expressed. Freedom of speech, doesn't include freedom to incite hatred.

What did she say about covid? We had that one nurse here whi was telling people it was all a lie. Also abortion? What was she saying? It could have been anything from i would never have an abortion to women who have abortions will burn in hell. So what was it?

I think support is being asked as part of a solution to a bigger problem. From the crowdfunder

We are backing a Regulated Professions Neutrality Bill, led by our Chair Stephen Franks, to draw a hard line these regulators cannot cross - part of our wider work defending professionals across health, law and education.

But laws take time, and Cath's hearing is in August. She cannot wait.

The most urgent thing we can do right now is defend her - and we are supporting her defence in full.

You need not agree with a word Cath wrote to see what is at stake.

I agree I'd like to know what she wrote. If it was something egregiously horrible she might not be the best poster girl for the campaign.

Employers dictating to their employees what they can or cannot say when they're off the clock is against the fundamental principles of a free society. She signed an employment contract, she didn't sign away her civil liberties. It doesn't matter what she said, free speech is for everyone, if you start picking and choosing, then you can't complain when someone picks and chooses what you can or can't say.

But as I said in my post - freedom of speech isn't an excuse to preach intolerance or hate. But neither you nor I know what she said because it hasn't been publicised, which is telling in and of itself.

Oh yes I totally get that - they're asking you to support the principle of freedom of speech for everyone unrelated to their role and to recognise that those freedoms exist outside of their career... but completely disingenuous to ask anyone to support the principle when, as you say, their poster girl might be hugely problematic. Why don't they just share what she posted? The irony of raising a freedom of speech issue and not outlining what the speech itself was is just staggering really!

This, entirely.

You cannot agree with free speech only based on the nice topics you agree with. No debate has led to a shutdown of any sensible conversations and people's livelihoods being ruined. Which to date only seems to have affected women.

You cannot agree with free speech only based on the nice topics you agree with.

Who has said that then? No one on this thread. But often people seem to confuse 'freedom of speech' with the 'freedom' to say any old shit regardless of what the law says. People have gone to prison for malicious communications after all, haven't they? If everyone is fine that she didn't say anything that offends freedom of speech then why aren't they quoting what it was she said?

A medical professional spreading medical misinformation could be a matter for their regulator. It's a different matter from sharing religious or political views (however obnoxious), or views about matters of fact lying outside their professional sphere (moon landings etc).

I think in the coming years we will probably see some kind of legislation around how much employers can restrict their employees engaging in public discourse.

Like most things there is a balance, but there is an important distinction between asking for neutrality at work, and telling employees that they can't participate in public debate about important issues unless it line up with the employers views. Even if the employer is the state.

I'd like to think we can all see why that latter situation would be seriously problematic, but it has been normative in some authoritarian societies, very much including some left wing ones. With much the same justifications that always pop up in such discussions today.

I really think it's much more complicated than that. In theory, yes, employers shouldn't be regulating what people say when they're not at work. But on the other hand, if they're posting stuff on a large public platform, and the stuff they're posting reflects badly on them and by extension their employer, then surely there is some cause for concern there?

For example, suppose a teacher works in a school with children of different ethnic backgrounds and then posts openly racist comments on Twitter or Facebook. If you were a headteacher, would you really want that teacher working in your school? If you were a parent, would you want that teacher teaching your children?

I think there's a big grey area when it comes to the extent to which employers should be able to police their staff's speech out of the workplace. Rachel Mead was disciplined for posting quite mild gender-critical comments on her personal Facebook. That was outrageous and she won her employment tribunal. But if someone was posting really offensive stuff - and particularly if they were doing it on a public forum rather than on a private page - that is a different matter.

If you work in a regulated profession then your free speech rights are curtailed as anything you say that brings the profession into dispute is actionable.For example a nurse or doctor who says that COVID was a hoax should be struck off. Likewise if they claimed having a termination meant you would rot in hell.

This is however the exact logic of striking off nurses with gender critical views.

How about getting rid of doctors who questioned the science of mask mandates? Or a nurse talking about her union protecting them if they did not want to be vaccinated themselves.

It's not at all straightforward and professional bodies are notalways correct or even benign.

They say her views are "lawful" so presumably not racist. As her account was private none of us are likely to be able to find out easily what she actually said.

1. Her comments were not made at work.
2. The comments are said to be "lawful" speech.
3. No patient has complained.

It's possible I'd hate every word she said - still defend her right to have opinions and to express them privately. If you dislike her opinions you can respond with reasons, not try to get her deprived of employment.

There is a lot of - often justified - criticism of MPs here. Should we lose our jobs for e.g. making comments about what a certain Scottish MP knew about a motorhome?

I am a retired A&E consultant & was all in favour of masks & compulsory vaccination for health professionals so see no problem with your examples. When you are in a position to influence patients because of your position you either forgo some free speech rights or give up your position so your speech is no longer constrained.

If they are associated with their employer then that’s not strictly true. They cannot for example spout a flow of racist hate and then expect their employer to think they can provide professional care to people of that race as a health care professional. They hurt the reputation of their employer. So I too want to know what they said.

Why should anyone - professional or not - have to give up the right to express an opinion in private? If you do so at work then your colleagues can challenge your views if they wish and report them if they believe your opinions are affecting the care you provide. If you say something a patient considers offensive they can 1. say that to your face and 2. make a complaint. That may be something that would merit losing your job, opinions expressed outside of work are not.

Interesting that people apparently believe it is impossible to separate your personal belief from the job you do at work, that is not my experience at all. But I was trained to try and see both sides of an argument and look for compromise. In the last few years it seems that the country has become a nation of bigots, unable to accept that other people may legitimately hold an opinion different to their own.

In this instance YOU do appear to be saying that.

You've based this on...sweet fa in terms of knowing the content and immediately jumped on it being malicious, possibly racist or something else with ill intent despite the only known facts being that whatever posted is lawful.

As it's going through a disciplinary process it's likely the information isn't able to be shared.

Do you hold the same views about particular profession being blocked from expressing lawful opinions in the case of the likes of Sandy Peggy too?

Given how many her colleagues, union members and idiot MPs attempts to silence lawful GC views, the interpretation of what's allowed under free speech is somewhat debatable, so I opt to keep an open mind in this case until provided with a clearer picture.

Idk. It's not an excuse but it is a right. And medical professionals are theoretically required to provide equal levels of care regardless of the person's political or religious beliefs. If a patient who is covered in nazi tattoos comes into an emergency room, medical professionals are trained to put their personal beliefs aside and treat them. By your same argument, a far left nurse wouldn't be able to provide unbiased medical care to that person. So should she continue to practice?

I have a gut feeling that what this nurse wrote is abhorrent but it really shouldn't matter if there's no evidence it's impacted her quality of care. Here in the US anyway, there's nothing illegal about "inciting intolerance or hate" (whatever that even means) just incitement of violence and there are already legal avenue to take if someone crosses that line.

When are people going to learn that when you attempt to police people's opinions they just dig their heels in deeper and that leads to things like Trump being reelected. In a free society she's allowed to voice hateful opinions, and you're free to disagree or not listen.

@Arlanymor We know whatever she said is lawful in New Zealand. We know that there have been no complaints about her practise and that the member of the public who initially complained then declined to take it further. MPs get criticised often for being out of touch, incompetent, never being in their constituency, not responding to letters. When you immediately jump to the conclusion that because she criticised a minority MP she was a racist you are being a bigot.

They can actually. It's called the Icn Code of nursing and pretty much all nurses abide by it. It's basically the same as the hippocratic Oath in that they must provide unbiased care to whoever needs it. By your same argument far left nurse wouldn't be qualified to provide medical care to someone who comes into the emergency room covered in Nazi tattoos. That's not how the medical profession works. When medical employers attempt to control the minds and opinions of their employees outside of work it undermines the very ethics it operates under to provide medical care to ANYONE who needs it.

You people still just can't resist trying to police people's personal opinions even though it led to Trump's reelection and everything that's come with that. Please stop. You're doing just as much to breed intolerance as those a holes saying abhorrent stuff on Facebook. Just don't listen and it goes away but your actions just cause those people to get louder and double down. Racism and intolerance has gotten worse since the advent of DEI and those of us who have seen it in action absolutely see the correlation.

For example, if this woman gets dragged into a tribunal think of all the supporters who are going to show up and demonstrate in her support. And the media coverage it will get. Who really incited that?

No I'm not - I'm fairly direct, if I thought that, I would say it.

What a load of crock that they can't share due to a disciplinary process - they wouldn't mention it at all in that case would they, for fear of influencing the process!

It's Sandy Peggie - if you're going to talk about a brave woman, then at least spell her surname correctly.

All our minds have to be open because we don't know what was damn well said!

I didn't say she was - I asked a question - is that not allowed anymore? Asking a question for sorely lacking context in an ambigiuous posting designed to rile people up? I didn't know any of the stuff you have said - because you couldn't be arsed to put it in your original post. Asking a question doesn't make me a bigot, if you think that is the case then you need to read a dictionary.

Jeez shoot holes in me, I mistyped a name.

The rest remains true and I've no idea why you're so aggressively arguing a point that you admit yourself you don't know the full story about.

Probably time for you to take a step back from mn and enjoy the sunshine. You're not coming across as measured as you may think you are.