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.

An important name.

I'm not intending to come across as measured - I have an opinion that differs to yours. At least I don't patronise you for it - you however...

It's not patronising, I'm being direct. You're coming across as deranged and attacking other posters. You need to log off if you're unable to converse in a civilised manner.

If a health professional is refusing to abide by their employers protocols, especially ones intended to maintain the physical safety of patients, yes that is grounds for termination.

But looks like you're clearly the kind of "consultant" who has gotten a ton of organizations in trouble for preaching your personal opinions as professional fact even if it goes against the law. Consulting employers that they're obligated to penalize their employees for exercising their civil rights in their private lives is 1000% wrong and can get your clients in a ton of legal troubles. If you're clients actually did what you advise and got sued for violating civil rights, you do know you're libel for that?

@Arlanymor Come off it. You raised the idea that she might be racist for criticising a minority MP - as if no-one ever criticised a minority MP for anything other than their race. I have no idea why she criticised them, any more than you do, but you immediately jump to she criticised a minority MP, she must have been racist. New Zealand have laws against discrimination and against incitement of racial disharmony and I assume that when the Free Speech Union say her comments were lawful they were correct. Claiming you just "asked a question" is disingenuous. Edit to remove stray punctuation.

An employer has no right to interfere with their employees private life, it doesn't matter what she has said, she's allowed to express any opinion she wants in her own life. This complaint has come from one person and has nothing to do with how she's performed her job or conducted herself at work, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with her employer.

Telling someone to go outside in the sun is patronising. I'm not attacking anyone - I am literally saying that it's daft to support someone when you don't know what they said - it's called logic. I didn't insult anyone - I was however called a bigot - for simply asking what it was that someone said. It's not me that's uncivilised. Not by a long shot.

No I didn't - you provided scant information so I googled and it mentioned that she made a comment about Te Pāti Māori MPs - so I came back to ask for more information. I got that detail - verbatim - from the Free Speech website - I didn't put a spin on it, that is literally what they said, and I asked for further clarification on here. Show me where I said otherwise - you can't, because I didn't - I never called anyone a racist - although you called me a bigot with also no evidence. I did just ask a question because you seem to think it's reasonable to rally behind someone without any context of what they have said. I think that's asinine and dangerous. But hey, I'm a bigot, so what do I know?! It's important that people question things and don't just have knee jerk reactions without knowing information - that's all I did and you took offence. Don't post blancmange and expect to rally the troops when there is an absence of fact.

If people knew her opinions, they werent private. It is most likely she was speaking ill of women who have had abortions or will in the future on social media and that makes her a risk to women needing that care in her capacity as a nurse.

The law is also not the arbiter of what is racist and what is not. Not longg ago, the law said your husband could have sex with you whenever he wanted. Fuck the law.

It sounds like the right decision has been made in terms of investigating or sacking this nurse. I would leave her to deal with the consequences of her actions alone.

i very much agree with this - i am also a health professional in NZ

Looks like you are not in the UK so aren't familiar with our funny little ways. I don't think that you even know what an A&E consultant is. You are 1000% wrong in your advice.

Here in the UK if a doctor or nurse goes on social media & identifying themselves as a doctor or nurse claims COVID was a hoax & vaccinations are dangerous then they will quite rightly be fired from their job & struck off by their professional body.

However a doctor or nurse who goes on social media as a private individual without identifying their profession is perfectly free to claim COVID was a hoax & vaccinations are dangerous without being sanctioned.

'Covid, abortion, gender and politics.'

Hard pass.

If she identified herself she's a muppet.

I think there are at least two issues here:

• Should Catherine have a right to make the posts she did?

-Should we fund her legal action?

Without knowing what she posted, I have no opinion on the first question. I think there should be reasonable limits to what an employee can say on her free time. E.g., if she defamed her employer or spread private information (like patient/client information or, in other contexts, work product like a trade secret), or took other actions that directly harmed her employer, I think most would agree they would have a right to discipline or fire her. I think most agree that she should be free to comment on public matters that don't directly affect her employer. But there is a large grey area.

For me, the second question is clear. I don't want to fund a plaintiff who doesn't disclose facts about the central issue in a case. She may have a right to say what she did but she doesn't have a right for me to support her in that. How can I evaluate if it's a strong case without knowing these facts? How can I know if I want to support her in what she said? Maybe it's better to wait for a stronger or less divisive plaintiff.

It's actually Sandie Peggie!

I know, but the previous poster was being such a PITA I thought that pointing out how doubly wrong she was might tip her over the edge! Look how mad she got at just that one correction!

I'm not sure what you could have said that is a better example of why this kind of thing is a problem

But, in a way, that is it. Freedom to say “stuff I disagree with” inevitably has to include “views generally found objectionable” and even “views which go against every fiber of my being and interests”.

That’s what principles entail- applying the rules equally to everyone, even if it feels iniquitous at times.

Freedoms of speech is exactly that. Otherwise it’s just speech you like.

Freedom of speech means that you can say what you like without fear of torture or imprisonment just for holding a view. However it doesnt override the law on things like hate speech or the social consequences you will receive when people find out that you hold views that are abhorrent to them.

You are free to speak on your own platform. Nobody has to speak back at you.

It really all depends what's in her employment contract. A lot of organisations have clauses restricting speech or actions that bring them in 'ill repute'….in other words damage their reputation.

Particularly when you are talking about the medical/health profession, public trust matters. Patients should be confident they won't be discriminated against. So whether the 'violation' occurred at work or not is irrelevant because it reflects on the attitude of the employee & their ability to perform their job.

There was a similar case in Canada where a gender critical feminist (Eileen Ham) voiced her views on line & lost her case for this reason.

I can’t find referenced what she exactly said, the attached photo is the most explicit description I could find.
We also know
1 she made comments on her personal ‘X’ account
2 only one (man) complained (so nothing so egregious that it prompted 100’s of complaints.
3 he declined to take the complaint further than contacting the Nursing Council.
4 upon him declining to progress the complaint the Nursing Council decided too hire a KC to pursue a case of professional misconduct,

Bar breaking laws you should be able to post what you like on your personal social media accounts. None of what is alluded to should come anywhere close to professional misconduct.

NZ professional authorities have been over policing members personal views - the medical council, teachers council, mostly over gender identity. It needs to stop.

Incorrect facts about abortion laws. This was probably nonsense overstating how many "late term" abortions happen and why. Making out that fetuses are routinely used for nefarious reasons without consent. Making out that fetuses are born "alive" and then left to die alone. I've seen those pro-life people say some absolutely sick shit that is totally made up.

That is not what free speech means.

There is absolutely no suggestion she broke any laws.

I haven’t suggested she be free from ‘social consequences’. But just as people who criticise her views should not be subjected to punishment or imprisonment or lose their job for criticising her view. Her right to express her views is equal to the rights of those criticising her views. Ie both free to make them.

"Freedom of speech in New Zealand is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which ensures the right to express opinions freely. However, this right is subject to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 1, 2]
For nurses, these limits are enforced by the Nursing Council of New Zealand. The Nursing Council expects nurses to abide by a professional Code of Conduct, which holds that a nurse's behavior—both inside and outside the workplace—must not bring the profession into disrepute. This means that: 1, 2, 3, 4]
Personal opinions: Nurses can express their personal, social, or political views, but they must not do so in a way that compromises public trust or patient care. 1]
Misinformation: Promoting health-related information that contradicts established scientific and public health guidelines can result in disciplinary action. For instance, nurses have previously been suspended for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 on social media. 1]
Patient confidentiality: Nurses must strictly maintain patient privacy under all circumstances, even in online discussions. 1]"

That is what it means. It doesnt mean you can say what you want and the law or other authorities can't touch you.

When you become a nurse (or some other jobs), you sign a character clause which states that you wont bring your profession into disrepute. She was using her status as a a nurse to attempt to legitimise her false claims about things like abortion. That alone is worthy of being struck off.

This woman is unprofessional and dangerous. We are safer with her not in any healthcare system.

It's good you're confident in your opinion given your basing it on your own imagines of what she said. Did you consult the tealeaves or read the chicken entrails.