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.

The stuff about false abortion laws is enough for me to get the gist of what she would be talking about. A lot of pro-life activists use their status as HCPs to try and legitimise their false claims.

I was thinking the same. I think in every job I’ve had, there’s been a clause in the contract about social media and misconduct.

I don’t think she was using her status as a nurse to do anything, as I understand it, it was a personal account. If she was making these statements in uniform to patients, I would agree it’s a disciplinary issue, but she was posting what sounds like a fairly normal level of nonsense and badly thought through statements on her private account.
This is the kind of absolute rubbish facebook is full of, and is what people say when they are not at work and in the privacy of their own home. It’s the kind of thing people are thinking all along. All you can do is judge someone on their actions at work.

Half the problem for TRAs is that they feel affronted that the majority of the population of this country has kept their mouths shut about womens rights being trampled on for years, and are now suddenly vocal about sex based rights. They think it is a shocking wave of media bias, or people being manipulated away from the Right Side of History, but it’s really people feeling free to say what they have always thought. You can’t police peoples minds.

Yes but if you say "my experience as a nurse tells me that there are loads of secret but legal abortions happening to 9 month old fetuses just because the mother changed her mind", then the NMC (in this country) will take issue with that. Even on your personal account if they can identify you.

I'm not saying that she said those words, but if she spoke and referred to her nursing experience, then she is using her status to legitimise her opinion.

Your making it up as you go along, you don't have the slightest idea what she actually said. Your coming across as a latter-day Ann Putnam, you're self righteously condemning a women because you've taken exception to what you imagine she said.

If you make up lies about abortion laws and use your experience of a nurse to legitimise them, then it is a problem from a professional perspective.

It's extremely telling that the people most trying to garner support are blocking and deleting posts that seem to be exposing what she actually said as well as trying to assure us all that we shouldn't worry about whether we agree or disagree with what she posted.

Either way, it will come out at the hearing.

'Everyone is doing it' doesn't make it ok.

A lot of these people are out right cranks so it doesn't matter how many people saw the comments because they could point to mental instability.

Think about from the employer's point of view. They could easily be sued if it was proven they were informed this woman was 'nutter' & didn't do anything about it if she later imposes her 'nuttery' on a patient.

I think that people should wonder how they'd feel if someone was posting with their identity as a nurse visible and/or referring to their status, and posting falsehoods about a topic they are invested in and care about greatly.

Would they think someone should remain a nurse if they not only gave an opinion that you disagree with, but tried to back it with evidence that you know to be false (hence your disagreement with the opinion)?

Massive speculation - and invention - going on here. If you criticise a minority MP it must be racist, not because you dont like their behaviour. If you criticise abortion you must 1. have referred to your experience as a nurse and 2. said all manner of other things there is no evidence were said. I see no evidence of any deletion of posts here referring to what she actually said. If that is happening elsewhere comment on it elsewhere.

It's quite likely I'd disapprove of some of the content if I knew what she said - and actually disapprove quite strongly - I'd still defend her right to say it in private. I'd expect her to keep her private opinions out of her work.

If you want to control what people say in private then I'll see you as an authoritarian control freak, a bully and if you assume anyone criticising a minority MP is being racist a bigot. I'd also seriously doubt that you could keep your private opinions out of your work.

'"If"

The whole legal system is supposed to be based on facts, not on hearsay. What this nurse actually said, in context, not what people claim she said, out of context.

I agree with your final sentence.

The free speech NZ people are deleting posts on their social media that reveal what she actually said. It's been made clear in screenshot that she said untrue things about abortion law in NZ.

I remember when the thing to say was: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Now it’s, did you break the law? Well even if they did maybe the law is an ass. I don’t like the implication that it’s impossible for laws to be anti-free speech. It very much is.

There are so many examples where I disapprove of what people say but I don’t think they deserve jail or fine for what they said. That’s the problem with defending freedom of speech is that people assume you support those views which I often don’t.

There are also so many stupid examples of the police having to investigate things that wouldn’t be entertained in places where they have freedom of speech. Imagine phoning up the police in the USA and telling them to investigate someone for a jokey limerick on social media about a woman with a dick or saying that your local MP made a comment saying they hoped the next manager in their football team wasn’t a vegan. But these are things the police investigate here.

Yes but her hearing hasn't occurred yet. It isnt like she has been struck off without any trial. Shes been summoned for a hearing because among other things, she told untruths about abortion law. That makes her a danger to patients.

I'm reminded of the, ongoing but tortuously slow, case of Amy Hamm in Canada (atm found guilty but appealing, I think, on free speech grounds). In this case in view of the lack of actual complainants I doubt she said anything particularly outrageous. Possibly it was stuff that I wouldn't agree with but likely it was somewhere on the acceptable spectrum of legal speech.

I realise I'm speculating but as it's something that's going round on this thread...🤷‍♀️

Can you please point out where I "went mad"?

I simply pointed out a lack of information on this particular case to make judgement on and how freedom of speech exists not only for what an individual classes as right.

I'd suggest your tone and frequency of posts suggest you're the one who's invested enough to show heightened emotions.

It doesn't matter what she said. Her employer has no right to police her private conversations.

Don't be so naive, of course they do if it relates to her employment. Anything posted on social media is not a private conversation. Amazing how so many are defending her when they don't know what she actually said.

It's literally because she might have said something about trans people that theyre defending her. Like even if she said the most awful and untrue things about abortion, as long as she also said trans women arent women, a lot of people here would be supportive of her.

I agree that the police should not investigate jokes or criticisms of ideas. However, professional regulators and employers can reasonably expect the professionals they govern to adhere to specific conduct standards.

I checked whether the Nursing Council in New Zealand can discipline a nurse for misinformation on her private social media. They can.

There are two ways in which a practitioner may commit professional misconduct under s 100 of the HPCAA: because of an act or omission that amounts to malpractice or negligence in their registered scope of practice or because of an act or omission that has brought or is likely to bring discredit to the profession. Before a finding of guilt under s 100 can be made, the tribunal must also be satisfied that the practitioner’s acts or omissions require a disciplinary sanction, whether for the purpose of protecting the public, maintaining professional standards or punishing the practitioner.

This case suspended a nurse's license for spreading misinformation about COVID.

Nurse suspended and censured for spreading covid-19 misinformation - The Law Association

This decision demonstrates that, despite the general right to freedom of expression, practitioners can face professional consequences for making public statements in their capacity as health professionals. Health practitioners hold a special position of trust in society, including when they provide medical information to the public. The Tribunal has indicated that spreading information which may undermine public health initiatives and / or potentially harm communities can be treated as an abuse of that trust and lead to disciplinary processes. Here, it seems that the link between the statements (misinformation about healthcare) and Ms Tepou’s role (as a healthcare provider) was close enough to justify a limit on freedom of expression. Ultimately, Tepou is a useful reminder that freedom of expression is not unbridled in the professional regulatory context.

Can health practitioners be disciplined for sharing misinformation? — Luke Cunningham Clere

There were also doctors and nurses suspended in the USA. You might not face arrest, but you risk losing your right to practise if you post inaccurate health information on social media.

Who to Believe? Consequences for Physicians and Nurses Who Spread Misinformation - PMC

Nurses Risk Consequences for Spreading Misinformation | Clinician.com

Rubbish, you're obviously not reading the posts your criticizing, it's about defending free speech. We don't know what she said but whatever it was it wasn't illegal.
People have the right to express an opinion in their private life, an employer does not have the right to dictate what they're employees say when they're not at work.

I agree.
A medical professional saying eg chickpeas will help you beat cancer or that covid is the same as allergic rhinitis has a responsibility not to spread such misinformation.

So if a HCP expressed the view that children should have access to "gender affirming" care like puberty blockers, you'd be okay with that?

People have the right to express an opinion in their private life, an employer does not have the right to dictate what they're employees say when they're not at work.

Employers absolutely DO have the right to dictate what their employees say when they're not at work if it impacts on their work. For example an HCP saying that COVID was a hoax would rightly be fired from their job & struck off by their regulator. An employee expressing racist views or bad mouthing their employer can equally be fired.

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant in the OP case!

but

in their private life yes, I disagree with that statement but that doesn't mean I get to get anyone sacked for saying it in private.

There are plenty of so call HCP's that are saying it in they're professional capacity, in which case they are required to back it up with evidence. As there is plenty of evidence to prove children should not be given unnecessary medication that destroys their health, the HCP's who continue to advocate for it in their professional capacity should be dealt with by the regulator.
There's a case in the news of a Dr who was sack mid-shift for posting vile, hate filled, disgusting post's on his private SM account. He's now suing the trust for sacking him, and as loathsome a person as I consider anyone who said what this waste of space said, it was on his private account, and no employer has the right to dictate what an employee can say or can not say.

There are nasty people in the world and they say nasty things, unfortunately they have too have freedom of expression.

When speech crosses the line into an actual crime, then they should be dealt with by the law, but if the speech is lawful they can't be silenced, any more than a women who calls a man a man should be silenced.