The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) indicated in the Aug. 6 updated guidelines that some situations may justify refusing treatment, withdrawing care or finding an alternative.
"In response to comments made by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, we've updated our guidance on when and how members can refuse to treat a patient in their care. We recognize that every patient interaction is unique and this will be the most difficult decision for RCN members," RCN said in a statement on its website.
According to RCN, the new set of rules is related to the ongoing racist attacks. It claimed that most of them have targeted nursing staff. The health secretary reportedly expressed commitment to dealing with the "racist abuse of all health workers" and decided that this is grounds for turning away patients.
"I am demanding the government ensures anybody targeting our members pays a very heavy price. Hearing that nurses going to work in Sunderland came under attack is unforgivable," Professor Nicola Ranger, RCN general secretary and chief executive said. "Migrant nursing staff are precious members of our communities, hardwired into the very DNA of our health and care services. Our international colleagues are welcome, valued and owed a debt of gratitude."
RCN said that "racism has no place in our society" and as an anti-racist organization, it will take a lead part in tackling this hatred.
The guidelines indicate that nurses can decline and stop treating patients in the following circumstances:
"Where there exists, or there is fear of, physical violence; where there is discriminatory behavior, including racism; where there are health and safety hazards e.g. lack of appropriate equipment; where the care required is outside the scope of competence or training; where there is a conscientious objection, where the client/patient is known to you in a personal capacity and where you are asked to do something unlawful or in breach of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) Code."
For healthcare entrepreneur Jonathan Engler, this professional body essentially acting as a social justice organization, "represents an egregious abandonment of longstanding ethical principles" – especially when this particular organization is "simply parroting the government position that anyone who expresses any concern whatsoever about unfettered immigration must automatically be a racist."
Engler pointed out the particular entry that determines the discriminatory behavior of the patients. "Who is to judge what is racist? Are 95-year-olds who don't keep up with the latest approved language and use outmoded words such as 'colored' to be refused treatment because they are "racist?'"
"The whole point of sacrosanct ethical principles (and inalienable rights for that matter) is that they don't depend on the prevailing circumstances, since the consideration of such leaves far too much room for post-hoc justification of leaving patients frighteningly vulnerable to the ideological whims of their careers," he argued. (Related: Dying man refused right to try ivermectin, put on ventilator in a hospital that REFUSES to administer treatments that work.)
SRA supports totalitarianism and suppression of speech
Meanwhile, the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA), the body responsible for regulating the professional conduct of more than 125,000 solicitors and other authorized individuals at more than 11,000 firms, as well as those working in-house at private and public sector organizations in England and Wales, is also following a totalitarian ideology mirrored in the new RCN guidelines.
Solicitor Lois Bayliss has been accused by the SRA of acting "against mainstream science" because she sent out anti-vaccine letters. The SRA alleged that for less than three weeks in February 2022, she sent letters to up to 450 individuals at up to 237 schools and general practitioner surgeries threatening that recipients would face criminal and civil liability.
Bayliss applied to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to be allowed to adduce expert statements on medicine and ethics when her case is heard in September. Dr. Peter Fields said the solicitor had a right to use this evidence to defend herself in light of assumptions being made in the SRA's case. But the tribunal rejected the application, urging both parties to focus on the nature of the allegations rather than enter into wider discussions about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines. SRA ruled that she needed to be able to bring experts who would provide an alternative view.
What happened with the SRA case is "consistent with the complete lack of debate permitted anywhere by any major government around the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and this appears to be an example of a supposedly independent institution doing the government's dirty work in suppressing debate," Expose's Rhoda Wilson commented.
Head over to MedicalTyranny.com to read more stories similar to this.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
