Really, this is a big issue. And very important to nurses around the world. I mean, it is so important that the Center for Nursing Advocacy has been diligently devoting its resources to correcting this adversity, and thus make the world a better place for the human race.

The isn’t recent news, but I think something worth mentioning. It just goes to show how misdirected the efforts
are to “improve” nursing, and why the profession continues to remain in its sad and powerless state.

In 2006, the Center for Nursing Advocacy announced its fourth “Golden Lamp Awards,” the group’s annual list of the best and worst media portrayals of nursing, still largely a female-dominated profession. The 2006 list includes a range of media from all over the world.

In the Media Report to Women, The Center’s “worst” list cited Médecins Sans Frontières for refusing to consider a slight name change to credit the nurses and others who do most of its work; Johnson & Johnson for recruiting commercials that reinforced handmaiden and emotional “angel” stereotypes; and Mattel for selling a doll called the “Nurse Quacktitioner,” which suggested that nurse practitioners are quacks. Berlusconi received an “Evolutionary Dead End” award for telling the press that his own Cleveland Clinic nurses were less attractive than Italian nurses.

Despite its imposing name, the Center for Nursing Advocacy is a tiny organization run primary by Sandy Summers and her husband. Their goal is to stamp out negative representations of nursing in the media. While I think their intentions are well meaning, much of their campaigns show how clearly far removed they are from reality, and how they have no clue about picking meaningful battles. In other words, they randomly lash out at anything that they feel doesn’t fit the unrealistic goals that they have set for themselves. This includes picking fights with both friends and foes, and as a result, and focusing energy on the totally ludicrous and unimportant. They also present nurses as poor victims who are being destroyed by negative media, and after about two minutes on their website (if you can stand it for that long), you get the impression that Sandy truly believes that polishing the celluloid nurse will cure all the ills that real nurses faces on the job. In other words, remove all real and perceived negative images of nurses from all forms of media and voila! No more nursing shortage. Workplace woes will magically transform, and hospitals will become paradise on earth.

Who Are the Devils?

Now, let’s look at the “worst” offenders. This is where I think that the Center has sunk to its lowest level, and to the point where no one can really take them seriously. Sandy Summers believes that the Nobel Prize-winning Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), should change their name.

Why, you may ask?

Well, because much of the work is not done by doctors. Nurses, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, etc, all volunteer for MSF. It’s not just physicians, so Sandy thinks that nurses are being slighted by this. Therefore, the organization should change its name to reflect that. So says Sandy.

Doctors without Borders was started in 1971 by a group of French PHYSICIANS–hence, the name. While it is true that their ranks now include a variety of other healthcare workers, I can think of few things more ridiculous than changing their name. They have world recognition by that name, and to be quite honest, do you think that the people they help really care what they’re called?

Also, I doubt that Sandy Summers has considered how expensive it would be to change the name. Would she prefer that they waste their resources on bureaucracy–not only does it cost money to legally file a name change, but the change would have to occur on every scrap of paper, website, business card, etc. Does she think that’s a good use of their money, instead of using it to save lives? Perhaps she would like to foot the bill and take care of all the paperwork involved.

The Center of Nurse Advocacy could be doing useful work, but instead, it is making itself–and nurses–look like fools when it embarks on this kind of nonsense.

This is what she wrote on her website about it:

I believe that a group with the prominence and resources of MSF could easily navigate a minor name change. The corporate world is full of major companies that have changed their names completely in recent years as a result of mergers. I doubt anyone would be confused about a change to a name like “Soins Sans Frontières” (”Health Care Without Borders”). Indeed, the name change itself could provide helpful publicity. I understand that MSF was founded by physicians, but that does not change the fact that the name sends an inaccurate message about what the group does around the world today.

Sends an inaccurate message to who? I don’t think anyone on this earth, who they have helped, has been “confused” by their message. I don’t think that anyone working in the healthcare field is confused either, except for Sandy, perhaps. And yes, the corporate world is full of merges and name changes, but the names are changed to reflect the merging of two companies, or because a company is sold, or whatever. MSF has no reason to change its name. The world knows it by that name, they have a Nobel Prize in that name, and they have no desire to change their name.

I greatly doubt that they have received one request for a name change from anyone who volunteers for them. And if there are nurses who find the name offensive, well, there are dozens of other organizations who would gladly welcome their help. MSF is not the only one on earth.

And probably the most important aspect is that they are a private non-profit and have the right to call themselves whatever they want.

Now imagine this. Suppose a group of nurses started a group called “Nurses Without Borders.” And they went on to become world recognized, won a Nobel Prize, were showered with accolades, etc. Now, Nurses Without Borders also has a lot of non-nurses working for them, including physicians. Let’s see, the Center for Physician Advocacy decides that the name is not applicable to the people working for it. They find that the name “sends an inaccurate message about what the group does around the world today.” So the physician group wants the name changed to something more benign. Like Health Care Without Borders.

The outcry from nursing would be deafening. Overwhelming. Sandy would be screeching on her soap box.

You get the point.

Sandy also wrote that “the name of your group matters to nursing. Names that permeate modern culture have a significant effect on how people view the world and how they act.” Again, does Sandy have any documentation about nursing complaining about the name? Or who care what it’s called? Or who have refused to volunteer for them because of the name?

I would love to read her thesis on how the name of Doctors without Borders has permeated modern culture and the significant effect it has on how people view the world and how they act.

Non Issues

What I have found about the Center for Nurse Advocacy is that they tend to dodge important issues by focusing on trivial issues. Imagine thinking that changing the name of an international relief organization is somehow helpful to nurses? Or being upset because Berlusconi ( who is an idiot and no longer in office) told the press that his own Cleveland Clinic nurses were less attractive than Italian nurses. Yeah, and so? If he said the nurses at the CC were more attractive, would that have bothered anyone? And he is entitled to his opinion, isn’t he? If he said that American nurses were the most beautiful on earth, would Sandy have found that sexist and offensive?

This is what I mean about picking battles. Out of all the problems in nursing, this is what she zeros in on.

I will agree with her, however, about the Johnson & Johnson campaign. I have long said that its Discover Nursing campaign was about the silliest and sugar coated effort to “get” people interested in nursing. Someone commented that their television commercials are like Hallmark cards. They actually show nurses fluffing pillows and placing that “cool hand on the fevered brow.” They also give the impression that nurses have all the time in the world to sit and chitchat with their patient–never mind that they’re got 9 others pounding on their call bells. Not to get into a whole other post about the Johnson & Johnson campaign, but I think that Sandy is right about this one. However, her wording about it is all wrong, and she’s really not focusing on the heart of the problem with the campaign. She thinks that they should show nursing as a more “scientific” pursuit. Not sure what they would do with that one–show the nurse walking around with a microscope?