Insulting Ad about Nurses by Johnson and Johnson

[KodeBlue]

I don't understand the ad.

What does it have to do with J+J? What are they advertising/promoting?

Every year J&J releases a series of commercials highlighting Nursing as a profession. Some of them have been very good, and given a very positive view of nurses.
I haven't seen the video in question as I'm at work and vid's are blocked here, but I'd give thme the benefit of the doubt. They have genrally presented a positive image of Nursing, an dbelieve me in my 31 years as a nurse, I've seen the good, the bad, and worst when it comes to depictions of nurses.

 

[CaveDave]

Doctors apply science done by others. They usually don't actually do science.

When I used that term, I meant Scientific application and use of scientific knowledge and methods, not necessarily research science, though many do that, too. This as opposed to blind "recipe following" used in some careers.

Dave

 

[CaveDave]

But that's not outside of science, if it can be shown to marginally improve their outcome, whether it's due to a more positive attitude or whatever.

That's my point: if it works, it's already part of science, and already factored into the odds of a positive outcome, as much as giving antibiotics or physical therapy.

If it doesn't work, but the nurse think it'll cheat the odds anyway, that's where the woo comes in.

I would imagine rational nurses would see there being a benefit to raising the comfort and confidence level of the patient and that no harm was done and the patient would feel more positive, maximizing chance of improvement (stacking the deck).

There's actually science behind nursing actions involving supporting a patient's belief system. One must compromise between supporting those beliefs and confronting them. It's part of what we do.
For example, to get a patient to actually comply with a treatment regimen one might incorporate the patient's beliefs about curanderas or other cultural beliefs. You would want to work with the patient, not against the patient. You would want to acknowledge in a non-judgmental way these kinds of things because you don't want the patient hiding information from you. For example, some supplements interact with prescription drugs. If you are judgmental the patient will likely just nopt tell you they are taking other things.

But if you have an anti-vaxer parent, there are ways to confront the false beliefs and in such a case, you might want to do that.

Compassion is not a bad thing, nor is it NOT part of nursing science. It's just that communicating the image is an important matter in nursing separate from the science of nursing.

No, these are probably not effective for most ailments. http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/lucky_charms.png But giving a person something that they carried around that might make them feel better is something I would do. What's the harm?

I take it from your obtuse responses you know you are wrong. A placebo has as much effect as a good luck charm. Placebos are used to identify the people who are talking themselves into getting better and those who are physically responding to the treatment.

The nurse placing that good luck charm in the hand of the patient is no reflection of the nurses belief system. It is however an indication of her dedication to her field that she plays any card no matter how small to improve the lot of the patient. But thats a positive message so you will clearly will refuse to see it

Wow.

Reactions like this could give skeptics a bad name. I fail to see what was so offensive about this ad, since it could be interpreted in many ways. There is no reason for J&J to be promoting woo or lucky charms; it's a big stretch to claim this is an endorsement of woo or anti-science in any way.
Yeah, okay that "stacking the deck" bit while returning a patients shamrock is the height of woo and superstition promotion. To me, it just seems to be celebrating compassionate nursing, which I guess is now considered a form of new age quackery to one or more skeptics on this forum. I suppose a more competent, skeptical nurse would have been like the solipsistic, anti-woo nitpickers on this board, who, in a situation identical to the nurse in the ad would have just thrown away the lucky charm(even if they knew it belonged to the injured patient), since it would be bad medicine to return a patient's personal possession to him if it is obviously related to a superstitious belief. Obviously, helping a badly injured patient feel emotionally better is not known to affect medical outcomes.

Anyhow, I'm far more disturbed by the continued infiltration of quackery into medical schools and hospitals, but that's just me.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, these are probably not effective for most ailments. http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/lucky_charms.png But giving a person something that they carried around that might make them feel better is something I would do. What's the harm?

That's not the issue.

 

[Rasmus]

It comes from the same place that twisting and turning what someones does or says to the point that it becomes a perceived insult.

I don't feel insulted by the ad - but then, I am not a nurse.

It's called "being human". Some posters here ought to try it sometime. Going through life absolutely sure that you're correct in everything you think (bun not necessarily everything you do) has got to be a strain...

I am not absolutely sure - but of course I try. Why would i continue to think stuff i thought was incorrect?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I take it from your obtuse responses you know you are wrong.

Prior to this post, I did not understand what your post meant. Then when I said as much you gave more cryptic responses. Maybe you think your point was obvious. But when someone says they don't understand, it's been my experience they don't understand. Cryptic replies are not helpful.

A placebo has as much effect as a good luck charm. Placebos are used to identify the people who are talking themselves into getting better and those who are physically responding to the treatment.

The nurse placing that good luck charm in the hand of the patient is no reflection of the nurses belief system. It is however an indication of her dedication to her field that she plays any card no matter how small to improve the lot of the patient. But thats a positive message so you will clearly will refuse to see it

You also don't get the issue. It is not about the nurse putting the charm in the guy's hand. It is not about the nurse as a compassionate professional. It's not about an ad that says nurses are compassionate.

The issue is about an ad implying nurses buy into superstitious nonsense in addition to science based medicine. The issue is a nurse saying a charm stacks the deck.

 

[Pup]

I would imagine rational nurses would see there being a benefit to raising the comfort and confidence level of the patient and that no harm was done and the patient would feel more positive, maximizing chance of improvement (stacking the deck).

But the ad would make no sense if it showed the nurse doing other evidence-based things to improve the chance of a positive outcome: checking vital signs, starting an IV, saying encouraging words, and then showed her giving him an antibiotic and said "we also believe in stacking the deck." The reaction would be: Huh?

The point of the ad is that there's a categorical difference between the lucky charm and everything else, so the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the lucky charm somehow cheats those odds.

She very clearly contrasts science with a lucky charm to "stack the deck". Stacking the deck refers to something done to alter the physical outcome, not something you do just for symbolism.

Exactly.

As far as how to do it better, how about: Scene shows the patient surrounded by medical equipment, similar to the start. You can barely tell there's a human being under all the "sciencey" equipment. The nurse hands him his lucky charm. Voiceover says, "but I also remember that behind the numbers, there's a human being."

Makes it more clear she's taking into consideration the patient's beliefs, not her own, and still gets across that a nurse can bridge the gap between the cold calculations of medical science and the emotional needs of the patient.

 

[truethat]

Prior to this post, I did not understand what your post meant. Then when I said as much you gave more cryptic responses. Maybe you think your point was obvious. But when someone says they don't understand, it's been my experience they don't understand. Cryptic replies are not helpful.


You also don't get the issue. It is not about the nurse putting the charm in the guy's hand. It is not about the nurse as a compassionate professional. It's not about an ad that says nurses are compassionate.

The issue is about an ad implying nurses buy into superstitious nonsense in addition to science based medicine. The issue is a nurse saying a charm stacks the deck.

Again, since you ignored it before. It isn't as if the nurse is shown going to the nurses station and picking up a four leaf charm out of a bin on the counter and then sticking it in the patients hand.

It is clearly shown that the keys fall out of the man's pans when they are moving him.

It's also clearly shown that she's giving it to him after he's been attended to.


I think I could see it your way if during surgery she brought it in etc. It seems the gist of the ad is that nurses are the ones who are there after all the technical things are done and she's going to be there for you in ways that go beyond just the technical part of doing the job.

I've had three kids. And I don't remember the name of my doctors that delivered the babies. But I DO remember the name of the nurses that helped me deliver each of my kids and helped me afterward.

My take on the ad is more about supporting the patient and being compassionate.


I think the juxtapostion of science and "luck" are what is bothering you. If they hadn't used "science" I don't think it would have have come across the same way.

 

[madurobob]

The point of the ad is that there's a categorical difference between the lucky charm and everything else, so the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the lucky charm somehow cheats those odds.

As has been said several times, there is another equally appropriate way to interpret this. You can say:

• "...the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the lucky charm somehow cheats those odds"

or

• "...the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the nurse's compassion help him feel more secure in a frightening environment and that is helpful and a key benefit nurses provide."

You can choose to focus on the object itself (the lucky charm) or you can focus on the nurse's action (showing compassion for a patient).

 

[truethat]

As has been said several times, there is another equally appropriate way to interpret this. You can say:

• "...the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the lucky charm somehow cheats those odds"

or

• "...the science-based medicine gives him certain odds, but the nurse's compassion help him feel more secure in a frightening environment and that is helpful and a key benefit nurses provide."

You can choose to focus on the object itself (the lucky charm) or you can focus on the nurse's action (showing compassion for a patient).

Exactly. And to me if the nurse had brought in the lucky charm herself then you could see it the first way. But the ad goes to the trouble of being sure you know it's HIS charm.

The fact that it is attached to his keys.

 

[Myriad]

As far as how to do it better, how about: Scene shows the patient surrounded by medical equipment, similar to the start. You can barely tell there's a human being under all the "sciencey" equipment. The nurse hands him his lucky charm. Voiceover says, "but I also remember that behind the numbers, there's a human being."

Makes it more clear she's taking into consideration the patient's beliefs, not her own, and still gets across that a nurse can bridge the gap between the cold calculations of medical science and the emotional needs of the patient.

So, your message is that scientific medicine is inherently dehumanizing? The nurse's compassion isn't "stacking the deck" to improve the outcome, but rather, a way to avoid completely forgetting that the patient is a human being at all? Interesting try, but seems to me your change makes it a lot worse. "Come join us, you can be the one who occasionally reminds us patients are human because as practitioners of scientific medicine we tend to forget that most of the time."

That's what I mean when I say, crafting that kind of ad is not easy.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Prior to this post, I did not understand what your post meant. Then when I said as much you gave more cryptic responses. Maybe you think your point was obvious. But when someone says they don't understand, it's been my experience they don't understand. Cryptic replies are not helpful.


You also don't get the issue. It is not about the nurse putting the charm in the guy's hand. It is not about the nurse as a compassionate professional. It's not about an ad that says nurses are compassionate.

The issue is about an ad implying nurses buy into superstitious nonsense in addition to science based medicine. The issue is a nurse saying a charm stacks the deck.

They do. Massively. And lots don't understand the science behind what they do. Get over it. Nurses are the twitchiest, most immune to criticism group of people I've ever worked with, and I was raised by an RN who was a great example of a compassionate, caring nurse, so I went into working at the hospital expecting to love them... just recently, a nurse left some pamphlets from Kevin Trudeau in the breakroom on the ortho floor.

It's just a fact that nurses are a superstitious lot, and insisting they're not isn't gonna help much.

 

[fls]

If "stacking the deck" by using a lucky charm is meant to represent compassion, then it once again supports the idea that it is uncaring to withhold tacit approval for false beliefs.

So not everyone sees this. That doesn't really help Skeptic Ginger and other nurses. Regardless of whether everyone follows this logic, some people do. It is yet another example of how we apologize for false beliefs with the excuse that they are comforting. I'm not sure that this reflects badly on nurses specifically, or just people in general. It could be taken as "I'm a nurse so I use science, but I'm also human so I will expect comfort from false beliefs." If it reflects badly on nurses, it may be only by saying that despite their training, nurses fall victim to their biases like anyone else. Except, of course, most people don't see themselves as victims.

It doesn't surprise me that this doesn't annoy others who aren't health professionals and aren't used to dealing with this. Admittedly, some of this nurses bring on themselves. But it takes a lot of vigilance for those who consider themselves professionals to be seen as such. On that note, the character of Rory on this latest season of Dr. Who is a positive portrayal as a nurse, I think.

Anyway, I was more annoyed by the idea that comfort comes from false beliefs, not from evidence-based beliefs, than annoyed that this was being attributed to nurses specifically. But I'm not going to have quite the same perspective as Skeptic Ginger and I wouldn't chastize her for worrying about how it reflects on nurses.

Linda

 

[Myriad]

If "stacking the deck" by using a lucky charm is meant to represent compassion, then it once again supports the idea that it is uncaring to withhold tacit approval for false beliefs.

Is it okay if a patient already terrified by some medical calamity that's befallen them, is further stressed -- and by "further stressed" I don't mean a little concerned, I mean totally convinced they are now fated to die -- by being lodged in Room 13? Their belief that the room number could make a difference or foretell their death is of course false. Does that mean there would be no failure of compassion in refusing to cater to their false belief by numbering the rooms differently, or at least moving the terrified patient to a different room on request?

Yes, it absolutely is uncaring, extremely and obviously so, to withhold tacit approval for such false beliefs under such circumstances.

The clover in the ad is a bit less clear, because the patient was not actually asking for it. But he was carrying it in the first place, so rudimentary knowledge of human nature is sufficient to surmise that he would be very likely to appreciate the gesture of putting it into his hand and extremely unlikely to object to it.

If you came upon a critically injured accident victim on a deserted road, and while waiting for the ambulance (let's say, after you'd rendered all possible first aid) he asked you to pray for him, would you refuse?

Is it really possible to be so dogmatic about not approving (not even tacitly!) of false beliefs that the moral answers to these questions are not obvious?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[JohnnyG]

It is yet another example of how we apologize for false beliefs with the excuse that they are comforting.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think a patient lying in intensive care fighting for his life is the best time to start the argument.

 

[fls]

Is it okay if a patient already terrified by some medical calamity that's befallen them, is further stressed -- and by "further stressed" I don't mean a little concerned, I mean totally convinced they are now fated to die -- by being lodged in Room 13? Their belief that the room number could make a difference or foretell their death is of course false. Does that mean there would be no failure of compassion in refusing to cater to their false belief by numbering the rooms differently, or at least moving the terrified patient to a different room on request?

Yes, it absolutely is uncaring, extremely and obviously so, to withhold tacit approval for such false beliefs under such circumstances.

I agree. But this example has nothing to do with what I said, nor with what was shown in the commercial.

The clover in the ad is a bit less clear, because the patient was not actually asking for it. But he was carrying it in the first place, so rudimentary knowledge of human nature is sufficient to surmise that he would be very likely to appreciate the gesture of putting it into his hand and extremely unlikely to object to it.

The patient was made irrelevant in the commercial. This was an action the nurse took upon herself to perform.

If you came upon a critically injured accident victim on a deserted road, and while waiting for the ambulance (let's say, after you'd rendered all possible first aid) he asked you to pray for him, would you refuse?

Is it really possible to be so dogmatic about not approving (not even tacitly!) of false beliefs that the moral answers to these questions are not obvious?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Right. For some reason it is crucial to present skepticism as though it is cruel and uncaring while false beliefs are not.

Linda

 

[rwguinn]

I agree. But this example has nothing to do with what I said, nor with what was shown in the commercial.



The patient was made irrelevant in the commercial. This was an action the nurse took upon herself to perform.



Right. For some reason it is crucial to present skepticism as though it is cruel and uncaring while false beliefs are not.

Linda

Wow.
So much bitterness toward things that are of no consequence...

 

[fls]

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think a patient lying in intensive care fighting for his life is the best time to start the argument.

Right. But that isn't what was happening in the commercial, nor did anyone suggest we do this.

Linda

 

[fls]

Wow.
So much bitterness toward things that are of no consequence...

Huh?

Linda

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again, since you ignored it before.

Having a different opinion is not the equivalent of ignoring....

It isn't as if the nurse is shown going to the nurses station and picking up a four leaf charm out of a bin on the counter and then sticking it in the patients hand.

It is clearly shown that the keys fall out of the man's pans when they are moving him.

It's also clearly shown that she's giving it to him after he's been attended to.

While you, OTOH, are ignoring my point or you wouldn't have constructed this straw man. The issue is not about showing the compassion of nurses or even suggesting compassion helps healing. As for implying the nurse believes in superstition, that comes from the commentary, not just the visual. Lucky charms stack the deck. That implication is the issue I have with the ad.

I think I could see it your way if during surgery she brought it in etc. It seems the gist of the ad is that nurses are the ones who are there after all the technical things are done and she's going to be there for you in ways that go beyond just the technical part of doing the job.

I've had three kids. And I don't remember the name of my doctors that delivered the babies. But I DO remember the name of the nurses that helped me deliver each of my kids and helped me afterward.

My take on the ad is more about supporting the patient and being compassionate.

And others also get the same message from the ad as you. But some, myself included, hear the message, nurses believe superstitious charms stack the deck.

I think the juxtapostion of science and "luck" are what is bothering you. If they hadn't used "science" I don't think it would have have come across the same way.

I would have still objected to saying charms stack the deck. I'm glad they buffered it with the science and medicine comment. That was a good thing, not a bad thing.