Insulting Ad about Nurses by Johnson and Johnson

[truethat]

Yup and you keep telling those of us who don't see it your way that we are wrong. That's what I'm not getting. Just because you see it differently and some others agree with you doesn't mean you are correct. It doesn't mean we are correct, it's a perspective and interpretive disagreement.

The only thing we've pointed out is what is the intention of the ad? Seems that the ad is trying to paint nursing in an inclusive light, not push the stereotype that nurses believe in the use of good luck charms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yup and you keep telling those of us who don't see it your way that we are wrong. That's what I'm not getting. Just because you see it differently and some others agree with you doesn't mean you are correct. It doesn't mean we are correct, it's a perspective and interpretive disagreement.

The only thing we've pointed out is what is the intention of the ad? Seems that the ad is trying to paint nursing in an inclusive light, not push the stereotype that nurses believe in the use of good luck charms.

Your confirmation bias seems to be at work here that someone is telling you that you are wrong. Why would someone's reaction to an ad be right or wrong? It's an individual reaction, not a statement of fact.


OTOH, you continue with the straw man that I think the problem with the ad is something J&J did intentionally. I don't understand why over and over you ignore my correction of your mis-interpretation of the problem. I'm almost certain the message that concerns me is an unintended message. There is a slim possibility the people responsible for the ad themselves think superstitious charms "stack the deck". But more than likely they chose the 4-leaf clover as something they thought more neutral than a religious charm and indeed it was compassion they were trying to portray.


Is the reason you don't recognize your straw man because you know very little about framing? Note, I'm asking, not accusing.

A set of experiments on framing performed by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1981) indicated that different phrasing affected participants' responses to a question about a disease prevention strategy. The first problem given to participants offered two alternative solutions for 600 people affected by a hypothetical deadly disease:
option A saves 200 people's lives
option B has a 33% chance of saving all 600 people and a 66% possibility of saving no one
These decisions have the same expected value of 200 lives saved, but option B is risky. 72% of participants chose option A, whereas only 28% of participants chose option B.
The second problem, given to another group of participants, offered the same scenario with the same statistics, but described differently:
if option C is taken, then 400 people die
if option D is taken, then there is a 33% chance that no people will die and a 66% probability that all 600 will die
However, in this group, 78% of participants chose option D (equivalent to option B), whereas only 22% of participants chose option C (equivalent to option A).
The discrepancy in choice between these parallel options is in essence the framing effect; the two groups favored different options because the options were expressed employing different language. In the first problem, a positive frame emphasizes lives gained; in the second, a negative frame emphasizes lives lost. The alterations in the language underlie the differences in the preferences.

The above example involves the effect of how a message is framed on a decision. But there is not always a decision involved. Certain messages are imparted by the way something is framed and often the message is unintended. Anyone who pays attention to communication should be able to recognize both intended and unintended messages resulting from how the original message is framed.


A broader look at framing reveals more. Orwell's "Newspeak" comes to mind. Frank Luntz is famous for his framing ideas.

In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [Frank] Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'

The point is, regardless if the message is imparted to only some people, there is a message in the ad that says, nursing is evidence based but superstition is also valid. I don't doubt there is another message, nursing is evidence based but compassion plays an important role. Both messages are there.

 

[truethat]

The valid is where you are not listening to your own statements. JJ did not come out and back the claim. They are reflecting the ad to represent the community of Nursing.

I could deconstruct the ad to suggest that it's racist or sexist because the nurse is a black woman. That's a message that's in there. They are subconsciously promoting the idea that black women are nurses. How dare they!!

The ad is subconsciously promoting the idea that SOME nurses are black women. This is true.

The ad is subconsciously promoting the idea that SOME nurses believe in superstitions. THIS IS TRUE.

Just because you don't doesn't erase the reality for everyone else. It's just a bit weird that because you personally are opposed to the idea of superstition, good luck, prayers etc etc etc, that the Nursing Industry needs to buck up and take notice and take it off the table.

Many people on this planet are religious, superstitious or believe in good energy, karma etc etc etc.

So what?

I'm an atheist myself as you know, but this comes across no different as people trying to convert others to their personal belief system or lack thereof. I just find your attitude unrealistic and disrespectful to the views of others.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The valid is where you are not listening to your own statements. JJ did not come out and back the claim. They are reflecting the ad to represent the community of Nursing.

I could deconstruct the ad to suggest that it's racist or sexist because the nurse is a black woman. That's a message that's in there. They are subconsciously promoting the idea that black women are nurses. How dare they!!

No you could not legitimately claim the ad is racist, because it is not. But if you want to use this false analogy, the difference would be in the number of people who would hear the message, 'racist'. That number would be too small to be significant. Read through this thread and you will find that other people heard the message I did, nursing believes science is good but luck charms also 'stack the deck'.

The ad is subconsciously promoting the idea that SOME nurses are black women. This is true.

The ad is subconsciously promoting the idea that SOME nurses believe in superstitions. THIS IS TRUE.

Just because you don't doesn't erase the reality for everyone else. It's just a bit weird that because you personally are opposed to the idea of superstition, good luck, prayers etc etc etc, that the Nursing Industry needs to buck up and take notice and take it off the table.

Your comments reflect a lack of awareness of the longstanding issue of the image of the profession of nursing. Did you look at the comments about the problem in the Nurse Advocacy letter to J&J about the ads? From Emet's post #92: The Center for Nursing Advocacy, Increasing Public Understanding of Nursing

We praised the "Nurse Scientists" video and the J&J web site. But we explained why the most powerful elements of the image campaign--the TV commercials--rely heavily on the same kind of emotional, maternal and "angel" imagery that has long been a factor in nursing not getting the resources and real respect it needs. We agree that nurses must be caring and compassionate. It's also no surprise that most people like being portrayed as noble, nor that career seekers in a tight job market will respond to big-budget ads promoting a profession that offers many relatively well-paying jobs. But that does not mean that it is in nurses' best interest to be seen primarily as kind hand-holders. We believe that only aggressive efforts to tell the public what it does not know about nursing--that nurses save lives and improve patient outcomes--are likely to attract the resources the profession needs to recruit, educate and retain the best candidates over the long term, and to avert the global nursing crisis.

The advocacy group is more concerned about the typical non-science profession image of nursing and less concerned about the issue of promoting nurses as "stacking the deck" with superstitious charms. That's understandable given not everyone recognizes or focuses on the problem of magical thinking in medical beliefs. But the goal is related, changing the image of nursing to one of a science based profession, not a touchy feely 'caregiver' profession.

Many people on this planet are religious, superstitious or believe in good energy, karma etc etc etc.

So what?

I'm an atheist myself as you know, but this comes across no different as people trying to convert others to their personal belief system or lack thereof. I just find your attitude unrealistic and disrespectful to the views of others.

Why this issue angers you is a mystery to me. Does it bothers you someone would promote evidence based, rational or critical thinking? That is what the JREF is about if you haven't noticed.

I'm less concerned that an individual nurse is not a rational being and more concerned with the image of the nursing profession as a whole. When an individual nurse reflects poorly on the profession, as many of them do, I would be concerned with that action. But a nurse who kept their superstitious beliefs to themselves when on the job, that would not be a concern of mine.

A nurse who supports a patient's superstitious beliefs is sometimes appropriate as and sometimes conflicting with, good nursing care. Linda's posts reveal a lot about that dilemma. It's a separate issue. This isn't about one or more nurses' personal beliefs.

The issue here is saying nursing is science based but it doesn't hurt to stack the deck with a superstitious gesture. The intended message I think most people in this thread agree, was that nurses stack the deck with compassion. Intended messages and actual messages are not always the same.

 

[CaveDave]

You guys should just confess your love and get a room.

Awful lot of emotional HEAT around here...












Dave

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You guys should just confess your love and get a room.

Awful lot of emotional HEAT around here...












Dave

I don't feel emotional. I think the image of nursing in the media is important, but that's about it.

 

[jhunter1163]

Nope, not seeing the endorsement of woo here. I see a nurse doing things to treat her patient, and then doing something compassionate. I guess it's there if you really want to see it, but I'd bet that 95 percent of people (or more) wouldn't take that away from this ad.

 

[truethat]

I don't feel emotional. I think the image of nursing in the media is important, but that's about it.

No you think YOUR personal image of nursing in the media should reflect Skeptic Ginger's personality and beliefs and if it doesn't then it's wrong.

You consistently ignore the fact that the majority of nurses out there do believe in God, prayer, religions, karma and/or superstition. The ad DOES reflect the reality of nursing. Just not yours.

It's just a tad obnoxious in my opinion to expect the entire nursing industry to reflect your personal beliefs because you think everyone else's is wrong.

I'm sure you don't mean it that way but it does come across as if you think your personal views are more important than everyone else's.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope, not seeing the endorsement of woo here. I see a nurse doing things to treat her patient, and then doing something compassionate. I guess it's there if you really want to see it, but I'd bet that 95 percent of people (or more) wouldn't take that away from this ad.

The majority of the time, negative media images of nurses have an influence that is under the radar of most people. It doesn't lessen the impact of such media messages.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No you think YOUR personal image of nursing in the media should reflect Skeptic Ginger's personality and beliefs and if it doesn't then it's wrong.

You consistently ignore the fact that the majority of nurses out there do believe in God, prayer, religions, karma and/or superstition. The ad DOES reflect the reality of nursing. Just not yours.

It's just a tad obnoxious in my opinion to expect the entire nursing industry to reflect your personal beliefs because you think everyone else's is wrong.

I'm sure you don't mean it that way but it does come across as if you think your personal views are more important than everyone else's.

You've gone beyond discussion of the issue into a personal attack. There's no reason to answer this post.

 

[CaveDave]

The majority of the time, negative media images of nurses have an influence that is under the radar of most people. It doesn't lessen the impact of such media messages.

Evidence...

Citations?

{ETA: Other than Position Statements from the Socialist Nursing Workers Union?}

Dave

 

[CaveDave]

You've gone beyond discussion of the issue into a personal attack. There's no reason to answer this post.

And yet, you did...

D

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do nurses have a media image problem? Consider the following examples:

Nurses and the Media: The Center for Nursing Advocacy

Though annual Gallup polls routinely find nurses at the top of the "trust" scale, the Center finds a disconnect between that belief and true respect for the nursing profession. The reason the "most trusted" poll results don't do much for nursing is that this public view often goes hand in hand with the prevailing vision of nurses as devoted, angelic handmaidens. We fear that the poll results are essentially an expression of a vague, sentimental affection for nurses flowing from these stereotypes. Patients might trust us to hold their wallets while they're in surgery, but not to save their lives.

Heroes, Whores and Handmaidens: 3rd Annual Golden Lamp Awards Rank Best and Worst Media Portrayals of Nursing in 2005

When the going gets tough, the nurses often go missing from elite press coverage. Many press organs ran Marchione's AP piece about the plight of New Orleans hospitals after Hurricane Katrina. It depicted physicians as having done virtually everything of note for the patients at local hospitals during the worst hours of the aftermath, including many references to what "doctors" did, and multiple quotes and/or description of no less than eight named physicians and a medical student--but not one nurse. Perlez's front-page Times story reported that many survivors of the recent Asian tsunami faced unnecessary amputation or even death because of a lack of emergency care in Aceh, Indonesia. The lengthy piece's almost universal descriptions of care as being provided solely by physicians, and its reliance solely on expert comment by physicians, clearly suggested that nurses and other health care workers were doing nothing of significance in the stricken province. And Shapiro's 26-minute NPR report on the care and rehabilitation of U.S. Marines wounded in Iraq is a striking example of what we might call the "nurses' station" school of health care journalism. Listeners heard plenty about how "doctors" had been caring for the Marines, but no nursing was described, no nurses were mentioned, and the only utterance of the word "nurse" occurred when one patient walks past "the nurses' station" at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

TIME's massive report, which discussed preventable and treatable diseases that claim millions of lives each year, fostered the impression that physicians provide virtually all important developing world health care. Half of the total report is devoted to profiles of 18 "heroes" in the fight against these diseases. Of the 15 health care professionals profiled, 12 are physicians. Not one is recognized for her nursing. Wilson's piece, part of an NPR global health series, examined the trend of developing world physicians migrating to wealthier nations. The piece presents nurses as peripheral health workers who have only basic physician skills, rather than members of a distinct profession, and suggests that nurses as qualified to care only for patients with less serious illnesses. This is consistent with the physician-centrism in the other reports Wilson filed in the series, which focused on the work of Doctors Without Borders and the Flying Doctors in Africa. In these pieces, only diagnosis and treatment by heroic roving physicians matters.

Dr. Edward Hill and the Board of Directors of the American Medical Association, for their continuing refusal even to respond to more than 3,700 letters--over 1500 of them original--protesting Dr. Hill's comments on a Nov. 14, 2005 segment of NBC's "Today" Show about nurse practitioner (NP)-staffed "quick clinics." Dr. Hill expressed "concern" that we not confuse the "convenience" and "affordability" of the clinics with "quality," and made clear that his concern focused on "supervision of these non-physician providers." Significant research shows that NP care is at least as good as that provided by physicians, and NPs need no physician supervision. Even though NBC News has had significant interactions with nurses about their concerns and vowed to work with nursing organizations on its coverage in the future, the AMA has yet to respond at all.

I would like to point out, the issues described above are not about a direct obvious media message. The problem is about the unspoken messages.


-

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet, you did...

D

It was the polite thing to do rather than just ignoring it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence...

Citations?...

Dave

See the post above I was writing while you wrote this one.

 

[truethat]

It was the polite thing to do rather than just ignoring it.

It's not a personal attack. It's a fact which is why you are not answering it.

Is it not true that the majority of nurses in the United States DO have some sort of "superstition" whether that be religious or otherwise? The ad is an accurate reflection of nurses.

This is true. I've pointed it out to you several times and you just keep ignoring it and cherry picking evidence in a way that is a confirmation bias.

You state that your complaint with the ad is that it gives the impression that nurses use science and superstition when treating patients.

The fact is THEY DO. Just because you don't you think the ad is invalid. But that's not true at all.


Most people I know have great respect for nurses. The profession might not get the attention that they deserve, but that's because that is what their job entails.

It's like asking for teachers to get more respect for teaching, or cops more respect for being cops. If your job is to nurse and you get paid buckets of money to do so, and you chose this as a profession, what more do you need?

Nurses are paid very well. That is one way that society demonstrates respect. Compare the salary of nurses with the salaries of fire fighters and cops, who put their lives on the line every day?

Good pay, appreciation in their line of work. Also many people do not like being in a hospital. And so although they appreciate nurses the fact is most people don't encounter nurses unless they are having a medical emergency. This might contribute to the reason why there is a sort of overlooking of them.

Even doctors see their patients outside the hospital for checkups and whatnot. Usually the assistant in the office is not a nurse.

There are logical ways to discuss the issues with regard to nursing. You just seem to want to make an issue of it.

Shrug, I guess you have an axe to grind as a nurse.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yawn.....

 

[truethat]

So you disagree that most nurses are superstitious to some degree, either religiously or otherwise?


Chuckle....


I notice you seem to avoid answering direct questions on this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you disagree that most nurses are superstitious to some degree, either religiously or otherwise?


Chuckle....


I notice you seem to avoid answering direct questions on this.

I answered this several times. No one has cited any evidence that nurses are any more or less superstitious than any other group of similar professionals. Lots of people are superstitious.

 

[John Albert]

This ad is RACIST!

As an American of Irish heritage, I find it deeply offensive.