Nurses call to care for migrants- an ethical imperative

This echo nursing opinion by Leah Curtin was published in American Nurse Today. 

From Where I Stand on the last page opinion column:  

Must nurses care for migrants?

To deny basic human right to any person for any reason is ipso facto* unethical!

Basic human rights apply to everyone.

There seems to be much controversy about giving healthcare to "undocumented" immigrants- or even "documented" ones. In fact, some people believe that anyone who doesn't have health insurance has no right to healthcare. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are wrong. And what's even worse is when a government not only doesn't uphold the right but actually violates it.  For example, the treatment of migrant children on the U.S. southern border is a gross violation of these children's basic rights on several levels.  Period. Full stop. It isn't a matter of politics or party. It's a matter of basic human rights. Nothing that their parents do or fail to do has any bearing on their rights as human beings.

How dare I say such a think?  Let's go back to the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the United States is a signatory. What follows comes directly from the declaration:

"Article 1:  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

"Article 2:  Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.  Furthermore, no distinction shalt be made on the basis of the political jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

"Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical are and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."

Perhaps it is worth the time to refresh our understanding about human rights. Human rights are just claims to the fulfillment of fundamental, universal human needs. They don't depend on any legal jurisdiction, but they do need to be claimed, but you aren't less human if they're violated. No one can live a full human life, without them and in some cases they can't live at all without them.  

Human rights can be violated, but they don't go away because they're violated.  In act, their violation demands retribution. They don't disappear when one crosses state or national boundaries- whether or not that state or nation recognizes and protects them in their existing jurisdictions.

So, if you want to know if nurses have an ethical obligation to care for undocumented immigrants, the answer is a resounding "yes". To refuse to care for them is, ipso facto, unethical.

By Leah Curtin, RN, ScD (h), FAAN
Executive Editor, Professional Outreach
American Nurse Today

*ipso facto: Latin meaning "by the very fact".

Hillary Clinton quote:  "....human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights, once and for all...."

“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” Matthew 25:35

Mrs. Michelle Obama in Saudi Arabia - charisma!

In 2007, I wrote about how impressive it was for women of the world to see Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sitting with Middle East leaders, sans burka. That was 7 years ago and now Mrs. Michelle Obama is exceeding expectations - sans burka encore!

Universally, women are drawn to charismatic feminine fashions. 
Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy is a world class example. In the 1950s and '60s, women didn't need a Fashion 101 course to instantly recognize the charisma Mrs. Kennedy held with the feminine (and masculine, too) psyche.  

Beautiful Mrs. Obama, sans burka, in Saudi Arabia

"Jackie" was like a First Lady paper doll. She complimented everything she wore, including sunglasses, babushkas and jeans.  

Likewise, Mrs. Obama commands the same charisma, with an obvious exception. Mrs. Obama's persona extends beyond the Oleg Cassini high styles. Her gender and race puts her at the top of the charismatic list among women of color in the world, who are decidedly not "Jackie".  

Mrs.Jackie Kennedy in 1962 - fashion for the ages, in Newport 

Rhode Island, in an Oleg Cassini silk gown

Although Mrs. Michelle Obama isn't the first Saudi Arabian guest dignitary, sans burka, she is the most beautiful.  And take it from me....Saudi Arabia and Middle Eastern women are in awe of her fashion and leadership.

In Saudi Arabia....

There’s a lot of fuss over what Michelle Obama didn’t wear on a visit to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, to offer condolences for the country’s late King Abdullah, along with her husband.

Headlining a story on the First Lady’s choice to bare her hair, the Washington Post wrote, “Make no mistake: Michelle Obama just made a bold political statement in Saudi Arabia.” 

Bloomberg claimed that her choice of attire “quietly but forcefully represented women in a land that refuses to grant them many rights.”

It’s undoubtedly true that Saudi Arabia greatly impinges on basic rights for women. Saudi women are expected to wear long sleeved, full-length abayasand cover their hair with a headscarf. The country’s male guardianship laws keep them from moving about freely without a male relative, and women are further barred from driving.

Foreign women, however, are not legally required to wear the headscarf. Still, the U.S. State Department advises American women against going with them. “Women who choose not to conform to this dress code face risk of confrontation by Mutawwa [Saudi Arabia’s religious police] and possible detention/arrest..

Michelle Obama didn’t heed that warning, but she’s in good company. Neither did Secretary of State Mrs. Hilary Clinton.

No scarf for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal, right, and Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Khaled al-Hamad Al-Sabah in March 2012.

First Lady Laura Bush had tea sans headscarf with Saudi King Abdullah at Riyadh Airport in May 2008. (Looks to me like King Abdullah didn't have a problem with Mrs. Bush's hair cover!)

Even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praised Michelle Obama on Twitter for “standing up for women”, by not wearing what he called, a “Sharia-mandated head-scarf in Saudi Arabia.” 

Thank you Mrs. Michelle Obama. You have achieved bipartisan and universal praise for your fashion leadership. 

Indeed, women like Mrs. Obama and others have made Saudi Arabian ladies more powerful than ever before, even as the Kingdom suppresses their equality. Just showing up sans burka (headscarf) and "presto" women control of the media! Saudi Arabian women are intelligent...they "get it".

Winners Doing Lunch - Mrs. Clinton and President Barack Obama

President Obama dining with Mrs. Hillary Clinton at the White House  is like a power lunch with steroids for dessert. 

They're obviously not chatting about "old times"; but rather (one can speculate) "what's next?".  In the campaign strategy for President Obama's succession in 2016, the operational focus will surely be on fast and furious fund raising.

Political rivalries between President Obama and former Secretary Mrs. Hillary Clinton have evaporatd like sea smoke on a cold day when the sun shines.  

Although the two once shared a frosty relationship when they vied for the White House, it's time for President Obama to help his former rival, turned loyal cabinet member, to win her place in presidential history - beginning with a power lunch.

12:00PM         THE PRESIDENT and former Secretary Clinton meet for lunch

                        Private Dining Room

                        Closed Press

Not even a mention of “Hillary” or “Hillary Rodham” or the State Department (her former perch).  Just “former Secretary Clinton,” the bare minimum required to distinguish her from her husband. Maybe the White House thought, if it used fewer words, the lunch date would slide below the radar. But not on a slow news day, reports The Christian Science Monitor.

Here's what I think they're "chatting" about - they're talking about winning!  Mrs. Clinton is preparing for her own 2016 presidential ambitions.  Although I suspect Mrs. Clinton could win the presidency without Mr. Obama's help, she is well advised to seek his loyal support before  rivals line up for his endorsement. 

In other words, Mrs. Clinton probably wants Vice-President Joe Biden and any other wannabe rivals to step aside, so she doesn't have to deal with a horrible election primary, like Governor Mitt Romney was faced with, when his rivals created mayhem before his GOP nomination.

Mrs. Clinton is brilliantly creating a path to her Democratic nomination, seeking access to unrivaled fund raising, without having to share the money pie with rivals.  She knows money will be the mother's milk of the 2016 election, especially since the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court allows filthy rich right wing moguls, like the Koch Brothers, to throw money against her like snowflakes in a blizzard.  

While the Washington Post writer Dan Balz writes about how the Obama campaign 2012 team outmaneuvered the Romney camp, the fact is, political rivalry tripped up the GOP's road to victory.  A band of rivals couldn't say enough bad things about one another. Too many campaign negative ads were simply more than a band of political rivals could overcome when it was time to "gather 'round the river" to win the election.  

Mrs. Clinton is wise to seek President Obama's loyalty early on, even before officially announcing her campaign plans.  She needs Mr. Obama's access to a unified donor base as well as the expertise his campaign staff used to get Democratic voters to go to the polls.

President Obama and Mrs. Clinton are both strong political winners. When winners do lunch, they sure don't talk about loosing.

Therefore, the GOP's right wing money bags better think long and hard before throwing away more millions than they wasted in 2011, when they were grossly unsuccessful.   

In 2016, the right wing extremists might as well invest their spare cash in alchemy as use their wealth to fight the super bowl team of winners lined up to defeat them, again.  This time, I'm hoping, Mrs. Clinton will drive the right wing extremists into hiding, so they'll have virtually no political influence against our American democracy, for a long-long time - and, by the way, this includes the undue influence of the National Rifle Association, too.  

Winners take all.